Sitting of 28 February 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION
  Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): I have to inform the House that the address of 10 January, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as electoral commissioners Pamela Joan Gordon for the period of four years; Sir Neil William David McIntosh KBE for the period of four years; Jonathan Glyn Mathias for the period of five years; Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of five years; James Samuel Younger for the period of six years; and Graham John Zellick for the period of five years; and further praying that Her Majesty will appoint James Samuel Younger to be the chairman of the Electoral Commission for the period of six years, was presented to Her Majesty who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS]
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  STANDING ORDERS
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:—
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:—

  STANDING ORDERS

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order 1, line 24, leave out 'and Wales'. 1
    Standing Order 1, line 30, leave out subsection (d) 2
    Standing Order 1, line 34, at end insert— 3
    '(f) the Greater London Authority;'
    Standing Order 1, line 34, at end insert— 4
    'In Wales

    (a) the council of a county,

    (b) the council of a county borough,

    (c) the council of a community or group of communities or the community meeting of a community which has no separate council;'

    Standing Order 1, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert— 5
    'a council for a local government area;'
    Standing Order 1, line 108, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 118. 6
    Standing Order 4A, line 18, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 19 and insert— 7
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government areas'.
    Standing Order 4A, line 28, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 29 and insert— 8
    '(in Wales) the counties or county boroughs or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 4A, line 42, leave out from second 'or' to 'copies' in line 43 and
    insert— 9
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 4A, line 47, leave out '(in Scotland) the islands area or district' and
    insert— 10
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 5, line 5, after 'and' insert 'the counties or county boroughs in'. 11
    Standing Order 6, line 9, leave out from 'England' to 'parish' and insert— 12
    'or the county or county borough in Wales and the'.
    Standing Order 7, line 6, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 13
    Standing Order 7, line 6, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 14
    Standing Order 7, line 9, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 15
    Standing Order 10, line 14, leave out '(in Scotland) the islands area or district' and
    insert— 16
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 10, line 23, leave out from second 'or' to 'in' in line 24 and insert— 17
    '(in Wales) the counties or county boroughs or (in Scotland) the local government areas'.
    Standing Order 14, line 6, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 18
    Standing Order 14, line 7, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 19
    Standing Order 14, line 10, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 20
    Standing Order 16, line 9, leave out '20 miles' and insert '32 kilometres'. 21
    Standing Order 16, line 11, leave out '20 miles' and insert '32 kilometres'. 22
    Standing Order 16, line 19, leave out from 'England' to 'parish' in line 20 and insert— 23
    ', London borough or county or county borough in Wales and the'.
    Standing Order 16, line 24, at end add— 24
    '(2) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'
    Standing Order 17, line 10, leave out '300 yards' and insert '275 metres'. 25
    Standing Order 20, line 6, leave out '300 yards' and insert '275 metres'. 26
    Standing Order 20, line 6, at end add— 27
    'unless after reasonable inquiry the identity of any such persons cannot be ascertained'.
    Standing Order 25, line 20, leave out from 'borough' to end and add— 28
    ', district in England or county or county borough in Wales'.
    Standing Order 27, line 12, leave out from second 'or' to 'in' in line 13 and insert— 29
    '(in Wales) of each county or county borough or (in Scotland) of each local government area'.
    Standing Order 27, line 23, leave out from 'and' to `so' in line 24 and insert— 30
    `(in Wales) of each county or county borough or (in Scotland) of each local government area'.
    Standing Order 27, line 27, leave out from 'or' to end of line 28 and insert— 31
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 27, line 45, leave out 'one inch to the mile or of'. 32
    Standing Order 27, line 52, leave out from 'or' to 'and' in line 53 and inser— 33
    '(in Wales) of the county or county borough or (in Scotland) of the local government area'.
    Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out '(in Scotland) each islands area or district' and insert— 34
    '(in Wales) each county or county borough or (in Scotland) each local government area'.
    Standing Order 27, line 79, leave out 'eleven feet' and insert '3.4 metres'. 35
    Standing Order 27, line 98, at end add— 36
    '(7) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'
    Standing Order 27A, line 12, leave out from 'bill,' to 'of in line 16 and insert— 37
    '(i) the information referred to in Part II of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 293) (referred to below as "Schedule 4"), and so much of the information referred to in Part I of that Schedule as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effect of the works and as the promoters can reasonably be expected to compile; or
    (ii) such'.
    Standing Order 27A, line 40, leave out from first 'paragraph' to end of line 41 and insert— 38
    '6 of Part I and paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 4'.
    Standing Order 27A, line 59, leave out '3' and insert '4'. 39
    Standing Order 27A, line 63, leave out from 'Planning' to 'with' in line 64 and insert '(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999'. 40
    Standing Order 27A, line 65, leave out '3' and insert '4'. 41
    Standing Order 29, line 5, leave out 'six inches to the mile' and insert '1/10,000'. 42
    Standing Order 30, line 3, leave out 'one inch to the mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 43
    Standing Order 30A, line 7, leave out 'one inch to a mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 44
    Standing Order 30A, line 18, leave out 'one inch to a mile' and insert '1/50,000'. 45
    Standing Order 36, line 11, leave out 'and Wales'. 46
    Standing Order 36, line 13, at end insert— 47
    '(aa) any county or county borough in Wales with the proper officer of the county or borough;'.
    Standing Order 39, line 30, leave out 'Scottish' and insert 'Scotland'. 48
    Standing Order 39, line 32, leave out 'Welsh' and insert 'Wales'. 49
    Standing Order 47, line 30, leave out from 'England' to end and insert— 50
    London boroughs and counties and county boroughs in Wales'.
    Standing Order 48, line 2, leave out 'four inches to a mile' and insert '1/15,000'. 51
    Standing Order 48, line 19, leave out 'a quarter of an inch to every 100 feet', and insert '1/5,000'. 52
    Standing Order 48, line 21, leave out 'a quarter of an inch to every 100 feet', and insert '1/5,000'. 53
    Standing Order 48, line 32, leave out from 'stated' to end of line 33 and insert 'in kilometres and metres'. 54
    Standing Order 50, line 3, leave out 'miles and furlongs' and insert 'kilometres'. 55
    Standing Order 50, line 6, leave out 'one mile' and insert '1.6 kilometres'. 56
    Standing Order 50, line 13, leave out '800 yards' and insert '750 metres'. 57
    Standing Order 52, line 9, leave out 'thirty feet' and insert '10 metres'. 58
    Standing Order 52, line 13, leave out 'nine feet six inches' and insert '3 metres'. 59
    Standing Order 52, line 16, leave out 'ten feet six inches' and insert '3.3 metres'. 60
    Standing Order 52, line 25, leave out 'miles and furlongs' and insert 'kilometres'. 61
    Standing Order 55, line 3, leave out 'one inch to every 100 feet' and insert '1/1,250'. 62
    Standing Order 55, line 26, leave out 'five feet' and insert '1.5 metres'. 63
    Standing Order 56, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert 'metres or parts of a metre'. 64
    Standing Order 57, line 7, leave out from 'in' to 'at' in line 8 and insert— 65
    `metres or parts of a metre'.
    Standing Order 57, line 30, leave out '800 yards' and insert '750 metres'. 66
    Standing Order 59, line 8, leave out 'one inch to every 330 feet' and insert '1/5,000'. 67
    Standing Order 59, line 9, leave out 'one inch to every 40 feet' and insert '1/500'. 68
    Standing Order 59, line 18, leave out '200 yards' and insert '180 metres'. 69
    Standing Order 61, line 17, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 18 and insert— 70
    '(in Wales) of every county or county borough or (in Scotland) of every local government area'.
    Standing Order 61, line 32, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 33 and insert— 71
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 61, line 49, at end add— 72
    '(4) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'.
    Standing Order 62, line 15, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 16 and insert— 73
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 62, line: 94, at end insert— 74
    `(3) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county.'
    Standing Order 65, line 28, leave out from 'or' to 'in' in line 29 and insert— 75
    '(in Wales) the county or county borough or (in Scotland) the local government area'.
    Standing Order 69, line 3, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 76
    Standing Order 81, line 10, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 77
    Standing Order 82, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 78
    Standing Order 84, line 4, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 79
    Standing Order 86, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 80
    Standing Order 87, line 6, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 81
    Standing Order 88, line 6, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 82
    Standing Order 89, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 83
    Standing Order 89, line 7, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 84
    Standing Order 97, line 1, leave out 'and Wales'. 85
    Standing Order 97, line 2, after 'borough' insert 'or county or county borough in Wales'. 86
    Standing Order 97, line 3, leave out 'or borough' and insert ', borough or county'. 87
    Standing Order 98, line 1, after 'county" insert— 88
    'or (in Wales) any county or county borough'.
    Standing Order 98, line 2, leave out 'such county' and insert 'its administrative area'. 89
    Standing Order 98, line 5, leave out 'such county' and insert 'that area'. 90
    Standing Order 98, line 8, after 'borough' insert— 91
    `or (in Wales) any county or county borough'.
    Standing Order 98, line 14, at end add— 92
    '(3) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and the Greater London Authority were the council of the county.'.
    Standing Order 100, line 1, leave out from 'any' to 'against' in line 2 and insert— 93
    'drainage body within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act 1991 petitions'.
    Standing Order 103, line 6, leave out from 'Selection' to '; three' in line 7. 94
    Standing Order 103, line 9, leave out from 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 95
    Standing Order 103, line 9, at end add— 96
    '(2) Unless the Committee of Selection otherwise orders, the members nominated to the committee shall continue to be members of the committee for the remainder of the Parliament.'.
    Standing Order 120, line 9, leave out from 'declare,' to 'in' in line 10 and insert— 97
    'that I have no personal or constituency interest'.
    Standing Order 123, line 8, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 98
    Standing Order 132, line 5, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 99
    Standing Order 136A, line 30, at end insert— 100
    '(5) This order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county, the Greater London Authority were the council of the county and the councils of London boroughs were councils of districts in the county.'.
    Standing Order 147, line 8, leave out 'Transport' and insert— 101
    'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
    Standing Order 147, line 10, leave out Transport' and insert— 102
    'the Environment, Transport and the Regions'.
    Standing Order 152, line 6, leave out fifteen inches' and insert '38 centimetres'. 103
    Standing Order 164, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 104
    Standing Order 164, line 4, leave out 'written' and insert 'clearly set out'. 105
    Standing Order 175, line 3, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'. 106
    Standing Order 181, line 9, leave out 'Mr' and insert `the'. 107
    Standing Order 182, line 2, leave out 'Mr' and insert `the'. 108
    Standing Order 191A, line 15, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'.
    109
    Standing Order 204A, line 13, leave out 'Mr' and insert 'the'.
    110
    Standing Order 209, line 9, at end insert— 111
    '(2) When the time for delivering notices, or making deposits, expires on a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or any bank holiday, the time shall be extended to the next day following which is not such a day'.
    Standing Order 235, line 2, leave out 'Scottish' and insert 'Scotland'. 112
    Appendix A: Form referred to in Standing Orders 13 and 61
    Page 125, leave out line 5 to line 66 on page 126 and insert— 113
    "Dear Sir or Madam,
    [Short title of bill]
    We [have applied] [intend to apply] to Parliament [this] [next] session for leave to introduce this bill.
    We understand that you have an interest in the property mentioned in the Table set out below and that your interest is as stated in Part[s] I [and II] of that Table. If the bill is passed, the property mentioned in Part I of the Table, or a right to use it, will be liable to be acquired compulsorily under the powers of the resulting Act [and the property mentioned in Part II of the Table will be liable to the imposition of an improvement charge].
    A plan [and section] relating to the purposes of the bill, together with a book of reference relating to it, [was] [were] [will be, on or before 20th November] deposited for public inspection with [here insert the officers of the local authorities with whom deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 27].
    A copy of so much of the plan [and section] as relates to [here insert the parish or other area in accordance with Standing Order 36] in which the property in which you have an interest is situated, together with a book of reference relating to it, [has been] [will be on or before 20th November] deposited for public inspection with [here insert the officers of the local authorities with whom deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 36].
    On that plan the property [is] [will be] designated by the number or numbers in the Table set out below. If that Table contains any error or misdescription, will you please let us know as soon as you can.
    Copies of the bill, or the relevant parts of it, [have been] [will be on or before 4th December] deposited for public inspection and for sale at the [here insert the several offices at which deposits have been or are to be made in accordance with Standing Order 4A].
    [We intend that the bill shall provide that, notwithstanding section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, you may be required to sell and convey a part only of your property, numbered [here insert number of numbers] on the deposited plan.]
    [We intend that the bill shall exclude section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 and shall substitute for it a provision—

    (a) restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a house or building to cases where the part can be taken without material detriment to the house or building; and

    (b) restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a park or garden belonging to a house to cases where the part can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house.]

    You may object to the bill by depositing a petition against it. If you wish us to do so, we shall be glad to let you know the latest date on which you may deposit a petition in either House.
    For the moment we can let you know that the latest date for depositing a petition against a bill is—

    (a) in the first House, [here insert current date] in the case of the House of Lords, and [here insert current date] in the case of the House of Commons; and

    (b) in the second House, the tenth day after that on which the bill receives its first reading in that House.

    In the case of a late bill, the rule in paragraph (b) above applies to a petition in either House. If the latest date turns out to be a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, a bank holiday or a day on which the House does not sit, the latest date may be postponed.
    We enclose for your use copies of the standing orders of both Houses of Parliament relating to the time and method for presenting petitions in opposition to bills.
    If you need any further information, or any help in preparing a petition, you should get in touch with the Private Bill Office in either House (telephone number 020 7219 3231 in the House of Lords and 020 7219 3250 in the House of Commons).
    Yours faithfully,"
    —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
    Ordered,
    That the following Standing Order be made:—
    "Consents required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
    25A.—(1) In the case of a bill promoted by the Greater London Authority, Transport for London or the London Development Agency there shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on or before 27th November the following documents, as appropriate, namely—

    (a) where the relevant consent provision applies to the bill, copies of the pre-deposit consents;

    (b) where the relevant consent provision does not apply, a statement to that effect.

    (2) The relevant consent provision for the purposes of paragraph (1) above is—

    (a) in the case of a bill promoted by the Greater London Authority, paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act");

    (b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 to the 1999 Act;

    (c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, paragraph 5 of Schedule 6A to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act") (as inserted by Schedule 25 to the 1999 Act).

    (3) In the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, Transport for London or the London Development Corporation there shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on 11th December or as soon as practicable thereafter the following documents, as appropriate, namely—

    (a) where the relevant consent provision applies to the bill—

    (i) copies of the pre-deposit consents and post-deposit confirmations of consents; or

    (ii) if confirmation of consent has not been given, a statement that the relevant withdrawal provision applies; or

    (iii) if confirmation of consent is given conditionally on the amendment of the bill, a statement that the relevant amendment provision applies;

    (b) where the relevant consent provision does not apply, a statement to that effect.

    Paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply to a bill promoted by the council of a London borough. In this paragraph "pre-deposit consent" includes a consent given in accordance with the relevant consent provision after deposit of the bill.
    (4) The relevant consent provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

    (a) in the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, section 79(2) of the 1999 Act;

    (b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(2) of the 1999 Act;

    (c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(2) of the 1998 Act.

    (5) The relevant withdrawal provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

    (a) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(3) of the 1999 Act;

    (b) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(3) of the 1998 Act.

    (6) The relevant amendment provision for the purposes of paragraph (3) above is—

    (a) in the case of a bill promoted by the council of a London borough, section 79(4) of the 1999 Act;

    (b) in the case of a bill promoted by Transport for London, section 167(4) of the 1999 Act;

    (c) in the case of a bill promoted by the London Development Agency, section 26A(4) of the 1998 Act.".—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Victims of Violence
    Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement about Government programmes to support the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [149948]
    Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement about Government programmes to support the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [149953]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): A number of initiatives have been put in place which are in keeping with the recommendations of the Bloomfield report, "We Will Remember Them", including the establishment of the family trauma centre, funding for groups supporting victims and the establishment of the Northern Ireland memorial fund. Last Thursday, I announced another significant funding package of £12 million, including an additional £3 million to the Northern Ireland memorial fund over the next three years.
    Mr. McCabe: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the practice whereby paramilitary organisations force people to relocate within Northern Ireland or, indeed, to leave the Province altogether. I do not wish to prejudge the findings of our inquiry, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all that he can to end such disgraceful behaviour and to ensure that the plight of the victims is properly recognised?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because I welcome the Select Committee's investigation of the issue. The practice is one of the blights on the face of Northern Ireland. It represents a denial of the human rights and the civic dignity of every individual who is subject to such practices by paramilitary groups. The practice should stop immediately. Clearly, it is more

    891
    easily stopped when all members of the community stand against it, and the report of the Northen Ireland Affairs Committee will help in understanding the issue. I am sure that report will point helpfully to a solution of the problem.
    Mr. Salter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the excellent work done by Victim Support (Northern Ireland) in providing help and support to nearly 40,000 victims of crime each and every year?
    Mr. Ingram: I unreservedly support that work. I recently announced an extra £1.1 million over the next three years for Victim Support (Not thern Ireland). Those who carry out the work on behalf of Victim Support (Northern Ireland) do a very difficult and often thankless job. The additional money will hellp to provide an even better and more professional service for the victims of crime. I ask all hon. Members from Northern Ireland to encourage any of their constituents who are the victims of crime to avail themselves of the services provided by this worthwhile organisation.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: I thank the Minister and welcome the £12 million grant that he has announced. Does he agree chat, for far too long, no proper assessment has been made of the rights and needs of the victims of terrorist violence? No amount of money can compensate the innocent for the suffering that they have endured. Will he assure me that, as the facts emerge, the Government will be prepared to reconsider the adequacy of the amount that he has announced?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It was not until recently, with the publication of the Bloomfield report, that a proper assessment was made of the extent and nature of victimhood in Northern Ireland. The problem runs across the community. Thousands of families have been damaged in many different ways over the past 30 years. I also share his view that no amount of money can ever deal with the problem. However, we have made a start, and I thank him for welcoming our initiatives so far. Although he is not standing at the next general election, I look forward to continuing to receive representations from him. I know that he is very active in his own community, where he deals with some serious problems, and I recently talked to him about specific issues. The matter does not rest with what we have done so far.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I welcome the Minister's statement and the measures that he has taken, including the extra money, will he seriously consider the early victims of violence, who received a tiny amount of compensation? One woman lost her husband, who was a member of the Territorial Army, when he was murdered in South Armagh. She had five sons and the only compensation she received for them was £500 for each boy. There are similar examples throughout the Province. I make a plea—as I have before—that those early victims will be considered.
    Mr. Ingram: For so long, the victims have been ignored and have sometimes been used for political advantage. Since we have tackled the issue, there has been a greater awareness of the extent and nature of the
    892
    problem. The difficulty is knowing where to draw the line and by how much we should assist such people. For that reason, we have given substantial sums—£5 million to date—to the Northern Ireland memorial fund so that it can begin to consider both the depth of the problem and what help can be given to the early victims of the violence. However, it does not matter whether victims are early, intermediate or late; they are still victims of the violence and should be treated sympathetically.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: When will the Minister do something to help the pre-1982 police widows and their families who face a measly and arbitrary £1,000 for each year of widowhood and an unresolved tax status? They believe that they are forgotten families who are ignored by the Government—and it looks as though they are right. What is he going to do about them?
    Mr. Ingram: I shall try to be gentle, but what did the hon. Gentleman's Government do about those victims? Nothing. We inherited a blank sheet from the previous Government. We have advanced the issue sympathetically and constructively. The Patten report referred to the situation pre-1982. We conducted an in-depth study under the chairmanship of John Steele, an eminent ex-civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office, and its recommendations are being considered by the Government. I should have hoped that the Conservatives welcomed that study and the progressive way in which we are dealing with the issue.

    Paramilitary Violence
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the current level of paramilitary violence. [149949]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I constantly review the level of paramilitary violence in consultation with the Chief Constable and my security advisers.
    Mr. Robertson: According to the detailed written answer that the Minister provided me with on 26 February, since the signing of the Good Friday agreement there have been 65 murders, 828 bombings, 836 shootings and 396 assaults—a total of slightly more than 2,000 paramilitary crimes. How many of those can be attributed to the main paramilitary groups, which are supposed to be on ceasefire?
    Dr. Reid: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I make it plain that one killing, one murder or one bombing is one too many. None of us will, or should, be satisfied until Northern Ireland is free of the use of the gun and the bomb. On the hon. Gentleman's question, shootings, assaults and acts of intimidation are continuing to take place and I utterly condemn them. They are completely incompatible with the society that we are attempting to build in Northern Ireland.
    To update the hon. Gentleman's figure, 54 such attacks have taken place so far this year. We estimate that 33 were carried out by loyalist gunmen and 21 by republican gunmen. Whatever organisation those people represent, they are at odds not only with the rule of law that operates in every decent society, but with the

    893
    overwhelming desire of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland to create a society that is free from violence.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent start that he has made in Northern Ireland, and I wish him well in the very difficult job that he has to do. May I draw his attention to the financial appeal launched by victims and bereaved families in Omagh in pursuit of the civil action that they seek to take against the perpetrators of the bombing in 1998? I will not ask him to commit himself to that course of action, but will he take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's good will towards the Omagh support group and the bereaved families? Will he reaffirm also the Government's determination to do everything in their power to bring the perpetrators of that atrocity to justice at the earliest possible time?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. I very much appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend is here today. I want to put on record my appreciation and that of the Government for all his work in Northern Ireland. On the specific issue that he raised, I know that shortly after leaving office, he literally put his money where his mouth had been—his pocket had previously been sealed because he was a member of the Cabinet. I very much agree with the sentiments that he expressed, and we are examining ways in which we can further assist and support the victims of that terrible tragedy.
    As someone who has only recently come to a position of any authority in Northern Ireland, I think, like others outside the circle of those who are most intimately involved, that one of the most terrible and lasting memories of my time in Parliament was seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), in his first week as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, visiting the scene of that devastating tragedy. I say to all the parties in Northern Ireland that our aim is precisely to ensure that the possibility of further such tragic events is removed from Northern Ireland once and for all. The prize before us is so great and the consequences of failure are so awful that we must all go the extra mile to make sure that the peace process is carried forward.
    Mr. Stephen Day: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and wish him every success in what I know will be his sincere efforts. All hon. Members will agree with his sentiments and the hopes that he has expressed for Northern Ireland's future. Sadly, however, those who carry out punishment beatings, whichever side or community they come from, inflict terrible violence on the innocent people of Northern Ireland, and until they decommission weapons and give up violence and the threat of violence, or suffer sanctions for failing to fulfil their agreements within the peace process, that violence will continue.
    Dr. Reid: I would not even grace those incidents with the term "punishment beatings", which the hon. Gentleman used, because that implies some legitimacy; they are paramilitary attacks and as such they have no legitimacy whatsoever. I agree that as long as there are threats or the use of violence, whether by individuals or organisations, the price of continuing the renewal of democratic structures in Northern Ireland will be eternal
    894
    vigilance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be vigilant, and I will act on the advice of the Chief Constable and my security advisers.
    The hon. Gentleman will accept that if we are to deprive these particular fish of the water in which they seek to swim, the measures being taken as part of the democratisation of Northern Ireland, including the incorporation of human rights, the setting up of the devolved Assembly and the renewal of Northern Ireland's police service, are important parallel steps. They are being put in place. There is no legitimacy for any group or individual from any side in any community that resorts to violence.
    Mr. John Hume: I join other Members in expressing deep gratitude to the new Secretary of State for the detailed attention that he is already giving to all aspects of our serious problems in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, given the current level of paramilitary violence, there are those engaged in it whose objective is to ensure that there is an absence of law and order on the streets of Northern Ireland, so that they can develop even further their mafia trade, especially in drugs? Every effort must be made to de a with such people because of the damage that they are doing to young people in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There are those who seek under the flag of some higher cause to promote their own profit, not only by using violence to produce the product but in the product itself, be it drugs, terrorism or protection rackets. This inflicts even more violence and tragedy on families in Northern Ireland. These people will be defeated because we shall maintain a security level that is commensurate with the threat, and because we shall riot be deflected from renewing institutions, democracy and the security apparatus—the police service in Northem Ireland.
    The hon. Gentleman has been involved in these matters for about 32 years. He knows more than anyone else that there is nothing inevit able about the progress of the peace process. All of us on all sides must bend our will towards it. It will involve con promise and the moral courage that has previously been shown; it must be continued.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and wish him every success. I join the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in encouraging those who have any knowledge of the ghastly atrocity in Omagh to lend their support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that since that atrocity, when we wt re brought back to put emergency legislation in place to deal with the people involved, no one has been prosecuted under that legislation?
    Dr. Reid: I can confirm that. I can confirm also that that is a source of deep regret to me, to everyone in the House and to anyone who witnessed the terrible and tragic events in Omagh. Unlike those who deployed their bombs and guns on that occasion, the bottom line is that we will apply the rule of law. We have to depend on that standard of law and that standard of evidence.
    I am convinced than everything possible is being done in regard to Omagh. I take the point that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by my right

    895
    hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I appeal to anyone of any tradition on either side of the border who has any information about the terrible act of violence in Omagh, which has left so many people bereft and distraught, to make it available to the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that each and every death at the hands of paramilitaries is to be condemned? Will he reflect that since 1994 and the Major ceasefire, literally hundreds of people have been walking about northern Ireland who would otherwise have died? Given the comments of Brian Keenan over the weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that the paramilitaries are completely out of step with current thinking and with what is going on in the peace process on the part of all major parties in Northern Ireland, and are entirely irrelevant to the process?
    Dr. Reid: I very much agree with that. I, too, shall not be distracted by Brian Keenan's remarks. When faced with the enormity of the problems and the burden of history that is upon those who would seek to change the situation in Northern Ireland, we sometimes underestimate just how much is l being achieved. It is encouraging sometimes to look bad, over the past decade and to recognise that the establishment of the institutions, the participation of all sides of the community in the devolved Executive and the Assembly in Northern Ireland, the introduction of human rights legislation, the start on a new policing service, and the hundreds and thousands of people who are working together across the communities, are all a tribute to the politicians on both sides in Northern Ireland who have had the moral courage to take hard but necessary decisions to create a new Northern Ireland. They should take credit for that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the response of the Secretary of State. Does he share the concern, especially after another murder last evening, that those involved in paramilitary violence and acts of terrorism may be encouraged by the fact that some strands of the Belfast agreement have not been implemented? For example, I understand that after the Cavehill post office raid at Christmas, several people were app apprehended, but nothing has happened since, and one of those had been involved in the Wright murder. Is the Secretary of State concerned about a sense of demoralisation among members of the police service as they seek to carry out the tasks assigned to them, but find their efforts under mined?
    Dr. Reid: I pay tribute to everyone in the RUC, from the Chief Constable downwards, for the operations that they have been carrying out in extremely difficult circumstances, both politically and as regards the security environment. I very much regret and condemn the murder that took place last night in Lurgan. I do not have full details of the possible motive for that, but we should not underestimate the activity of the RUC. In Larne, for instance, there have been more than 300 additional patrols, and they have been supported by mobile support
    896
    units. Similarly, in Belfast, there have been a number of successes recently, not least the discovery of the pipe-bomb factory; so I have no hesitation in adding my commendations for the efforts of the Chief Constable and those in the RUC who have to combat the continuing violence perpetrated by individuals and dissident groups.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and wish him well in achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one way of combating paramilitary violence is to ensure that there is positive recruiting to the RUC? Will he, like me, welcome the Chief Constable's decision to recruit last week? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that those who have influence in the minority community are sufficiently encouraging first-class Catholic recruits to come forward?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. There are various levels at which we must combat the terrorist and the threat of gunmen, from whatever quarter they come. We must try to ensure that there is as little support as possible for groups such as the Real IRA. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter with the President of the United States in recent days. Also, we must ensure that we have a police force in Northern Ireland that is effective, as well as representative of and acceptable to both communities.
    In the past few days, we have gone ahead with advertising, with a view to recruitment for the police service on a 50:50 basis. I commend the Chief Constable for that, and I am delighted that there has been such an overwhelming response—some 4,000 replies already. I am sure that that is indicative of a recognition in the whole community that we mean business. I urge all the parties to the Good Friday agreement to do what they said they would do. For decades, people have asked for a new police force, representative of the whole community. I urge all parties now, despite their difficulties, to come in and support us on that.
    Mr. MacKay: I am grateful for that positive response and I endorse everything that the Secretary of State has just said. May I now press him further on how we also combat paramilitary violence? One aspect of the Belfast agreement has not been implemented at all. There has been absolutely no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by any of the so-called paramilitary groups which signed up to the agreement. Not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in. What further pressure can the right hon. Gentleman put on the paramilitaries so that they fulfil their obligations? If they do not do so, the whole process which we all support will be put at dire risk.
    Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that, for a considerable number of weeks, including when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was Secretary of State, we have been involved in discussions which are aimed directly at that end. Of course, decommissioning cannot be seen on its own, because we also have the issues of normalisation, policing and the institutions, but it is a fundamental element of the Good Friday agreement, and all the parties to that must show that they are using all their influence to achieve the decommissioning of which he speaks. Of course, we

    897
    welcome the confidence-building measures that were taken—the inspection of the two dumps—but we need to go further on that, and that is part and parcel of what we are trying to do at present.
    I conclude by responding to one of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He wished me well in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. I cannot bring peace to Northern Ireland. For some 800 years, people in my position have crossed the water trying to bring peace. The people who will bring peace to Northern Ireland are represented in the parties here and in the communities they represent. We can only be a vehicle. But of one thing I am sure, and that is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland want that peace and demand that their representatives achieve it on their behalf.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    I am sure that the House will join me in stating our profound distress at the terrible tragedy at Great Heck earlier this morning. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and relatives of those who died or were injured. The accident appears to have happened when a Land Rover and trailer slid off the M62 and went down on to the line, but it is simply too early to be certain. The emergency services are at the scene. Once again, I pay fulsome tribute to the work that they are doing. The Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement to the House later tonight following his return from the scene of the accident.
    Mr. Leigh: The House will appreciate the demands placed on the Prime Minister and his colleagues by this latest rail tragedy coming on top of the grave crisis in the countryside. On the latter point, will the Prime Minister please respond positively to the voluntary postponement of the countryside march by saying today that he will listen to the voice of the hundreds of thousands who would have taken part in that march on farm incomes, compensation, access, rural infrastructure and hunting, in a manner which is both understanding and tolerant of their point of view?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman puts his point very reasonably. I can well understand the deep feelings of anxiety—indeed, fear—in our farming community today. Coming on top of the problems of BSE and the collapse in some world commodity prices for farm produce, foot and mouth disease is a bitter and unfair blow to the farmers. We will do all that we can to help, first by eradicating the disease as swiftly as possible—
    898
    that must be our No. 1 priority—and, secondly, by working with the industry, and, through measures such as agrimonetary compensation, helping the industry to get back on its feet again. Anything that we can reasonably do we will.
    I pay tribute to tilt, farmers and their representatives in the National Farmer: Union, to the wider industry and to the whole country for the way in which they have rallied round at this very difficult time. As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.
    Mr. John Grogan: As well as expressing our hopes for the speedy recovery of the many who were injured in this morning's terrible rail accident and who are currently being treated in six hospitals throughout Yorkshire, will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the role of the villagers in Great Heck? They were among the first on the scene in the murk and gloom of the early morning, providing what assistance they could. Will he also give an assurance that there will be the fullest possible inquiry into the circumstances of this terrible accident?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance. Of course there must be the fullest possible inquiry into how the accident occurred. As I said, it is too early yet to be absolutely certain, but the cause appears to be the Land Rover and trailer slipping off the motorway and down on to the track. The villagers in my hon. Friend's constituency have behaved in an extraordinary, neighbourly and exemplary way. It is remarkable how local communities in Britain pull together in times of crisis such as this and do their very best for other people.
    Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate myself completely with the Prime Minister's words? The tragic accident this morning unites the nation once again in deep sorrow, especially in North yorkshire and the constituency of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), as well as my own constituency. Our thoughts go out to those who have been injured and to the families of those who have been killed. We will, of course, await the Deputy Prime Minister's statement this evening but for the moment may I express the Opposition's support for what the Prime Minister has said about a full investigation, and our anxiety that its results will be made known as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I do not really have anything more to add. Of course we must have the fullest possible inquiry and, yes, as soon as we have the results of that inquiry, we will make sure that the House is properly informed.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has already referred to other sombre news this week. Everyone will understand if the usual robustness of our exchanges is somewhat suspended today, because this week our sympathies are also with the rural communities plunged into crisis by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. As this comes on top of the serious losses already endured, it is devastating for many farmers and in some cases could be the final blow. The Opposition support all the measures that the Government have taken to tackle the disease. Given the reports coming to hon. Members today about the

    899
    continuing use of footpaths in livestock areas and the difficulties in controlling public access to farm roads, will the Government be ready to take further action to restrict access to areas that are at risk if that proves necessary?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, if it proves necessary, we will be prepared to take whatever measures are available to us. We will take whatever additional action is necessary to ensure that we put every possible limit on the spread of the disease. As a result of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, controls are available. If they need to be strengthened, we will certainly examine that.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister will also know that large supplies of disinfectant are crucial to the attempt to prevent the further spread of the disease. Many farmers are telling us that they cannot obtain, such supplies. Will he undertake to consider that matter with the Minister of Agriculture and do everything that he can to ensure that production of the necessary materials is at the highest level possible across the country and that adequate supplies are getting through to abattoirs and farms?
    The Prime Minister: On that point, which is obviously very important, my understanding; is that sufficient disinfectant is being produced, but that it is not always getting to the places that need it. We are considering what measures we can take to ensure that it gets to them and to provide facilities and a means of communicating with farmers, abattoirs and other people w ho will need supplies of the disinfectant. We are working on that very hard indeed, both within my right hon. Friend's Department and elsewhere with the industry. I believe that we should be able to sort out the remaining problems within the next few days.
    Mr. Hague: I should like to ask two further questions, if I may. The Prime Minister will be aware that although the compensation package is very welcome, it does not include many farmers affected by the ban on livestock movement, such as pig farmers, who might not be eligible for any of the aid so far announced and may soon face catastrophic animal welfare problems. The proposal to allow the limited movement of healthy animals will obviously help, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept in principle that further targeted help might be necessary for farmers who are suffering unrecoverable losses as a result of the ban?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we keep under review the proposals in relation to compensation. I should perhaps explain to the House that they fit into two parts at the present time. First, there is the statutory compensation for slaughtered animals, which will apply to pig farmers and, indeed, to any farmers who are affected. Secondly, there is the agrimonetary compensation that has now been drawn down. That is around £150 million. It does not apply to pig farmers, but does apply to other affected farms. That money will h the to reimbursed by up to about 80 per cent. from the British taxpayer, but we have done that and that money will be available.
    In addition, I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture) Lure has extended the restructuring scheme for pig farmer as well. As a result of the ability for there to be licensed slaughter, which will
    900
    come into effect at the end of this week, some of those losses, we hope, will be minimised, but of course we keep the position under constant review.
    Mr. Hague: Finally, the Prime Minister will agree that the response to the crisis has been characterised by calmness and restraint both in the farming communities and among the wider public. Nowhere has that been more evident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has observed, than in this week's decision by the Countryside Alliance, despite its deeply held views, to suspend its planned 18 March rally for liberty and livelihood.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever the views across all parties on the merits of the issue, it would be a proper recognition of the Countryside Alliance's sense of responsibility at least to delay the introduction of the Hunting Bill to the House of Lords until those who want to protest about it are free to do so?
    The Prime Minister: The Bill will go through its normal stages and I repeat once again that there is a free vote on the issue on both sides of the House of Commons. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of those people with concerns about the countryside that such concerns are not surprising with farming in the position that it is today, but it is important to recognise what we can do to help. The truth is that farming in this country has suffered many serious blows in the past few years, going back, I may say, beyond the time at which we came to office, but not limited to that at all.
    The problems of BSE have obviously been huge for farmers, and a strong pound has been a particular difficulty. There has been a collapse in certain world commodity prices for the goods that they produce. To have foot and mouth disease come on top of that means that the situation is appalling. For that reason, over the past few years, and for the first time, we have been drawing down that agrimonetary compensation—we have drawn down more than £600 million worth of it.
    Fortunately, because the public finances are in a healthy state, we are able to pay compensation. We do not begrudge that at all, or the support that we are giving to the farming industry. I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall carry on working with the farming industry and its representatives to give them every possibility of a secure future and better times than they have enjoyed over the past few years. However, I make this point as well: in so doing, it is very important to recognise that farmers need our support not just as the people who produce the food that we eat, but as custodians of the countryside. I recognise that role absolutely and I am happy to pay tribute to it.
    Ms Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that effective policing must never be put at risk by political correctness? Does he also agree that effective policing must never be put at risk by biased or prejudiced targeting of particular groups, black or white? Is he aware that in Tower Hamlets, since the introduction of the Macpherson recommendations, the number of those who are stopped and searched and then arrested has increased over the past year by 40 per cent., which represents a victory for the police in their fight against crime?

    901
    Will the Prime Minister therefore congratulate Tower Hamlets police on their efforts and urge every Member of the House who genuinely values effective policing as well as the need to safeguard our civil liberties to support the Macpherson recommendations and stop playing politics with race?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I met the officers in charge of policing in her area when I was in her constituency a few weeks ago, and I certainly pay tribute to the work that they have done because they have shown that it is perfectly possible to make sure that policing takes no account of the race or background of a particular individual while still enforcing the law. Indeed, that is the only way properly to police a local community. The fact that there has been a 40 per cent. increase in the number of people arrested following stop and search is a very good sign indeed.
    My hon. Friend will also know that, as I said to members of her local community when I was there, I hope that those people who see such changes come about now feel empowered to join our police force and be part of policing their local communities.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the expressions of sympathy and condolence enunciated by both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party in connection with today's terrible train catastrophe.
    May I return to an issue that was discussed earlier, and make it clear that the Liberal Democrats strongly support the swift action that the Government have taken over the freezing of the movement of animals within the country? May I also ask a couple of specific questions? How and when does the Prime Minister intend to reintroduce meat supplies from British farmers safely into the domestic food chain, and when will such a scheme be up and running?
    The Prime Minister: Details of a scheme for licensed slaughter of animals that will be taken straight from the farms to slaughter will be announced on Friday. The scheme will both significantly improve the situation relating to food supply and give hope to farmers who cannot currently move their animals at all.
    Mr. Kennedy: An awful lot of people in the country as a whole, but particularly in the agricultural community, would like details sooner rather than later if that is at all possible. Is the Prime Minister in a position at least to clarify whether he or his Ministers are engaging in discussions with the supermarkets, and ensuring that they in turn engage in discussions with local farmers and suppliers as a whole to make certain that things are back on track as soon as possible?
    People out there really care about what is happening. They do not feel that they have the information they need, and this is a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to provide it.
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific query is yes, of course we have been in touch with the supermarkets. We are also engaging in detailed discussion with farmers and the wider industry.
    It is not that we are being coy about announcing the details; it will take us until Friday to put those details together in a way that is worked out and agreed with the industry. It is perfectly right for us not to make an announcement until we are sure of all the details; that will give the greatest confidence not just to the consumer, but to the farming industry. Of course it has taken some time to do this, but I think it is worth taking the time to ensure that it is done properly.
    From Friday onwards, we shall be able to license the slaughter of animals. That will allow us to replenish the food chain with British beef, which, as we know, is the safest and best in the world because of the controls we introduced following the BSE problems in our farming industry. More important, it will allow us to do that in a way that will give maximum confidence to farmers themselves.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: May I ask a question about the economy? In Croydon, 4,877 people who were unemployed id in 1997 now have jobs, saving the taxpayer £58 million which can be spent on services or tax reductions. Doe that not clearly illustrate that the party that generates more jobs is the party that can deliver more investment in ervices and lower taxes? The history of the Opposition shows that they will never be able to deliver that.
    The Prime Minister: It is self-evident that the more stable the economy the better things are for people's mortgages, living standards and jobs. I am pleased about the number of jobs that have been created. I also think it important for us to maintain programmes such as the new deal, which has help id to cut levels of endemic long-term unemployment, thus reducing the number of benefit claims and allowing us to spend the money on things that people want it to be spent on.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anomaly whereby nurses in my constituency and other high-cost areas of west Kent will not qualify for the new cost-of-living supplement for London and the south-east, which extends as far as Portsmouth and Swindon? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the demoralismg and distorting effect of that? People just a few miles apart are doing the same public service jobs for different rates of pay. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the position again?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that if we want to attract people into nursing, teaching and the police in areas where recruitment is particularly difficult because of the buoyancy of the local economy, differential rates of pay will be an inevitable consequence. I should have thought that people like the hon. Gentleman would rather favour a move to a system involving greater pay differentials. I can toll him, however, that we keep the areas covered by the supplement under review. I can also tell him that, irrespective of which part of the country people are in, we as a Government have implemented the pay review board's recommendations in full.

    903
    We have also significantly increased the pay of many nurses over the past few years—some pay has increased by as much as 25 per cent. I understand that it is always possible to do more, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to take into account what we have done for all nurses, not simply those affected by the new allowance.
    Mr. John Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year is the 50th anniversary of the deployment of British service men in the Suez canal zone and that, during that occupation, 60 were killed and 600 wounded by hostile fire? Does he recognise that the Government can be proud of their record in reviewing military matters, whereas previous Governments have ignored long-standing injustices? Will he therefore use his office to ensure that, this year, the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations finally gets the chance to consider the case for awarding the general service medal to our troops who served in the Suez from 1951–54?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has been raising that issue for some considerable time and I pay tribute to him for that. The recognition for those personnel present in the Suez canal zone was considered at the time and, as he will know, it has been raised on a number of occasions since. I know that the official committee that looks at those matters is aware of that case. I am sure—I will make sure myself—that it will consider very carefully any further representations, including the ones that he has just made.
    Mr. David Trimble: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall that seeks to show all that is good and positive with regard to Northern Ireland. I thank him for agreeing to visit it, but is he aware of the fact that, in Northern Ireland over the past decade, our economy has grown at twice the UK average, that we are experiencing record levels of employment and that the bulk of that employment has been created by small businesses, particularly local small businesses? Will the Prime Minister therefore ensure that, in their fiscal policies, his Government do not add to the burdens that are borne by those local businesses?
    May I also remind the Prime Minister that in Northern Ireland farm incomes have fallen mare steeply than in any other part of the United Kingdom? In dealing with that part of our economy, which is in serious difficulties, can he bear that in mind, too?
    The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point about the farming industry, of course I understand that farmers' incomes have suffered very considerably in Northern Ireland. They will be subject to the announcements that we made yesterday.
    In respect of small businesses, the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. It is one of the reasons that we cut the small business corporation tax and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues to keep under review fiscal measures that can assist small businesses.
    In respect to the Northern Ireland economy, I pay tribute to people such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have also played a part. Were it not for the peace process of the past few years, I do not believe that the
    904
    Northern Ireland economy would be as buoyant as it is today. Therefore, the courage shown by people such as him has also been a very large part of the resurgence in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend give us the latest figures on the take-up rate of the working families tax credit? Has he seen reports suggesting that the number of people who are eligible for that tax credit has dropped?
    The Prime Minister: I think that 1.1 million families have taken up the working families tax credit, some 300,000 more than took up the old family credit. It has meant lifting the incomes of many families up and down the country out of poverty and it is a huge work incentive as well.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Last year, a paedophile used a teenage internet chat room to approach a 12-year-old girl in my constituency. He groomed her online to entice her to an offline meeting for sexual purposes. As many as one in five children who use internet chat rooms are approached by paedophiles in that way. Will the Prime Minister take steps to review the law to ensure that such online grooming is a criminal offence and bring pressure to bear on internet service providers, so that they offer parents chat-free services and all our children can be protected?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am informed by the Home Secretary that earlier today he had a meeting on that very subject. We are actively considering doing what the hon. Gentleman has just suggested. Perhaps when our deliberations have finished I can contact him and tell him the result of that.
    Gillian Merron: On the crucial issue of police numbers, is my right hon. Friend aware that because of a combination of additional Government funding and innovative recruitment strategies, Lincolnshire police have confirmed to me that they will be on course next month to achieve the county's highest ever officer strength? Will he confirm that the Government will commit themselves to continue police funding to support Lincolnshire police?
    The Prime Minister: I am obviously very pleased to hear that news, and the fact that Lincolnshire police will have the highest ever number of police is obviously very good for local people and for fighting crime in the area.
    I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to realise that it is important not only to provide police with additional money for one year, but to provide it year on year on year as sustained investment. That is why it is so important that we are able to put additional money into schools, hospitals and police, but on the basis of a stable economy in which we are keeping inflation low, interest rates low and the public finances healthy.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Prime Minister that I have received more than 1,000 letters from my constituents—parents, teachers and governors—complaining about the unfair funding settlement for schools in the county, and that the

    905
    settlement has become worse under this Government? May I also point out to him that every child in every school in his constituency receives £200 more, and that every child in every school in a Birmingham constituency receives £500 more, than every child in my constituency and in Worcestershire? Those sums add hundreds of thousands of pounds to a school's budget. Finally, may I also ask that rather than giving me the pat answers that misrepresent the Conservative party's point of view on education, he treat the question seriously and make urgent representations to the Deputy Prime Minister, so that education, education, education really means something for children in Worcestershire?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Lady knows, as the Green Paper on local government makes clear, that we are reviewing the way in which the standard spending assessment works. She will also be aware—given that for 18 years Conservative Members had the opportunity to do something about it but never did—that people treat with, let us say, a little scepticism claims by people such as her who have been opposed to the finance system.
    As for the general issue of education funding, the Government are—this is a fact—putting record investment into education. I also suspect that, in the hon. Lady's own constituency, schools have had capital funding under the new deal that they would never have had under the previous Government. As she and the Conservative party are committed to scrapping the new deal, those schools would also not receive that funding in the future.
    I hope that that was not a pat answer. However, I believe it is important that, when we debate education, we remember that, in their last three years in office, the previous Government cut funding per pupil by £30, whereas we have increased it by more than £300.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Next Monday, the Minister for School Standards will open the new Chetwynd Road school, in Broxtowe, which has been waiting in temporary first world war huts since 1915—under 22 Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments. Does the Prime Minister welcome the genuine pleasure that people in Broxtowe feel about the additional education funding? Further to the previous exchange, will he also accelerate the review of the funding formula, so that in future each child in Britain has a decent chance of education that does not depend on their postcode?
    The Prime Minister: As has been said, later this year we shall set out our decisions in a White Paper. However, I tell my hon. Friend that of course we understand the concerns that have been expressed. I think he also again makes the point that it is only that additional investment—
    906
    I think there has been £14 million in Nottinghamshire alone—that has allowed us to make that commitment to Britain's schools. The truth is that we have under-invested in our public services for a very long time. It will take time to put that right, but the money is coming in. The most important thing, however, is that investing on the back of a stable economy means that the money can be sustained year on year.
    Mr. Edward Gamnier: May I raise with the Prime Minister a matter of practical concern to sheep farmers in my constituency? The lambing season will shortly be upon us, and there is a great need for my farmers to be able to bring their ewes back inside, to protect them from the severe weather and from fox and badger predation. My farmers understand, as I do, the need for the restrictions on the movement of livestock, but the public highway cuts across some farms' land and thus prevents ewes from being brought inside. Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Minister of Agriculture to see if he can find a sensible way to deal with this welfare and economic problem?
    The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly reasonable point. There is a serious problem here. Obviously, the first task of the Government and all the authorities must be to eradicate the disease, but we understand the particular problem that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises in relation to sheep farmers. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that the problem is being considered, as is the specific suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. I do not know when we can give him some assurance on the matter, but we will do so as soon as we can.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: Given the substantial improvement that the Government have made in employment conditions, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of the Cathelco group? That firm has manipulated. I the system to its own advantage, while depriving 16 former employees at the Ailsa-Troon shipyard in my constituency of their redundancy rights. Will he accept that there are flaws in the system when such a thing can happen? Will he ask Ministers to examine the company, with a view to reviewing its trading licence and to ensuring that it does not receive publicly funded contracts?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about this matter, about which she has written to me. I recognise the strength of feeling that exists about what lit happened to the 16 employees at the yard. I know that many people have expressed concern at their treatment. If she will allow me, I will ask a Minister at the Scotland Office to get back to her with a detailed response on the point that she has raised.

Point of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that we got to only Question 2 in Northern Ireland Question Time because the questions, and Ministers' answers, were so longwinded. Can you do anything to ensure that your admonition to the House some weeks ago—that questions and answers should be short—is obeyed, especially by Front-Bench Members? Can you ensure also that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not ask repeat questions?
Mr. Speaker: I am conscious that we reached only Question 2 in Northern Ireland questions, and I will try to speed up the process next time.

Siting of Telecommunications Masts
3.32 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the siting and development of telecommunications masts.
I congratulate the Government on their establishment of an independent expert group chaired by Sir William Stewart to look into aspects of the problem of telecommunication masts, and I welcome too the subsequent publication of the Stewart report in May last year. However, serious concerns about the siting of mobile phone masts have been raised in the Chamber on several occasions since then, usually as a direct response to concerns raised by worried constituents.
My Stourbridge constituents are extremely concerned about proposals made by Vodafone to site a new telephone mast near their homes and a short distance from a school and a nursery. Hundreds of my constituents have successfully petitioned Dudley council and, with my support, have vigorously opposed the company's application to build the mast. Dudley council, rightly in my view, turned the application down twice, but its decision was overturned on appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In his appeal decision, the inspector referred to the Stewart report, concluding that exposure to radio frequency radiation below guideline levels did not cause adverse health effects in the general population. Paragraph 1.18 states:
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below guidelines."
Paragraph 1.19 states:
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to radio frequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in the knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
Again, paragraph 6.44 says:
"the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence."
These points are, in my view, sufficient to raise serious and legitimate health concerns and they have been interpreted as such by an appeals inspector appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The inspector dismissed an appeal by Orange against the decision of the London borough of Harrow to refuse to grant approval for a mobile telecommunications mast. Orange, like Vodafone in my constituency of Stourbridge, had appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is my understanding that the appeal decision in Harrow is the first of its kind to include health considerations as reasons for dismissal of an appeal.
Point 6 of the appeal decision cites guidance in the ministerial letter of 29 June 2000. It says that the Government's response to the Stewart report should be "accorded considerable weight". Point 7 of the appeal decision states that the independent expert group on mobile phones came to the view that there could be indirect adverse effects on well-being in some cases. I think that I have shown that the Stewart report has had very mixed outcomes on appeal decisions under section 78 of the 1990 Act.

909
People who live near the proposed Vodafone mast site in my constituency were devastated to learn that their views and those of their democratically elected councillors and Member of Parliament could be thrown out by an appeals inspector. I have knocked on the doors of many of the houses near the proposed site. They are the homes of families with young children. Concerned parents have said to me that they do not want risks taken with their children's health. I agree with them wholeheartedly.
Right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly criticised the lack of local consultation on mobile phone masts. In Stourbridge, the site is 150 m from a school and a day nursery. Yesterday, Vodafone faxed my office to say that it is organising radio frequency calculations and that, in line with the recommendation of the independent expert group, if the maximum radio wave intensity should fall on a school or school grounds, it will consult the school. Vodafone has waited a very long time to make such measurements. I suggest that it is only now, with the prospect of sustained and substantial bad publicity, that such moves are being made. The vast majority of parents of pupils in the school and the nursery do not want that mast sited near their children.
My constituents are not alone. Since my decision to present a Bill to the House on this issue, many colleagues have contacted me and offered support. In addition, I have received representations from across Britain. It is no exaggeration to say that thousands and thousands of people want much stronger legislation regarding mobile phone masts. I know of opposition to them in areas including Luton, Brighton, Forest of Dean, Conwy, Dartford, Hendon, Harrow and many more. Overwhelmingly, people want to know that they will be fully consulted, that their views will be listened to and that local decisions will be valued. They do not want local decisions that are supported by their democratically elected representatives to be overturned.
When the Minister for Public Health, responded to the recent debate on the Phillips inquiry into BSE, she acknowledged that the report stated that the other casualty of the BSE story had been the destruction of the credibility of pronouncements. My hon. Friend said:
"That is extremely serious; it is about not only BSE, but trust in Government across the board and in pronouncements on health and safety."—[0fficial Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 554]
She then specifically mentioned mobile phones. Public opinion about the possible health risks of mobile phones is such that there is urgent need for changes to planning legislation.
I have shown today that the Stewart report was used to dismiss an appeal on health grounds in one part of the country, but that such grounds were not used in my Stourbridge constituency. I have demonstrated that consultation is being driven by the fear of adverse publicity rather than by a genuine commitment to community consultation. I have shown that public opinion is overwhelmingly fearful for children's health; rightly so. In the view of expert opinion, the case for the safety of mobile phone masts in regard to children's health is at best unproven.
910
I have made the cilse for an urgent change in legislation to allow for planning controls on mobile phone masts. I make that case on behalf of thousands of parents across Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.40 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was hoping to be able to support an Bill. I, too, have experience of local parents who are concerned about the siting of masts near schools and hospinds. I am also aware of aesthetic arguments against mobile phone masts. Indeed, the comments of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) largely echo Conservative policy.
The Conservative party calls specifically for the refusal of permission for all new masts on land owned or occupied by councils. School governors are being asked to adopt council policy. Schools are to be urged to ask the Radiocommunications Agency to check emissions from existing masts on school sites. Councils are to be asked to oppose applications for masts on highway land. I can understand those arguments on aesthetic grounds.
I oppose the Bill, however, because the hon. Lady tried to imply that there is a real health danger from mobile phone masts. She referred to extracts from the Stewart report, especially on localised heating of tissues. If the hon. Lady had read the report—as I have—she would see that those points apply specifically to the use of a mobile phone where the antenna is close to the cranium, when there is indeed a possibility of localised heating. In such cases, a health problem may arise—but no one is sure about that.
This morning, I found out from the BBC engineering information department that the Crystal Palace television transmitter gives out 1,000 kW of power—1 MW or 1 million watts—on its analogue television transmissions. In addition, for each of its digital services, it gives off a further 10,000 watts.
Those frequencies are similar to those used by Vodafone and Orange, to which the hon. Lady referred. However, neither at Crystal Palace, where such transmissions have been going on for more than 50 years, nor, indeed, at Sutton Coldfield, which serves my area and where similar power transmissions are used—I repeat that the power is mote than 1 million watts—is there any evidence of health problems. There is no clustering of leukaemia; nor are there other carcinogenic dysfunctions in the area.
Does the hon. Lady know the power of an average mobile phone mast? It is not 1 million watts or 1,000 watts—it is between 50 and 100 watts. That is the same power as an average light bulb. The hon. Lady has raised important and interesting points. Unfortunately, I fear that she may have increased the fears—unwitting, unrealised and perhaps unnecessary—of parents. For that reason only, I oppose the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Ms Margaret Moran, Mrs. Betty Williams, Barbara Follett, Mrs. Diana Organ, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Alan Simpson, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. David Lepper and Mr. Andrew Dismore.

Siting of Telecommunications Masts
  SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS
  Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to control the siting and development of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We are grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for his commitment to make a statement this evening on the terrible rail accident in Yorkshire. In view of the terrible events on the railway, we do not think it appropriate to debate the first Opposition motion on the Order Paper today on the Government's integrated transport policy.

Opposition Day

  Foot and Mouth
  3.46 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses concern about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, sympathy for farmers facing the loss of their livelihoods and for others working in the livestock sector, and appreciation of the work of those fighting to contain the spread of the disease; endorses the action of the Government to restrict the movement of livestock; welcomes its efforts to identify the source of the outbreak; urges, where necessary, a temporary suspension of rights of way across farmland; welcomes the Government's announcement that it will draw down the full amount of agri-monetary compensation available for livestock farmers; and calls on the Government to consider what other help can be given to the industry.
  I welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to this debate, which has been brought forward by three and a half hours because of this morning's tragic accident. I should like to say that because the Minister has come here earlier than expected and given the pressure that he is under, we shall understand if he cannot be present throughout the debate.
  A week ago, the public became aware that for the first time in 34 years, foot and mouth disease had been identified on the British mainland. Every day in the past seven days, the true horror that that news implied has been brought home. As more outbreaks have been confirmed, we have learned how quickly the disease can spread. As export markets shut down and internal livestock movements are banned, we see the vulnerability of a whole industry to a single disease. As race meetings and rugby fixtures have been cancelled, we have understood how widely the impact of the crisis is being felt. As the freedom of movement of people on foot and by car in rural areas is restricted, we realise how much of ordinary daily social, domestic and business life is coming to a halt. But above all, it is the personal tragedies of the farmers directly concerned that deserve our first sympathy.
  More than for most people, the daily work of livestock farmers is a way of life. They are men and women who rise in the dark at 3.30 in the morning to milk their cows. They are men and women whose nights may be interrupted because of calving or lambing. Those men and women have a special relationship with the animals in their care, and when those animals are under threat of slaughter, those men and women face not just the loss of their livelihoods, but the destruction of the whole of their life's work. That is why, at the start of the motion, we invite the House to express sympathy for those fanners. At this time, they truly deserve our sympathy.
  The past seven days have also shown the enormity of the task that the country now faces. The detailed process of checking animal movements to and from farms,

  913
  markets and slaughterhouses has placed a burden on vets, officials and other inspectors, which continues to grow. The need to understand how this dreadful disease came to our shores after a gap of more than a generation is paramount. Only by identifying the original source of the outbreak can we be sure of minimising the risk of a recurrence.
  Every family in the land has been talking about the issue. There cannot be a single kitchen table anywhere in the United Kingdom around which worries have not been expressed about the disease, about its spread and about the possible consequences. That is why the Opposition have chosen to debate the subject today. It would be very odd indeed if Parliament did not address these concerns directly.
  I hope that the Minister agrees that, even at a time of intense pressure on him and his Ministry, it remains an important part of his duty to keep Parliament informed and to be available on a regular basis to answer questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House—questions that have been put to them by their constituents and that they expect to have a chance to ask.
  Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend will have observed the enormous interest and understandable support that he is receiving from Conservative Members. Given the claims of Labour Members that they also represent parts of the countryside, can he offer an explanation for their lack of representation in this debate?
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which will be apparent to anyone who can see the attendance in the Chamber.
  Very unusually for an Opposition day motion, this motion has not been amended by the Government. We have chosen wording that is deliberately supportive not just of farmers and the industry, but of the main actions that the Government have announced in response to the crisis. Indeed, the Opposition have supported every one of the steps that the Government have taken so far. We have suggested more than once—and may continue to do so—that the Government should go further and should do more, but we have not criticised or resisted any of the Government's proposals to tackle the crisis. Because this is an emergency, we will give the Government our full backing in dealing with it. We genuinely wish the Minister and everyone else involved in trying to contain the spread of foot and mouth disease and to identify its source every possible success in their task.
  I wish to comment on four subjects briefly. The first is compensation. I welcome unreservedly the announcement yesterday that the Government will draw down £156 million of agrimonetary compensation. That was the right decision, and I am glad that the Government have responded to many requests from Conservative Members and from the industry to take such a decision.
  However, the Minister is fully aware that this agrimonetary compensation is designed specifically to compensate farmers for the weakness of the euro. Given the present state of the agriculture industry—an industry which is losing 400 jobs a week, which has lost 40,000 jobs in the past two years and in which the average income of farmers has fallen by three quarters in the past
  914
  four years—that agimonetary compensation was sorely needed regardless of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
  We and others urged the Government to draw that money down befork the outbreak of foot and mouth disease was known about, so I urge the Minister to confirm this afternoon that, in principle, the Government accept that further targeted help may be needed for farmers and others suffering unrecoverable losses as a direct result of foot and mouth disease.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the question of loss, will my hon. Friend refer specifically to the plight of the livestock producers who are caught by the 30-month rule? They cannot market animals of more than 30 months at the full price because of that rule.
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. and learned Friend draws attention to a point to which I was coming. It is a relevant problem and a number of farmers will face it. The number will grow each week as movement restrictions remain.
  Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend also consider the position of pig producers who, particularly in Norfolk and Suffolk, have already suffered the depredation of classical swine fever? Once again, they have to feed pigs that they cannot send to market. Those who have fattening units will again face empty stalls and no cashflow when they eventually manage to send pigs to market, and they have already faced the problems caused by the terrible swine fever.
  Mr. Yeo: I am going to mention pig farmers, who are especially badly hit in both our constituencies. However, on the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), cattle are at the peak of their value when they approach 30 months, after which that value declines substantially and there is no prospect of it recovering. If the restrictions on movement, which have properly been imposed and to which we give our lull support, remain in force for any length of time, an increasing number of farmers will face severe difficulty.
  It is important to mention cashflow. Nothing gnaws away at a business man's sense of well-being than cashflow problems. People who work in the public sector know that their salary cheque will go into their bank account come what may at the end of each month. They sometimes have no concept of the anxiety and sleepless nights that people stiffer if they do not know when they will next receive any money. Such circumstances can lead to the human tragedies that have too often scarred the industry in the past year or two.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Bearing in mind the cashflow difficulties that my hon. Friend mentions, will he also consider small abattoirs, which are greatly affected by the problem? The only abattoir left in Hampshire is in my constituency. It slaughtered its last animal two days ago. It has no income and substantial outgoings. Can he give my constituent and others any hope that they will receive help?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has raised that matter with me and is right to say that some small abattoirs will face acute difficulties. The Prime Minister recently seemed to

  915
  leave the door ajar to receiving further representations on behalf of people who may be affected in the way that my hon. Friend has described.
  As for pig farmers, they have operated without subsidy because they are outside the regime that is covered by agrimonetary compensation. In the past 24 hours, the Minister referred to advancing the available money that was announced last April in the action plan for farming—a total of £65 million over three years. Although the intention was to spend some of that money in the current year, little or none has been spent for the purpose for which it was provided. In addition, the money is available only to people who are going to close down their business. That is not much comfort to people who are worried about the large amount of imported pigmeat that we have to buy. It would be comforting if there was something for pig fanners who want to remain in business.
  Mr. David Drew: I wee with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Will he encompass farmers and producers who supply farmers' markets in his remarks? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rightly recommended that farmers' markets should not take place for the foreseeable future. Many people completely changed their method and chain of production for those markets and they are especially disadvantaged because they cannot shift any material. I hope that he will agree that that is a problem.
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that. It is a problem. The growth of farmers' markets in the past couple of years, which both sides of the House welcome, has been brought to an abrupt halt, and that will cause acute problems. I am sure than, the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman.
  Will the Minister consider the provision of private storage aid—for example, for sows, for which the export market has been removed? That world give pig farmers some hope that they might obtain a fair price for their animals.
  My second point relates directly to compensation. It is possible that some animal movements may be permitted under licence. I appreciate that the Minister will want to be guided by the chief veterinary officer, and no Opposition Member would expect him to take a risk to cut corners. There is a difficult balance to strike between the obvious desirability of allowing as much movement as possible under licence to enable farmers to generate income again and the need to continue the containment measures that are in place. Clearly, however, the need for extra cash help for the industry will be directly reduced if some animal movement can be permitted. I understand from what was said in the House earlier that more information will be given on Friday. We look forward to hearing that. Can the Minister say this afternoon whether he expects the relaxations in the short term to be extensive?
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: There must be an adequate supply of disinfectant throughout the country to enable even limited movement of Livestock. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a she nage of disinfectant in mid-Wales and elsewhere? Would he be interested to
  916
  hear, as I am, what provision the Government might make to supply adequate volumes of disinfectant to the farming community?
  Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised exactly that point with the Prime Minister. That is an acute problem not only in the region of Wales from which the hon. Gentleman comes but in Devon and Cornwall and possibly elsewhere. Given that the availability of disinfectant is crucial to the containment measures, this is a key issue and that is why my right hon. Friend raised it.
  The Minister will know that the lambing season is upon us, and in Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend pointed out that farmers may want to move their sheep but are unable to do so at present, even across a road that may divide one part of their farm from another. I understand that they are also unable to cross land belonging to a neighbouring farmer, even if the owner has given consent. Clearly, any relaxation that can safely be undertaken would be welcome, but I stress again that we understand that the Minister will want to make decisions on the basis of the advice that he is receiving from the chief vet.
  My third point concerns the origin of the outbreak. The British mainland has enjoyed freedom from foot and mouth disease for 34 years, and it is terribly important that we should discover the origin of this outbreak. There are suspicions that it may have resulted from meat imports, whether legal or illegal. We have permitted imports from countries where foot and mouth outbreaks have recently occurred. I am advised that we currently allow imports from five countries where foot and mouth disease has occurred since the start of the year.
  The Minister will know of the concern that I expressed in a parliamentary question on 8 January about the risks of imports from South Africa in the light of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in that country. I hope that in due course an analysis of how much meat has been imported from countries such as South Africa, which are known to have had foot and mouth disease in the very recent past, will be undertaken and published. The problem of illegal imports is also serious, and the Minister and I have debated it on many occasions. I will not go over that ground again, except to say that I believe that the public are also concerned about that, quite apart from any possible link with the outbreak of this disease.
  I understand that more information is available about the swill used by the farmer in Northumberland, where the first outbreak occurred. I hope that the Minister will be able to share that information with the House and tell us whether he believes that the current regulations on feeding practices need to be reviewed in light of the advice that he is receiving. The public, as well as farmers, will want to know that reasonable precautions are being taken against the risk that foot and mouth disease could re-enter Britain after the present outbreak has been brought under control.
  The reports today that antibodies have been found in sheep exported to Germany may—I stress the word "may"—mean that foot and mouth disease has been present here for longer than was previously thought. It underlines the need to understand precisely how the outbreak has occurred.

  917
  My fourth and last, brief point concerns access. I welcome the Government's prompt response to calls to close footpaths and rights of way across farmland. I was glad to see a press release from Kent county council today saying that it has already used the emergency powers available to close footpaths, bridleways and byways in that county.
  I have heard from other county councils, including Suffolk, that they feel that they do not yet have the information that they need to put their powers into practice. I hope that the Minister will ask the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that all local authorities are notified immediately of their powers and of how they can be operated. I hope that he will back that up by urging them to introduce the powers at once.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that foot and mouth disease has already been diagnosed at a number of farms in Devon? Given the beauty of the area, many footpaths are still being used, including those over the Dartmoor national park and the heritage coastline. Thousands of ramblers from throughout Europe, including England, continue to walk these paths. Does my hon. Friend agree that Devon county council should be encouraged to close these footpaths and bridleways as a precaution? The foot and mouth farms are within 20 miles of the borders of my constituency. I suggested to the Minister on Monday that matting with disinfectant could be used at all the access points to the peninsula of south Devon, and so eradicate the possibility of foot and mouth disease coming to that peninsula.
  Mr. Yeo: Devon is one of the most important livestock farming counties in Britain, and I am sure that the local people would want every possible precaution to be taken, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to minimise the risk of the disease spreading in the county. I believe that county councils would not be criticised if they decided to err on the side of caution in their response, given the powers that are now available to them.
  Mr. John Burnett: I believe, but I am not yet certain—I shall check during the debate—that the appropriate orders have been made by Devon county council to close the footpaths.
  Mr. Yeo: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information. [Interruption.] I am not sure what grounds Labour Members have for mirth.
  This is a fast-moving situation. It was always likely that more cases would be confirmed after the first one last week. I dare say that we shall not know for a little longer whether the containment measures now in place are succeeding. The country will hope and pray that they do succeed. The Minister has an unenviable task, and we all hope that he succeeds in it. On behalf of the Opposition, I pledge that anything that we can do to assist him will be done. I warmly commend the motion to the House.
  4.7 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Before dealing with the motion, I want to say that in view of the tragic circumstances of
  918
  this morning's rail accident, the Opposition were right to change the business in the way that they have. I want to identify Ministers and officials in my Department with the expressions of sorrow, from both sides of the House, about the accident and the victims. I want particularly to add my personal expression of sorrow and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—friends and neighbours may well have been travelling on that train this morning.
  I now come to the debate, and I thank the Opposition for their support for the Government's actions as expressed in their motion. There is nothing in the motion with which I disagree. This more bipartisan approach is the right way to respond to the serious situation that confronts us.
  I know that the House will want to join me in expressing support and sympathy for all those who are caught up in the outbreak and the control measures that we have had to put in place. There have been a further six confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease today, taking the total to 24. The new cases include two in Powys, one in Herefordshire, one in Devon, one in Leicestershire and one in Lancashire. Yesterday, I confirmed new cases in Anglesey, Lancashire, Northampton and County Durham. Most of those new cases can be linked to previous cases. For the cases confirmed today, investigations into links with other cases are still continuing. All animals in confirmed cases and potentially dangerous contacts are slaughtered. So far, just over 15,000 animals have been slaughtered to control the disease—more than 3,000 cattle, about 11,000 sheep and almost 2,000 pigs.
  I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the work of those who are in the front line in combating this disease outbreak. They include farmers and others in the livestock industry, the staff of the state veterinary service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food animal health offices and regional service centres, local authorities, the Meat Hygiene Service, private veterinarians and the police.
  The Government's disease control policy remains as I reported to the Home on Monday. I shall summarise the sequence of events. Foot and mouth disease was first confirmed on Tuesday evening last week in pigs at an abattoir and in castle on a neighbouring farm near Brentwood in Essex. A further case was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland on Friday. Because that case was as in another region and because of the suspicion, subsequently confirmed, that it had been present for up to two weeks, the same day the whole of Great Britain was made a controlled area. All livestock movements and markets have been banned, as have country fairs, hunts and hare coursing held on farm land.
  The Government have granted a special licence to allow the movement, under strict conditions, of fallen stock to a rendering plant, a knacker's yard, incinerators or hunt kennels. In cunjunction with the European Union, we have stopped the export of live animals and products to the EU and beyond so that we do not export the disease.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigiey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken and give them my party's full support. What will b the position with ewes that need to be moved for lambing purposes, perhaps from one farm

  919
  to another owned by the same farmer? Given that there is a derogation for injured animals, is the right hon. Gentleman considering a derogation for ewes?
  Mr. Brown: When I said yesterday that the situation was becoming increasingly complex, that was one of the issues that I had in mind. In an earlier exchange, a perfectly proper question was asked about the movement of ewes that are about to give birth to lambs from one farmholding to an adjacent farmholding, across an area where travel is not allowed. Indeed, travel is not allowed from one farmholding to another—but that is only one part of the issue.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are getting to the time of the year when breeding animals move from their winter grazing to the original farmholding where they are expected to give birth. Lambing is a period of intensive activity, which rather conflicts with our desire to impose rigid movement restrictions. I am very aware of the problem. I cannot announce a solution today, except to say that the imposition of movement restrictions to prevent the spread of the disease must be given first priority, but we will have urgent discussions with the industry to see how we should handle the situation in the current circumstances.
  Although we have discovered foot and mouth disease in what are called fat lambs—animas that have been fattened for slaughter—we have not yet discovered it in the breeding flock. That is a significant fact for those who have to decide policy. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the industry and therefore understands the complexities. I can e explain the problem, but I am afraid that I am not in a position today to explain the comprehensive solution. All I can do is assert that priority is being given to the need to exterminate the disease.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank the Minister for giving way and also for his tireless work over the past week. He mentioned two cases in Powys. In fact, they are in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, and the evidence is that they originate from the Devon outbreak, which has been traced back to Northumberland. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the cases so far are linked to the original outbreak?
  Mr. Brown: Because of the movements to and from Essex to neighbouring farms, and in view of the similar pattern where other outbreaks have been discovered, it does seem that every outbreak can be traced back to the Heddon-on-the-Wall farm, where the disease has been for longer than anywhere else in this country. That seems to be the position. I cannot be categorical, but it is a fair assumption.
  Sir Michael Spicer: What is the position of graziers on common land? Having spoken to the Minister's office about this earlier, it seems that MAFF has no powers over graziers on common land. Is that true?
  Mr. Brown: The position of common land is one of the other complexities with which we are grappling. While the animals are not moving, there is no danger of them spreading the disease beyond the common land, but the problem that the hon. Gentleman is getting at, of how
  920
  to sort flock by flock, is an intractable one. He describes it well, and if he has an idea for dealing with it immediately I shall be grateful to him. Perhaps the best way to proceed is exactly as we are doing and not allow animals to move, except for slaughter, and to bear down where the disease is found. That, as the hon. Gentleman knows, means bearing down on the cohorts with all the implications that that has for common land.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister referred to the market in lambs, and one particular problem that we have in Scotland, perhaps more than elsewhere, is the trade in overwintered lambs, which should be coming on to the market just now. If they do not come on to the market now, apart from the loss to the farmers the danger is that they will come on later in the year and so destroy the market for new lambs. Will he consider a scheme to take the lambs off the market so that the market later in the year is not destroyed?
  Mr. Brown: We are giving consideration to such trade issues. The main thrust of our work is to bear down on the disease, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the trade issues. Perhaps now is the appropriate point for me to say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that his suggestion, in the context of the pig industry, concerning the use of private storage aid in some circumstances is a useful one, and I promise to keep it under review and at the forefront of my mind in my discussions with the Commission. I would require a derogation—it would be deemed a state aid if it were not in place throughout the Community.
  Mr. John Bercow: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's necessarily cautious approach and the absolute premium that he attaches to safety. However, given that the issue of the possible grant of special licences has been raised by a number of sheep farmers in my constituency—and, I am sure, in those of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—can the Minister at least confirm that he is holding discussions with the national veterinary inspection service on the issue?
  Mr. Brown: The veterinary authorities are involved in a range of discussions. I am not in a position to describe them all. In current circumstances, I rely on the advice being summarised by the chief veterinary officer and given to me in terms that assist me in making policy decisions. The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question is clearly right, but what I cannot do is describe to the House today how we will devise a solution that will deal with the vexed problem that he accurately describes. Clearly, if a measure is to be found, it will most certainly involve the strictest of controls, if animal movement is to be permitted at all. I ask everyone to bear at the forefront of their minds what I have just said about having discovered foot and mouth disease in the animals being fattened for the market but not yet having discovered it in the breeding flock. However, that does not mean that they are not susceptible to it; they most certainly are.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) with

  921
  regard to common land? That is a particular problem in the New Forest where cattle, a number of pigs and the ponies themselves range widely. That difficulty is compounded by open access, with a number of Forestry Commission car parks, camp sites, and a large number of horse boxes coming in, particularly at weekends. Can any measures be taken through MAFF's own verderer or through the Forestry Commission?
  Mr. Brown: The regulatory authorities have the power to shut rights of way and, if they deem it necessary—even on a pretty wide interpretation of the precautionary principle—I am content that that should be a matter for them.
  There is a series of different risks, by far the largest of which is that animals that are susceptible to the disease will transmit it to other animals. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the disease can be carried by vehicles, people, horses and other animals that are not directly susceptible, and it can, of course, be moved by travelling from farm to farm. Simple precautions can be taken that almost certainly reduce the risk of the transmission of an infective dose. Again, I appeal to everybody who enjoys the countryside to stay away from livestock and to take sensible precautions if they have to visit vulnerable premises.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: What guidance is the Minister giving to local authorities on how many footpaths should be closed? I spoke a short time ago to the chief legal officer of Brentwood council, who is obviously very much involved in tackling the disease. Of course, hon. Members who represent neighbouring constituencies are also concerned about the matter. No advice has been received and there is a meeting tonight to decide what footpaths should be closed. Clearly, there is a difference between areas of agricultural land that have not been affected and other locations, but my area is right at the epicentre. What advice has been offered to Brentwood council on the number of footpaths that should be closed?
  Mr. Brown: I deliberately left the issue to the discretion of local authorities, on the understanding that they would know best the local circumstances. It is for them to make an assessment of risk. I could divert veterinary resources into conducting a risk assessment of all the rights of way, but I have got them all bearing down on the disease itself and I had hoped that I could leave the matter of footpaths to local authorities. Incidentally, if they want advice from me, I suggest that they act on a precautionary basis. I think that most people would understand that that is a sensible way to proceed.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I have been contacted by a company that collects milk from a number of farms in my constituency. It is anxious, as it has been trying to get in touch with the Ministry at Tolworth but so far has not managed to obtain a satisfactory response. It is concerned about spray suppression equipment, which must be fitted to heavy goods vehicles. The company is saying that the requirement to fit such equipment means that mud is being carried from one farm to another. It would be
  922
  possible to remove the equipment, but a derogation is needed for that. The company cannot get an answer either from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the Minister consider that as a matter of urgency?
  Mr. Brown: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will get officials in my Department to consider the issue as a matter of urgency and provide him with a definitive answer. It seems to me that there are competing claims about whether such intervention is correct. I urge caution on the dairy industry. We are trying at least to keep the milk routes going, but there are obviously vulnerabilities in doing farm-to-farm visits. Everybody needs to exercise extreme caution to ensure that people and vehicles are not spreading the disease.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I know that the Minister is doing his best with regard to public access, but I am afraid that he will have to do a lot more to convince the public that they must be more strong minded in choosing where to go at weekends. He will be interested in the case of my constituent, Mr. Matthews, of Skyborry farm on the Welsh border. I suppose that the farm is situated about 90 miles from Leicester, but at the weekend Mr. Matthews encountered people from Leicester walking in what can only be called intensive sheep country. With the best will in the world, local authorities will be up against it to stop that sort of thing happening. The Minister should say more about the subject, so the public are properly aware of the risk.
  Mr. Brown: We have devolved power to local authorities so that they can use it. If they do so, it has the force of law. If people will not obey the law, it is perfectly permissible to call the police. We have not devolved that power because we expect policemen to be standing at the beginning of every right of way. When somebody in authority, whether it is a farmer or a public official, says "Please do not use this footpath during the outbreak", any sensible person will just go away. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one or two people are quarrelling and asserting their rights, but in those circumstances I urge local authorities to take their names and addresses and prosecute them.
  Sir Robert Smith: I appreciate the blanket ban that has been put in place, and I understand the nightmare of trying gently to unravel it—of knowing where to start—and the problems of competing pressures. However, will the Minister ensure than officials consider the animal welfare problem that a farmer raised with me today? His cattle, which are wintering in slatted rented accommodation that is unsuitable for calving, need to move back to his farm to calve, but, obviously, the forces of nature mean that there is a time limit. I know that the Minister cannot answer fully now, but will he ensure that the matter is considered?
  Mr. Brown: That problem is similar, although not on the same scale, to that of the breeding flock of sheep. We are very conscious of it, but the hon. Gentleman, having described the problem accurately enough, will realise how difficult it is to deal with. Also, he will be familiar with

  923
  its scale. Let me repeat that last March more than 1 million lambs were born in the United Kingdom. The dairy industry, by its very nature, involves calving.
  Mr. William Cash: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the manner in which he is taking these questions. May I ask about a matter that has just been raised in a European Scrutiny Committee? New European Union proposals—a draft directive and a draft regulation, of which I am sure he is aware—deal with health requirements for animal by-products not intended for human consumption. That will bear in the question of transport, as will the manner in which such a massive pile of documents deals with the question of animal by-products and their testing and the extent to which they may be dangerous to the public.
  In the context of both present circumstances and the question whether the virus might have been imported—possibly from countries that do not have the high standards that we employ or from other countries, perhaps in Europe—can the Minister give an absolute assurance that these matters will be dealt with expeditiously so that there is no doubt as to the legislative, situation and the dangers to animal and human health?
  Mr. Brown: I must be the first Labour Minister who has been able to respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying yes, in general terms, I can give him the assurance he seeks. What is more, later on I stall say something further. Given that he has asked a question, perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say that I have just been informed by our veterinary authorities that the German authorities advise that the sheep involved in the earlier containment exercise are not antibody positive. There is a threshold of negative status and work is continuing on a precautionary basis to consider that, I gut the fact that the sheep are not antibody positive is a hopeful sign.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been incredibly generous in giving way. I am also extremely grateful to him for that announcement, which comes as a great relief to me because I know that the problem was worrying Mr. Cleave at Burdon farm, Highampton.
  I am also grateful to a veterinary surgeon in Holsworthy in my constituency for drawing to my attention the point that all the interventions that have been made only emphasise the importance of knowledge and information, for farmers as well as for others. I hope that the Minister will at least consider that. Many farmers are not on the internet, so will he encourage his officials immediately to post information and orders on, for ex ample, the Teletext and Ceefax services, which are available to nearly everybody? They are certainly available to nearly all my constituency farmers.
  Mr. Brown: A helpline and other front-line advice is available and I shall write to all Members setting out the arrangements so that they will know where to turn if they are contacted by constituents. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one and I shall lave it examined by my officials. I specifically extend my sympathy to the farmers in his constituency, which is at the centre of this awful outbreak, and to the private veterinary officials who have been so helpful in dealing with it.
  Mr. Tom King: The Minister suggested that he faces a crisis of this scale because it was not
  924
  possible to identify the problem at Heddon-on-the-Wall early enough without jumping to conclusions. He also said that he believed that the disease had not yet reached the breeding flock. Anyone who has handled sheep and experienced the problems of footrot and off knows that it is often incredibly difficult to establish whether an animal is suffering from foot and mouth. Will the right hon. Gentleman see what his Ministry can do to ensure that anyone with sheep knows how to look for the symptoms, and knows what action is necessary? The worst possibility is that the disease is incubating in sheep. As we know, it is more visible in cattle and pigs.
  Mr. Brown: It is also fair to say that many farmers will not have seen the symptoms before. We therefore plan to write to every farmer with a livestock holding, including some with whom we do not communicate regularly—we had a problem with the pig sector, because it is an unaided regime—enclosing a simple factual leaflet explaining what the condition looks like and what precautionary measures can be taken. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is perfectly reasonable, and the Ministry is already on to it.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: The issue of information has already been raised. Does the Minister recognise that it is important, and clearly consistent with the tone of the debate, for Members of Parliament to be involved with regard to their constituents? They are likely to hear of any confirmed outbreaks fairly quickly through the bush telegraph. However, will the Minister consider setting up a system whereby Members could be advised—perhaps by means of a pager number—of any outbreaks affecting their constituencies? That would enable them to answer constituents' queries accurately.
  Mr. Brown: Obviously, many Members on both sides of the House will, very properly, be anxious for their constituents and will want to do the best they can for them. We all have that in common. I am writing to all Members giving front-line advice, and I will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board because I know how important it is for all of us to be able to provide our constituents with a front-line service in these difficult times.
  Ms Candy Atherton: Will my right hon. Friend assist Cornwall county council, farmers and the community in my constituency? Owing to the siting of the county's periphery, we have fortunately not had any foot and mouth diagnosed as yet, and we want to keep it that way. Three trunk roads enter the county. The council, local MAFF officials and vets are united in wanting to install disinfectant baths on those three routes. Such baths have already been installed on the minor roads.
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether that is the right thing to do; I shall take professional advice. Obviously, I do not wish to thwart any disease control measure, so I shall ensure that officials consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and that of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and convey their professional advice to me. I am afraid that I cannot give a fuller response at the moment.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's

  925
  customary generosity in giving way. Has he considered the position of the national milk record service, which regularly visits every dairy farm? I know that a number of farmers and the National Farmers Union in Wales have expressed concern and have suggested that the service should be suspended until we know that the dairy sector, in particular, is not affected.
  Mr. Brown: That is an entirely reasonable point. We are also examining issues relating to the conduct of the census. It may be necessary to postpone activity in that regard, although I am not making an announcement today.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is earning the admiration of the whole House by his willingness to give way, and also by the competence that he has displayed in answering a raft of questions.
  All of us with rural constituencies share the anxiety and apprehension of the farmers in those constituencies, but other businesses also depend on farming for their existence, not least small and medium-sized haulage businesses. I have received a communication from one such in my constituency, saying that if there are no movements of livestock within the next two or three weeks it will have to close its doors.
  Does the Minister understand that when people talk of consequential loss, they have in mind the possibility that the Government will at least consider the fate of businesses of that kind, and give some consideration to compensating them in due course?
  Mr. Brown: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. The livestock haulage business is a specialist business; it cannot find other markets easily. That is why I am working hard with officials, including the chief vet, to get the industry operating again. It will be able to do so only under licensed conditions—under controlled conditions. I will say something about that later, but it seems that the best way to give hope to the domestic livestock sector and to intermediary industries, including the abattoir and haulage sectors, is to get things working again in a way that does not involve a risk of spreading the disease. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it is possible to devise such arrangements for direct movement from farm to slaughterhouse as long as the animals do not meet other animals that will not be slaughtered.
  Mr. Drew: As always, agriculture problems seem to come in multitudes. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems with bovine tuberculosis. What effect is the latest problem having on operations in the trial areas? More particularly, will there will be a loss of personnel, which happened with the outbreak of classical swine fever? Action has been somewhat delayed.
  Mr. Brown: It is too early to tell what the long-term impact will be, but my hon. Friend is right. All veterinary resources that I have at my disposal at the minute are
  926
  focused on the elimination of foot and mouth disease. That is not to undermine the importance of the other tasks that we undertake in the Department.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall take all interventions because I understand how worrying this matter is to hon. Members and their constituents.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I have been contacted by a Mr. Fattorini, who farms in my constituency. His particular case concerns an auctioneer who goes to a farm to conduct a valuation and who, under current regulations and the ban on movement, is then not allowed to return to the mart for six days because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The question that has been put to me—if the Minister is not able to answer it immediately, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me—is, who should pay the fees for those six days?
  Mr. Brown: The one thing that I can say with some certainty—I know that the hon. Lady will not like the answer—is that it is almost certainly not the Government who should pay. I cannot give her a more comprehensive answer, but I will write to her and see if it is possible to establish a more focused response than that.
  Charlotte Atkins: Can my right hon. Friend give Mr. Bould, a long-established butcher in Leek, reassurance that movement of livestock to slaughter will soon he licensed, as it was in the 1967 outbreak, so that local butchers can continue to source from local livestock suppliers within Staffordshire, Moorlands and he can continue to provide local produce to customers, rather than having to resort to imports?
  Mr. Brown: I can in general terms give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. That is the purpose of the licensing schemes that the Government have announced and intend to introduce on Friday. We have announced them now, so that those in the trade can reflect on what they mean to them. They are at least in part private sector arrangements. I cannot predict the total take-up because everyone will make their own business decisions, but it is the Government's intention to devise schemes that help small and medium-sized businesses and that are not just focused on large farms and large slaughterhouses. That is why we are also considering the idea of holding pens.
  Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers want him, in addressing these movement issues, to put stopping the disease above everything else. He will also know that farmers would be happier if they felt that he was considering very carefully the issue of compensating farmers who are in the pig production chain and depend upon movement in it for their very existence. They—including many of my farmers—are facing a second experience of this type of situation in a very short time, and I believe that they would be better able to hold to addressing the pre-eminent issue—eradicating the disease—if he could I say something to give them some confidence that that there may be some help.
  Mr. Brown: I can say two things that I hope provide at least partial comfort to the right hon. Gentleman's

  927
  constituents, who have been through a tough time with the classical swine fever outbreak. First, I am very conscious of the welfare issues that arise very quickly because of the stratified nature of the pig sector, but can also arise more generally in agricultural production when movement is restricted. I am looking at that issue very hard. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the pig sector, but the point also applies to animals that are about to give birth, particularly in the current circumstances, when they are not in the ideal geographical location.
  The second thing that I hope will he of some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents is that I am trying hard, with all the other things Mat I have to do, to pay particular attention to the problems of the pig industry, which has been through tough times. I am also very conscious that, for reasons that we all understand, the normal European Union routes for helping agriculture do not work for the pig sector. I am considering ideas, including the suggestion by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, about other market intervention that might be of help.
  Such matters have to be thought about very carefully, and I cannot announce the introduction of a new scheme today. Please have my assurance, how ever, that I am not going to overlook the interests of those involved in the pig sector, particularly the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, who have been through such tough times.
  Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman may want to say a little more about licensing. However, in deciding which arrangements can be licensed, will he bear in mind the situation at the Malton bacon factory, for example, which is probably this country's biggest abattoir? Currently, 2,500 people are laid off, but many pig producers within 25 to 50 miles of Malton could benefit from the type of arrangement that he has suggested, which would allow the transport of animals ready for slaughter directly from farms to the abattoir. The alternative is not only serious damage to our pig production capacity—
  Mr. Boswell: What about the welfare issue?
  Mr. Greenway: Yes.
  Not only could there be damage to production capacity, and further difficulties heaped on the problems of classical swine fever, but domestic product could be replaced by imports. That could not be in the interests of any part of our own meat business or in those of consumers.
  Mr. Brown: I will get British product moving again for the purpose of providing for our domestic market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is nothing that I could do to help the pig sector more than getting it moving again. However, as he also knows, no farm species is more vulnerable to foot and mouth disease than pigs. Not only does it seem to affect them in a particularly virulent way, but they pump it out more than other animals do.
  Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is being very helpful. May I bring him back to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Pife (Mr. Campbell) about livestock hauliers—many of whom were already in
  928
  a parlous state before this episode of foot and mouth? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was helpful in that he recognised that that is a specialist haulage sector, for which other markets are not easily available. However, does he also recognise that the specialist drivers who are engaged in that business would be difficult to replace if those companies go out of business in the short term? Will he therefore ensure that either he or one of his colleagues sits round the table with representatives of the livestock hauliers and Ministers from both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury? Cross-departmental initiatives could and must be taken to preserve the livestock haulage industry, which is desperately important.
  Mr. Brown: Meetings are, of course, taking place across Government, and yesterday's ministerial meeting presided over by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was significant among them. I cannot promise direct financial assistance to the sector about which the hon. Gentleman asks, but he is right to emphasise the specialist skills of those drivers. My plan is to get them back to work and make use of their specialist knowledge in ensuring that the effect of the crucial licensing regime, combined with responsible handling of the animals, is maximised. That is especially important when animals are being moved to a holding area rather than to an abattoir.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend will be aware that foot and mouth disease has been confirmed in my constituency. Does he know what movements of cattle trucks there may have been at the farm involved? Are the vehicles' routes being tracked back? Are the vehicles being checked, and fully and professionally cleaned?
  Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he so properly seeks. There is an enormous amount of work to be undertaken by the veterinary authorities, but every vehicle is being checked. All point-of-slaughter records at abattoirs are being checked, as are all market records, and the latter takes an enormous amount of work. Checking is also being conducted on a farm-by-farm basis.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the Minister on his extremely helpful response to the debate. Will he confirm that there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland? Does he agree that farmers and other folk must not be complacent about moving around the Scottish countryside just because there has been no outbreak there?
  The Prime Minister touched on the question of the disinfectant supply. He said that disinfectant was being produced but that difficulties were being experienced in getting it to certain areas. I know that the supply has run out in part of Argyll. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about that?
  Mr. Brown: In response to her question about disinfectant, I can tell the hon. Lady that we will make an order this afternoon to add 35 disinfectants to the approved list. That administrative act will ensure that supplies of substances that are effective in this context increase dramatically. In general there is sufficient disinfectant, but the problem is that it is not in the right

  929
  place. We have asked the trade to establish a website setting out where disinfectant is located, so that those who need it will be able to order it direct.
  The hon. Lady asked about Scotland's present disease-free status. I want that status to be maintained. I am working closely with Ross Finnie, and my veterinary authorities are working closely with their counterparts in Scotland. Our best hope of defeating the disease lies in there being a close working relationship between the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government.
  If it is possible to make an early bid for disease-free status for part of the UK—Northern Ireland is probably the strongest candidate—I am willing to grant that status, as long the claim can be substantiated with the European Union. However, the hon. Lady probably knows that there are substantial movements of animals—especially sheep—between Northumberland and Scotland. Although I hope that Scotland remains disease free, it is too early to say with complete assurance that it will. We are doing everything possible to eradicate the disease throughout the United Kingdom, and I am grateful for the help and support that we are getting from the authorities in Scotland.
  Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for his kindness and courtesy in taking so many interventions. Mr. Tom Fare is a very worried pig farmer in my constituency. Like many others, he would be most grateful if the Minister would return to a point that he made earlier and say a little more about the work being done to track down the disease's true origins, rather than simply where it started. A number of rumours are swirling around about whether it was caused by imported meat or swill from airports, schools or goodness knows where. The answer to that question will determine our strategy in defending ourselves from this scourge in the future.
  My constituent also asks whether, when the immediate crisis has passed, the Minister will give consideration to launching a national exercise to assess whether we have abattoirs in the right places and in the right numbers.
  Mr. Brown: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman quite the response that he wants about abattoirs. However, he is right that it is essential to understand how this virus—and, indeed, the classical swine fever virus—got into our country. We have been free of it for something like 20 years, and it is absolutely certain that it has not been hibernating here in the United Kingdom. It got into the United Kingdom from somewhere else, and I will have more to say about that later.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I support everything that my right hon. Friend has done, including closing footpaths and stopping people walking on open land, but the effect on the tourist industry in Cumbria could be drastic. We are fortunate in the Lake district that things are quite quiet at present, but if the ban continues over Easter and into the summer, the tourist industry will suffer great devastation. Many of those affected will be farmers who have diversified into tourism. Will my right hon. Friend talk to his colleagues about help for those people?
  As for the export of dairy products, a factory in my constituency makes a considerable amount of milk powder. Obviously, because of the heat treatment of the
  930
  milk powder, there is no threat to anyone, but at present there is a ban. Will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food give priority to lifting the ban on exports, not only to European Union countries but to other countries where the company sends its products? If the factory cannot continue to manufacture, that will create another problem for our farmers.
  Mr. Brown: MAFF officials are having close discussions with EU officials and individual member states about the extent and proportionality of the ban. Although I cannot make any immediate announcement, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working closely with others on the problems that he highlights. Depending on how circumstances develop, it may be possible to do something that would help his constituents further on. However, much depends on the scale of the problem and on our ability to bear down on it. No countries will allow foot and mouth disease in, to infect their national flocks and herds, and we do not allow it in here either.
  My hon. Friend is right about farm diversification. That is why we are taking very tough measures now, in the hope that we can prevent the spread of the disease with the movement restrictions, contain it with quarantine, and then eliminate it with our slaughter policy. In other words, I hope that this will not be a protracted episode; that is what we are trying hard to avoid. However, I cannot make that promise to the House today.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I, like many others, have a farmer in my constituency who has made urgent representations to me about the imminent impact of the 30-month limit on prime beef cattle that he now cannot move to market. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about that problem?
  Mr. Brown: I am trying to put movement arrangements in place so that prime animals can move again, although under strict conditions. That requires a response from the private sector. The best thing that I can do for the hon. Gentleman's constituents is to get the supply chain moving again without spreading the disease. Both are important, and if a priority has to be chosen, it is to prevent the spread of the disease.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier plea about the plight of the small abattoir in my constituency—the only one in Hampshire—and I hope that he will be able to say something about that.
  When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the details of his licensing arrangements, will he also take into account the needs of a very new company in my constituency that doing fantastic work in producing porcine collagen for medical purposes? The company needs 30 or 40 skins a week to satisfy demand, and it has no more supply. If the Minister could take that into account when considering the licensing arrangements, it would be greatly appreciated.
  Mr. Brown: We are trying to deal with a number of specialist issues; the hon. Gentleman rightly mentions one of them. I do not want to give him an absolute assurance because my first priority is to ensure that anything I allow to move—even under licence—does not risk spreading the disease. However, subject to that, I will ask MAFF

  931
  officials to look into the specific issue that he raises. First, I will write to him setting out the exact circumstances that prevail and why. Secondly, I will see whether we can do anything to help his constituents who are employed in that specialist area of activity.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have transferred from MAFF's budget a sum of money to the Department of Health—in essence, to the Meat Hygiene Service—with a view to underpinning the veterinary costs involved in the operation of small abattoirs. It is my intention that the changes in movement patterns that I announced yesterday should be of advantage to small operators as well as large ones. It is slightly harder to arrange that, but it is the Government's intention; we want to help all the people involved to get some movement into their businesses—even if that cannot be in normal trading circumstances.
  I have taken many interventions; I know that that is not conventional, even for agriculture debates. I am aware of how many Members on both sides of the House want to make representations on behalf of their constituents and to do the right thing by them in difficult and rapidly changing circumstances. However, I shall now move on to the set piece of my text, as it contains information that I know the House will want to have.
  I have urged the public to exercise responsibility and to avoid all unnecessary visits to farms and farmland. However, where such visits are unavoidable, procedures for disinfection should be followed in order to reduce the risk of transmitting the disease from farm to farm. That advice seems simple and straightforward, and I urge everybody to listen carefully and to follow it. I am grateful for the responsible approach that has been taken by farmers, the general public and Close responsible for organising sporting events and other large gatherings in the countryside. That includes organisations with which I do not otherwise agree.
  Unfortunately, not everyone is following the advice that we have given, so local authorities have been given powers to declare prohibited areas and to close footpaths and rights of way in and around farmland. I understand that Dartmoor and Exmoor national parks have been closed to the public. That is right. I urge local authorities to prosecute people who insist on arguing about those measures. We are beyond argument the measures are necessary in order to control the disease.
  Of course, the most important measure for controlling the disease is the ban on animal movements. On the advice of the chief veterinary officer, we will be extending the controlled area measures, including the ban on livestock movements within Great Britain, for two more weeks from 2 March. We may then need to consider further movement restrictions—I know that that is unwelcome news. At present we just do not know, but if it is necessary, we shall have to do it.
  At the same time, we are working up details of the schemes that we have discussed whereby healthy animals can go direct from the farm to an abattoir, under strictly controlled conditions, to supply the food chain. That will go ahead only if the chief veterinary officer advises me that such arrangements are fully compatible with controlling the disease outbreak. Details of the scheme are being worked up in conjunction with representatives of the livestock industry, and I plan to announce further details on Friday.
  932
  I am also considering whether it would be safe to have licensed collection centres for animals going for slaughter. However, the Government cannot reopen livestock markets generally at this stage. In that context, I am considering what can be done to help with the range of problems associated with the operation of the over-30-months scheme.
  We are liaising closely with the Commission and our European Union partners. The Standing Veterinary Committee extended the export ban on UK livestock and products for a further week to 9 March. The committee will meet again on Tuesday 6 March to take stock of the situation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the EU. The Government welcome that approach. I would prefer the necessary control measures to be renewed short period by short period, as that would provide an opportunity at each stage to review them and to respond quickly to emerging and, I hope, improving circumstances.
  As the House would expect, the Government's immediate and overriding priority is the control and eradication of the disease. However, epidemiological investigations into the source are continuing. That brings me to the question that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) perfectly properly asked me earlier. There was no known foot and mouth disease in the EU, which suggests that the source was outside the EU. There are strict controls banning imports from areas where foot and mouth disease is endemic. Imports from such a source would be illegal.
  There is no special reason to believe that the disease was imported from South Africa. South Africa has in place a ban on exports from infected areas, and in any case, the United Kingdom introduced measures to prohibit South African imports before similar EU measures were introduced.
  I can confirm to the House—this goes to the root of the right hon. Gentleman's question—that the earliest outbreak of the disease was that confirmed in pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on Friday last week. Veterinary inspection suggests that the disease was present in the pigs for up to two weeks before it was notified by the farmer to MAFF veterinary staff. An investigation is under way and, partly for legal reasons, I am unable to give the House any further details.
  When the disease has been brought under control, I shall want to examine carefully the implications that increased world travel, the globalisation of agricultural trade and modern farming methods have on disease control. I have asked for an examination of the current enforcement and control measures.
  Farm incomes have been severely depressed for four years. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease means further serious hardship for a very large number of farmers and their families. There are serious impacts on farmers whose animals must be slaughtered and on those whose businesses are disrupted by the movement restrictions necessary to control and isolate the disease.
  The Government are doing all we can to help. Farmers whose animals must be slaughtered as a disease control measure are compensated to the full market value of their stock. In addition, I announced yesterday that the Government plan to draw down the full amount of agrimonetary compensation available for livestock farmers. That amounts to a total of about £170 million, of which £16 million is the compulsory element that has

  933
  previously been announced. That brings the total amount of agrimonetary compensation paid under the Government to £786 million since the last election.
  To benefit pig farmers, I plan to open a second round of the outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme, bringing forward money already announced and allocated for future financial years. Although I cannot make a further announcement today, I am carefully considering what else might be done to help the pig sector. I promise to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, and I am mindful of the other interventions that I have taken in this debate.
  Mr. James Paice: I want to ask the Minister about the pig outgoers scheme and the announcement that he made yesterday. He introduced that scheme to deal with the serious crisis that existed in the pig industry until about a year ago. However, last autumn or late summer, he introduced the pig industry development scheme, which we shall debate in Committee tomorrow. That scheme was aimed at the problems caused to pig farmers caught in the swine fever outbreak who could not move their pigs off the farm. That operation, rather than the outgoers scheme, seems much more analogous to the current position. It is perfectly understandable that the Minister is shopping around his budget and looking for some money to use, but will he explain why he is using the outgoers scheme, not the development scheme, to help the industry?
  Mr. Brown: There is a long history to this issue, and I fought to get the scheme in place before the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia occurred. I had the money from the Treasury, but not the approval of the Commission. Both elements were necessary to get the scheme under way, but the other parties tried to attach a whole range of conditions to it.
  My immediate purpose is to try to help people who, because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, are wondering again about their long-term commitment to the industry, and who have not bid for the first round of the outgoers scheme, but who might now like to do so. I am not saying that there are people in those circumstances; I genuinely do not know. However, if there are, they will be among the most worried, and they might suddenly like to find an exit route. It is to help them that I have managed to get permission from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw some moneys forward.
  That does not mean that I have stopped thinking about the rest of the industry. However, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) knows, although we have gone through the most terrible downturn in trade, with incomes falling below the costs of production—that is not sustainable in the longer term—prospects for the sector are looking up. We have all worked hard to bring that about, and individual farmers making business decisions might not find the scheme an attractive option, or may prefer to wait until they see how the condition—it is not an epidemic—emerges in the national herds and flocks. It may be significant—I say, touching wood—that the latest cases, with all the attendant difficulties, involve cattle and sheep but not pigs.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has treated the House in an exemplary
  934
  manner this afternoon, and that is widely recognised. I hope that he will have sensed that the House wants to help him. Because many of his answers will of necessity be tentative—he cannot of be definitive about many issues—will he assure the House that he will keep us regularly informed? Will he give thought to the idea of producing a newsletter perhaps once a week for Members of Parliament, so that we know what is happening and he can keep us updated?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I accept that I am under an obligation to keep the House regularly informed; all Ministers are accountable to the House. I will consider what more we can do to keep Men bers of Parliament informed as this rapidly changing situation develops. I intend to write to Members with front-line advice that will help them to deal with individual constituency inquiries, but a bulletin that sets out progress and is available to Members might also help. I will have a hard look at that suggestion and come back to the hon. Gentleman with a definitive answer.
  Private storage aid has been mentioned. I have said that we shall consider that, as it might be a way forward. I am raising a range of issues with Commissioner Fischler, who I know will try to help. All sorts of anomalies arise with the administration of the European Union support schemes, and they require the good will of the Commission in these difficult circumstances. However, it is right that I should report to the House that I found nothing but sympathy and good will from Ministers, the presidency and the Commission when I addressed them at the Council meeting late on Monday night.
  Those who hold ministerial office realise what a difficult and intractable problem this is. The expressions of good will have teen given practical effect by offers from our European Union partners of extra veterinary assistance should the chief veterinary officer need to call on it. He can call not only on the resources of the European Union, but on those of our major trading partners worldwide.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I echo what has been said about the Minister's response today. Will he ask the Commissioner to consider the issues that affect smaller abattoirs with low throughput? The Minister will recall that I have met him with several delegations to discuss the issues that affect smaller abattoirs, and I note that the Minister for the Environment has said today that special help will be given to them in future.
  Given the number of smaller abattoirs that have disappeared—to be fair. I must add that that happened under his predecessors rather than while he has been in office—will the Minister consider particularly the issue of locality? It is not just the size of the abattoirs but their location that has caused the problem. The fact that animals have to travel long distances has undoubtedly accentuated the difficulties that we now face. Will he consider that specific issue?
  Mr. Brown: Even in this day and age, there are many abattoirs between Northumberland, where the original outbreak started, and Essex. It was necessary for the animals to travel such a long distance because of the specialist nature of the abattoir trade. It is not the last journey that is the most dangerous, because the animals are isolated from other livestock when they go to

  935
  slaughter. The virus is breathed out, and animals cease to breathe once they are slaughtered, so the danger of spreading the disease is much reduced, although not entirely removed.
  There are other public policy reasons why one might want to support the small abattoir sector. We are addressing those across Departments. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has said. In addition, the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing with the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service is also relevant. My immediate task is to devise a movement scheme that encompasses not just the large operators, but the small and medium-sized sector too, so that they have hope for the future. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything that I can to achieve that objective.
  Mr. Gill: In response to a parliamentary question in November, the Minister of State said:
  "we are not aware that animal welfare has been in any way compromised by longer journey times from farm to slaughter."—[Official Report, 24 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 325W.]
  Is that still the Government's view?
  Mr. Brown: Yes. We carry out inspections, and individual abuses are sometimes found, but journey times and patterns conform with the regulatory regime. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am trying to get that tightened, but it is a matter for European Union law.
  We are also in contact with the clearing banks to discuss the issue of cash flow to farm businesses affected by the disease outbreak. The clearing banks are interested in our assessment. I cannot be as certain as I should like to be, but the announced intention to draw down not just the compulsory part of the agrimonetary scheme but a much larger discretionary element will have a significant impact on our discussions. However, I cannot give a commitment on compensation for other losses in the supply chain. I do not want to mislead people by holding out the prospect of another source of financial aid. The best help that I can give is to control and eradicate the disease as soon as possible.
  I want to add a caveat: the Government are keeping a close eye on the implications for farm animal welfare. Given the experience of the classical swine fever outbreak last summer, it is clear to everyone involved that an important issue is at stake. I hope that we do not have to reconsider it, but I alert the House to the fact that we may.

  The Government's priority is to control and eradicate the disease. The licensing of movement between farms and abattoirs from the end of this week will begin to get the haulage business, the abattoirs am the food processors that use British food products back to work. We all want that to happen.
  I am grateful for the tone of the Opposition motion, with which I fully agree. I am also grateful for the measured way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House—who are, of course, worried on behalf of their constituents—have put their questions. This is a serious issue for our country. I hope that we can unite to support the necessary control measures and, by working together, eradicate the disease. Once that is done, we can take a close interest in how the outbreak started and what extra measures are necessary to prevent it from happening
  936
  again. We need to get our industry back to working normally and to restore our country's high reputation for having an enduring disease-free status.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I, too, welcome the Minister's contribution. I welcome also the constructive opposition evident in the tone and content of the Conservative motion, which has enabled us all to debate the issue.
  Almost a fortnight ago hon. Members discussed the aftermath of BSE; I do not think that any of us thought that we would be debating the serious issue of foot and mouth only days later. The BSE crisis led to the Phillips report, which made me think about the lessons that we might have learned from the 1967 epidemic of foot and mouth disease and the single outbreak on the Isle of Wight in 1981. Hon. Members have referred to incidents of the disease in Europe, such as that in Greece only a year ago.
  It is inconceivable that, following those incidents, nothing was done and no reports were commissioned to consider the way in which the spread of disease was changing along with the patterns of farming and trading. Indeed, it has come to my attention that the European Commission published an agriculture report entitled "Animal health and related problems in densely populated livestock areas of the Community", which detailed the proceedings of a workshop held in Brussels on 22 November 1994—quite some time ago. I will not quote large chunks of the report, but I hope that officials and others will take the opportunity to re-read it because Phillips taught us that we must look back to see what lessons could have been learned and what measures could have been taken.
  There are some telling paragraphs in the report's conclusions and recommendations. Under the heading "The problem", the report says:
  "This means that despite the immediate economic advantages, high density areas may prove to be unsustainable in the long term."
  It goes on to say:
  "Good management has a significant role to play in preventing the entry of infection into units and in avoiding the worst consequences".
  It further says:
  "The present trade in animals poses great risks to the sanitary situation,"
  and suggests ways in which those risks might be reduced.
  Perhaps most telling is the paragraph on long-term solutions, which says:
  "The environmental pollutions and disease epidemics that are being encountered in dense livestock areas are but symptoms of a more deep-seated structural malaise. This can only be solved in a systems approach that encompasses animal health, environmental and economic components … The European Commission is asked to ensure that research is coordinated so that the animal health, economic and environmental aspects are brought together in a comprehensive strategy.
  In the long term, the risks posed by dense livestock areas can only be reduced by some measure of restructuring achieved through self-regulation, economic incentives or, in the last resort, by legislation. All these avenues should be explored."
  I do not know whether any of those avenues have been explored, but as that workshop was held almost six and a half years ago perhaps someone decided that we ought to examine the issues. One might postulate that if there had

  937
  been some such activity, we might have been able to put preventive measures in place. This island nation could, perhaps, protect itself from disease better than any other part of the European Community.
  I do not want those remarks to divert attention from the No. 1 priority, which is to find the source of the outbreak, to contain it and to eradicate it as soon as possible. Like others, I am concerned about whether we have the resources—not financial but human—to deal with the whole problem. Experienced vets have to be in an enormous number of places. If the spread of foot and mouth disease continues, vets will be able to continue for a while but they will be working a tremendous number of hours. I wonder whether we shall have the necessary human resources to undertake all the controls and inspections.
  Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. The state veterinary service and private sector vets are working long hours and extraordinarily hard to try to get the epidemic under control—the condition under control. It does not yet have epidemic status.
  The question that the hon. Gentleman asks is one that I put daily to the chief vet, Jim Scudamore. I have said to him on behalf of the Government that if he needs extra resources and needs to recruit extra vets, he should do so. He knows that that is the position. At present, he says that he has the resources that he needs, or is getting them. We have had generous offers of help from our European Union partners and from our trading partners more widely.
  Mr. Breed: I am extremely grateful for that news. It might be an appropriate moment to congratulate the chief vet on the way in which he is handling the mechanics and logistics and on his openness, honesty and balanced communications through the media, which have significantly reduced panic.
  One of the issues is the growth of what might be called dealers. I am talking about farmers and dealers and even abattoirs and dealers, and the way in which animals are moved. Only today, one of the farmers in my constituency, Mr. Martin, who farms near Mount Edgecumbe, told me that he bought a suckler calf in a market about a couple of weeks ago. When he received the paperwork, he was astounded to learn that the calf had been through two farms and three markets in the previous four weeks. That is extraordinary. The calf had travelled a long way before Mr. Martin bought it. He was not aware of that at the time. That highlights the fact that animals are tradeable commodities.
  If an animal is going through several markets, it is incurring additional costs, such as transport costs, commission costs and auctioneers' fees. Those charges add cost to the animal, and none of that is coming back to the farmer. It is all being dissipated at a distance from the primary producer. If some of the money were part of the profit on the animal for the fanner, we would not be facing some of the current problems.
  I know that, in a way, dealers underpin the market. They sometimes provide fluidity and liquidity, but they have a serious effect that needs to be considered by the Ministry.
  938
  Compensation is on many people's minds. They are fearful, and much of that fear relates to the fact that they are losing money every day. The industry has gone through a period of intensification and specialisation. The opportunities for farmers and others—we have heard already about hauliers—to derive income in other ways is much diminished. They are specialist suppliers for a specialist industry. The intensification and specialisation of the industry to achieve economies of scale have driven away multi-providers. That is the significant difference between now and the past, when consequential losses were not considered because there were opportunities to make money elsewhere. Those opportunities no longer exist, and that should focus the Government's mind.
  We have talked about the over-30-months scheme. The sooner that we can deal with animals that might be caught up in it, the better.
  With regard to consequential loss, I shall quote from a couple of letters, which are heartfelt. The first is from a farmer in South Mol on, who writes:
  "As a sixth generation Exmoor farmer with a young family, it is extremely hard to describe the terror, worry and sheer anxiety that this foot and mouth outbreak is causing my immediate family. I run both beef and sheep and am not afraid of hard work. Firstly, I live downwind, albeit 35 miles from the Hatherleigh cluster of outbreaks. Secondly, my partner still works in her father's livestock haulage business so we can attempt to have a decent lifestyle. This would have brought her innocently in contact with other livestock."
  Those are some of the worries that our constituents are experiencing.
  The letter continues:
  "If any good is to come out of this potential disaster for family farmers, rural communities and ultimately the whole country, it must be that we, as a nation, need to regain control of our food chain. This means we need to feed ourselves with high quality, local produce. The distance between slaughter, in the case of meat, and consumption needs to be as small as possible. This may take time and encouragement as our level of production has been cut back to such low levels we are now incapable of feeding ourselves."
  The second letter is from a haulier, who states:
  "As a long established family firm (four generations), this is causing unimaginable financial and mental stress on everybody concerned. We are dedicated livestock hauliers and cannot turn to other work. As an example, we have not got or have time to obtain the necessary certificate to move fertiliser, not that anybody wants a livestock haulier driving around their farm or business at this time."
  The letter goes on:
  "All our staff cannot he laid off for 90 days, not that we want to…With 20 employees our weekly basic wage is in the region of £5000. With no income this obviously cannot continue for any length of time. The state of agriculture was bad enough with bad debts running at record levels, before this current problem. I am concerned that consequential loss compensation is not being considered by government for ancillary trades."
  Those letters graphically describe the fears and worries of those who are operating in a specialist area where there is no opportunity for other income to be raised.
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was surprised to learn that another group affected are pelagic fishermen, whom most people would not see as immediate victims of the foot and mouth outbreak. At a time when the mackerel fishery is becoming important, the Russian Government have decided to ban the import of fish as a precaution. I hope that MAFF will do all it can to persuade the Russian Government to be a little more rational about food safety.
  Mr. Breed: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am sure that the Minister has taken note.

  939
  On the situation as it affects pigs, I remind the Minister that we had a successful pig welfare disposal scheme last year, following the swine fever outbreak. Perhaps a similar scheme should be reactivated in the current situation.
  Finally, I was surprised to read that the Government may even be considering vaccination—
  Mr. Brown: On the basis of professional advice and pleadings from the entire industry, the Government are not considering vaccination, although we have stocks of vaccine, of course. The European Union has enormous stocks of vaccine, to which it would allow us access if necessary, but to compromise permanently our disease-free status by using vaccines would eradicate much of our export business and would have a deleterious effect on the long-term future of the livestock sector, so we will not use vaccines.
  Mr. Breed: I am delighted to heir that. If we, as an island nation, with the obvious barrier of the sea, cannot protect ourselves and retain our disease-free status, it would be a bad show. No doubt the suggestion originated from some of our French colleagues, as France is one of the largest producers of the vaccine and they may have seen a ready market.
  The Government's message must he clearly stated. We were disease free for many years, and we must return to that situation. Such protections that were in force, and should have been in force, must be reinforced if we are to ensure that, once this terrible outbreak has been conquered, we do not become susceptible to it ever again.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: It is appropriate that the House should not today debate transport policy, other than the statement that is to be made later. I am pretty sure that, one way or another, some of my constituents will have been involved in the terrible accident that took place this morning. My thoughts and sympathies are with the injured and the families who have suffered fatalities

  The debate has provided an opportunity for a useful question-and-answer session. During Monday's statement, some doubt was expressed about whether the House could pull together on this serious matter affecting not only the countryside but the whole country. Today's debate, the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister has given way so generously and hon. Members' serious questions show a change of tone, which I hope we shall be able to sustain. Few who are involved in the issue believe that it will disappear tomorrow, next week, or even next month. If the House is to give the country a lead, we must, wherever possible, avoid unnecessary political division, however difficult that might be.
  The Minister is a colleague of mine from Newcastle upon Tyne and I have the highest admiration for the way in which he is leading his team in tackling this terrible disease. Everyone to whom I have spoken in the farming and the urban communities has the highest regard for the dedication and determination with which my right hon. Friend has conducted his business curing the past weeks and before.
  I do not usually take part in agriculture debates in the House. I was brought up in a part mining, part agricultural community. There was a farm opposite my railway house
  940
  and I remember the previous outbreak in the 1960s and its impact on the community. However, since then I have tended to wander into industrial and urban landscapes. My constituency on the west and north-west of Newcastle upon Tyne is essentially an urban constituency, with 99 per cent. of the people living an urban or suburban life, but the largest land area in my constituency is farmland.
  Many of the farms in my constituency are what I would call nouveau farms—not the typical farm where the farm owner and farm workers live on the farm. That is becoming less typical in many more traditional agricultural areas, but in my constituency many farms are contracting farms where the land is owned by a third party, a farm business in another part of the country, and a contractor manages the farm business. The dangers and difficulties in that become all too obvious in the situation that we now face.
  The farm where it is alleged that the outbreak began straddles my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). Most of the farm buildings are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and much of the land is in mine.
  The second farm that has been infected at Black Callerton is almost entirely in my constituency. The farm owner has just taken over from his father, who died recently. He is a well-known and respected agriculturalist in the community of south Northumberland and north-west Newcastle upon Tyne. It is a tragedy that his farm has been affected by the events of the past week.
  Last Sunday evening, there was a big bonfire on Burnside farm, which is a few hundred metres or less from the A69, just outside the urban area of Newcastle. Carcases were piled high and the flames went higher; 70 tonnes of coal were used to attempt to burn away the disease, producing a terribly acrid smell across the surrounding farmland. It was extremely traumatic to witness the event. Its impact on the lives of young people who saw it, whether they came from the farming community, perhaps in Heddon-on-the-Wall, or some of the other traditionally industrial villages in my constituency, such as Throckley, Lemmington and Newburn, will last for ever.
  From all those locations, one could see the flames and get the impression of what was happening. It was bad that people had to suffer the event, but there was some benefit. It demonstrated to the local community the seriousness of the situation that we face. As it was well covered on television, it also showed the gravity of the situation to a wider community within the country. That probably helped a lot of people who might otherwise have needed a bit more persuasion to understand what needed to be done. It was unfortunate for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hexham that they were nearer the fire and felt more of the impact, but it will none the less raise public consciousness of the seriousness of the disease.
  I do not like to be a historian unnecessarily, but I think that there is a need for more public education than has previously been provided. In 1960–61, when a major outbreak lasted six months, it was only seven years after rationing and only 15 years or less since war controls had been in place, so there was public understanding of the need to play by the rules in times of national emergency. I am not so sure that our community is as prepared now. We have a public education duty to explain that the

  941
  current situation is serious and can affect the whole country and beyond. We must explain why it should be tackled with that sense of gravity.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has relieved some of our fears and dealt with some of the genuine points that have been made. I should like as succinctly as possible to outline the themes that should be reinforced as part of the public education that I have described. First, we must continually emphasise the need to tackle the problem as it exists. We must all be prepared to do what is necessary to make our contribution, whether farmers are marooned on their land, businesses cannot conduct their activities as they wish or people cannot travel to the areas that they normally visit for whatever purposes, be they recreational or otherwise. We must take the necessary measures and stress continually that all must play their part if we are to tackle the disease as speedily as possible.
  Secondly, people are asking a question that I raised in Question Time on Monday: "How could this possibly have happened in our community? We thought that foot and mouth disease had gone, so what has happened to allow it to recur?" As a political community, in the Government or the House, we must reassure the public that everything has been done to get to the root cause. We must use the best scientific advice and investigatory powers to find out why Burnside farm, on the edge of my constituency, was probably the source. Where did the disease come from? How did it get there?
  Lots of rumours are flying about Tyneside: perhaps the swill was not dealt with properly on the farm, or poisoned or infected food may have got into it. There is an international airport nearby. Did the swill come from there? All those questions are being asked by local people and the farming community will be well aware of the need to identify how the disease got to Heddon. If we can find that out, we shall be much better able to trace what happened afterwards and find out how the secondary infection began. We must do so to raise public confidence.
  The agriculture industry has suffered in recent times because of unforeseen and previously unexperienced events such as the terrible problem of BSE. Now it has to deal with foot and mouth on top of that. It must try to re-establish its credibility with the public, and we have a responsibility and a duty to help it to do so. For that reason, we must identify the source of the infection, although my right hon. Friend the Minister may face another issue in discussions with the European Union.
  Although the outbreak began in the United Kingdom, and even though we have taken unilateral action with the co-operation and support of the EU, we cannot predict what will happen. We do not know the extent of the spread of the infection. We do not know how many EU countries will become involved. We do not know what the extent of that involvement will be or what relationship those countries have with their suppliers in other parts of the world.
  The EU will probably become involved farther down the line in the way in which we resolve a number of matters such as how we put in place measures to try to prevent what has happened at Heddon-on-the-Wall and elsewhere from happening again and the eventual relaxation of controls in this country and perhaps in others. It may also become involved in how we consider
  942
  compensation, who should qualify for it and who should pay for it. We shall probably become more and more involved with the EU when we deal with such issues, unless the outbreak is curtailed quickly. Although we all want it to be curtailed I as quickly as possible, I doubt that it will be.
  We must be prepared to take action for a sustainable period. A constituent asked me how long that might be, but I do not know and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend the Minister and the scientists know. We should consider the pattern of the major infections of 1960–61 and 1967: it was impossible to predict when we would reach the critical point at which the graph would dip, the extent of the spread would begin to reduce and the measures put in place to counter that spread could be relaxed.
  We may not be aware of the critical point until we have passed it, and dealing with such a crisis is like climbing a mountain: we may have reached the first peak, but we will not know how many peaks we have to tackle until we reach the final one—the summit. We may get convincing scientific documentation and opinion that shows that the situation is beginning to improve only after we have passed that critical point, which we cannot predict. My reading about previous major infections suggests that we perhaps have better controls in place, so we should get a grip and control the spread of the disease more quickly. However, we are in the hands of the gods in many ways.
  Another priority for the House is a quick return to normality for farmers. Those in Newcastle and in Northumberland will welcome Friday's statement on putting into practice new licensing arrangements to allow, where possible, sound animals to be taken to the marketplace. That represents a first step back to normality; we shall expect others to be taken in due course.
  I understand that the current compensation scheme has been in place for many years. It might be useful if the Ministry considered whether it should be reviewed. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the effect on the tourist industry in the Lake district. Is there a case for helping that industry? In my area of Northumberland, the wall generates a sizeable tourist industry in summer, and must provide access for many hundreds of thousands of people if it is to remain viable. Clearly that activity will be curtailed if this dreadful infection persists into the spring, with financial consequences for many who are involved.
  I think that the public will rally if we can convince them of the seriousness of the situation. The farming community knows how serious it is, but the public have to be convinced. It is important for the House to give them a lead, and we can best do that by backing sensible measures taken by Government. I do not mean to be obsequious to the Government—I assure you that I am not that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; not even to my right hon. Friend the Minister—but I believe that we must give that support. It will involve accountability on the Government's part, however, so that questions can be asked about the way in which the situation is developing, and about progress or investigation and curtailment. Such questions will be asked here on a number of occasions in the coming months.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. With the leave of the House, and given the special circumstances that overhang the debate, I call the Minister to make a short statement.
  Mr. Nick Brown: With the leave a the House, I wish to report further cases of foot and mouth disease.
  As of 5.30 pm, the total number of cases in the United Kingdom is 26. There are two further cases, in Warwickshire and Chelmsford. We have already traced links with earlier sources: the Warwickshire case is linked by transport to the seventh outbreak, in Devon. The link with the Chelmsford outbreak has not yet been traced, but the farm is contiguous with the site of an earlier case. The Warwickshire outbreak involves 80 sheep and 220 cattle; on the Chelmsford holding, 600 sheep and two pigs are affected.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I thank the Minister for his statement. It underlines the gravity of this outbreak and, sadly, the fear that it may continue for some time.
  Let me begin by declaring an interest. As the Register of Members' Interests states, I am a non-executive director of two companies that are inevitably involved in the problem: Associated British Foods and Uniq. However, I shall speak mainly on behalf of the agriculture industry and farmers. As the Minister knows, I represent not only a major agricultural area, but one of the country's key pig-farming areas, which was heavily affected by classical swine fever. I am grateful for the Minister's acknowledgement of the plight of the pig sector.
  I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has approached the debate. As one who knows how difficult it is to deal with these issues, I pay tribute to the comprehensive and understanding, way in which he is handling them. He will know that he has the support of the whole House. He certainly has my support in all the measures that he is taking. Before I came to the two main points that I want to make, let me refer to two of those measures briefly—they have already been dealt with at some length.
  The first is in relation to disinfectant. I am getting the same reports as everyone else: there is a real worry that disinfectant is still not getting through to where it is needed. Obviously, if there are more outbreaks such as those that the Minister has just announced, that becomes a more important issue. I know that he is paying attention to that matter and I am grateful for his announcement earlier, but it will be a key issue.
  The second is in relation to the licensed slaughter scheme, which I understand the Minister intends to announce on Friday. He put the point fairly—I am paraphrasing his words, not quoting—when he said that the issue was to get the supply chain moving without compromising the eradication of the disease. Although I fully understand the desire to get the supply chain moving, as that would deal with many issues, including the demands of the supermarkets, I hope that he will err on the side of caution. From my awareness of some of the issues and complications involved, it may take him more than two days. I would not mind if it did. I am well aware of some of the issues and it could easily go wrong. I am sure that the whole industry would prefer to have an absolutely cast-iron scheme than to move too quickly.
  944
  In that context, the Minister said that he had had discussions with representatives of the livestock industry; I know that he has had discussions with the National Farmers Union. My understanding, as of lunchtime today, was that one of the chief executives of a major processing firm and abattoir had not yet been consulted. As he might be exactly the sort of person who will be heavily involved in the practical implementation of the scheme, perhaps the Minister should look at that matter and consider whether to consult more widely.
  I can cover my two main points briefly because so much has been said already. In both the points, I aim to strengthen the Minister's hand in what he is trying to do. The first is on compensation. Of course, I welcome the announcements on the agrimonetary compensation payments and on the acceleration of the pig outgoers scheme, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) brought out well, in the light of the effects of sterling on the agricultural industry, the agrimonetary compensation payments should have been in place anyway and were designed for a different purpose.
  It is helpful that the Minister has been able to get the Treasury to agree to the pig outgoers scheme now. That may not have been possible without the current crisis. Nevertheless, we must remember what the scheme was designed for. It does not help much in these circumstances. As the Minister knows—it may be one of the reasons why he has been able to accelerate the scheme—the take-up has not been great, so not much money has been involved. Therefore, although both those initiatives are helpful, more may need to be done.
  As a former Chief Secretary as well as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I can see the hand of the Treasury in the two announcements that have been made. In both cases, the schemes are very limited: the costs are ring-fenced. There has been great pressure for one of them already; the other is simply an acceleration of a scheme.
  I shall make a plea to the Minister—I hope that I am strengthening his hand. In his statement on Monday, he kept saying in relation to any proposals for consequential loss that there was no precedent for such schemes. He is right. I understand the problem for other industries, such as the road haulage industry, but I am talking only about consequential losses for the agriculture industry and farmers.
  My response to the point that there is no precedent is that we are now in an unprecedented situation. When the last outbreak occurred in 1967, the industry was not on its knees, so it was able to recover quite quickly. The income position was wholly different. The industry had the resources to recover and the scale of the outbreak turned out to be nothing like what appears to be the scale of the current outbreak. It was confined to three counties, or certainly to two areas. It was not England and Wales wide, as, unhappily, this one is. The scale of the current outbreak appears to be much bigger, but the industry is in a much weaker position. That is the big difference.
  Today, as the Minister fully acknowledges, after four extremely difficult years for the farming community, every sector of the industry has been rocked back on its heels in a way that I have never seen during my parliamentary lifetime—indeed, during my lifetime because I cannot remember the 1930s. As we know, incomes are heavily down and cash flow is much affected.

  945
  Cash flow for many sectors, such as the pig industry, has been awful for some considerable time. Many people in the industry are now eating into their capital, if they have capital, and others have borrowed heavily. Thus the industry's finances are much worse than in 1967. That is an important point in relation to precedent.
  I am glad that the Minister is keeping an open mind on the matter, as he has said. I hope that he is willing to go to the Treasury again for further support for the agriculture industry alone if the problem continues for much longer.
  Mr. Drew: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there are difficulties with the precedent argument. I make no apology for returning to the case of bovine TB. Although foot and mouth is on a different scale in that it is a national problem, some of us have had to live with the threat of bovine TB, which also results in the closure of units and a lot of cost. I am sure he agrees that it would be dangerous to set precedents.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already made the point that this looks like an unprecedented situation. It will obviously depend how long the disease continues, but my understanding is that, with the problems of animals stocking up on farms, the cost of feeding and the loss of value when farmers sell, the total cost could amount to £150 million a month. That is the latest assessment that I have been given. I am sure that it is a very rough assessment at this stage, but it puts into context the relief given on the agrimonetary payments. I realise the difficulties of working out a scheme and I know all the problems of going to Brussels, but if this continues, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at the matter again.
  Another reason why this crisis is different from 1967 is that there is a heavy surplus in the Government's finances. Again, I speak as a former Chief Secretary. The contingency fund is intended for exactly this type of situation. Unlike many schemes and programmes that the Minister is sometimes urged to take up, it is a one-off crisis that would not be repeated in later years. Therefore, in that context, from the Treasury's point of view, it is not a bother.
  The contingency fund is intended for exactly that type of purpose. I do not want to raise a politically contentious issue, but most people in the country would regard some use of the fund—even surpluses beyond the fund, if that were necessary—for that purpose as much more worth while than bailing out the dome. The cost of such a scheme, payable in one year only, would be small in relation to the securing of an industry and home supplies.
  I with to stress the position in relation to the pig industry. The Minister has been right in everything that he has said. The pig industry has not had many EU support schemes. We know all the issues in relation to the pig industry, which, after classical swine fever, is in a serious position. Most pig farmers simply do not have the resources to cope with a long continuation of the present outbreak, particularly as they have now over-borrowed.
  Mr. Gill: Before my right hon. Friend moves off the point, I wonder why he thinks that the consequential losses only of farmers should be covered. Why would he
  946
  not include hauliers and other people downstream from the farming industry, who have undoubtedly been seriously affected?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have not done so because I have not been able to assess the position of those industries. I am aware of the position of many farmers and of the pig industry. I am not sufficiently familiar with the highly specialised road haulage industry, but there are other sources of income for road hauliers. I wish to confine myself simply to that sector. If the Minister succeeds, if it is necessary, in getting further schemes from the Treasury, it will be important that the case is well argued and well confined, so that it does not create other precedents. I realise that such a scheme would be considered by the European Commission as a state aid. However, I should have thought—the Minister seemed to imply it in describing the reaction that he received on Monday—that, given that it is vital to contain the problem Europe-wide, he would swiftly be given approval for a compensation scheme.
  At Prime Minister's questions today, the Prime Minister described the farming industry—as so many of us have done over the years—as the custodians of the countryside. That role is another very important element in the issue. We have to ensure that the industry has the resources that it needs to come out of this crisis so that it can fulfil that function.
  The other issue that I wanted to raise is that of imports. I have just been reading a book on globalisation, the foreword to which is entitled "The World Began Ten Years Ago". More than 10 years ago, as Agriculture Minister and as Secretary of State for Education, I was making speeches at out the speed of technical change around the world, globalisation and heaven knows what else. It is therefore interesting that one of the leading commentators on globalisation should be saying that the world began 10 years ago. Nevertheless, his comments on so many of the industries on which he focuses—such as the financial sector, but also the agriculture industry—reinforce the Minister's brief comments on world trade and technical change, and illustrate the fact that we are now operating in a hugely different world from that in which so many of of our original schemes were created.
  Not the least of those changes has been the way in which supermarkets operate in formulating new trade relationships. It has to be said, however, that the main beneficiary of that process has been not industry, but consumers. As we are learning now, there may well be a price to pay for that.
  The point that I want to stress to the Minister—I am sure from his comments that he is already very well apprised of it—is that both the outbreak of classical swine fever, which could h the been started by a ham sandwich imported from goodness knows where, and the current outbreak facing us, which, as he rightly said, must have come from overseas as we have been free of it for so long, demonstrate how, unless worldwide controls are formulated to regulate the current world situation, those controls can pose enormous damage to our own industry.
  I therefore fully support the Minister in his view—I understand that Sir John Krebs would take precisely the same view—that we have to double our confidence in international and Government controls; re-examine our systems, and the controls and the resources that we have

  947
  to apply them; and examine the origins of products and the controls that apply in third countries. As the current outbreak demonstrates, even one tiny lapse can cause a very serious crisis.
  Although we still do not know the source of the disease, I presume that it originated from something brought in from overseas. I therefore believe that that re-examination should apply to controls not only in the food chain itself, but at ports and airports. It is right to re-examine those controls in order to discover the lessons to be learned.
  Ever since the outbreak of classical swine fever, I have been reflecting on concerns about the new arrangements that we have made for the right to roam. Various controls are being implemented now to deal with the current crisis, but no controls were in place when someone perhaps threw a sandwich over a fence and the classical swine fever outbreak began. There are big issues to be addressed, but I know that, once the Minister has dealt with the immediate crisis, he will a dress them. He has our full support in every measure that he is taking now.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I represent a farming constituency that is well known not only for its dairy and new potatoes but for its beef and sheep, and my constituents are extremely concerned about last week's announcements. However, from my discussions with local farming unions, I know that they fully support all the action that my right hon. Friend has taken so far. The priority for my constituents and the farming unions is that the disease is contained and eradicated. I should like to focus on hose two issues.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the availability of disinfectant. It seems clear from responses earlier today that the problem with disinfectant is not production, but distribution. I hope that, within the next few days, arrangements will be made so that the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom—particularly Wales, and especially west Wales, so that I can give a good message to my farmers and industry—have access to that vital product. We need it to take the action necessary to ensure containment.
  I am very grateful that the National Assembly for Wales has reacted so quickly to the order on footpaths. Orders have been passed in Wales to ensure that countryside access is limited.
  The day before my right hon. Friend implemented the restriction of movement order, I attended the launch of a Greenways scheme, which is a way of encouraging tourists to visit the coastal and rural parts of my constituency by linking footpaths with local railway stations. We took a walk from the local railway station to a local carpark, where we opened a footpath for wheelchair users. It is ironic that, the following day, I issued a press release urging my right hon. Friend and everyone else who uses the countryside not to come to the countryside for fear of spreading foot and mouth.
  As my right hon. Friend said, it is essential that anyone who breaches the orders is prosecuted. As we know, the problem is that the disease is so easily spread. Irresponsible people who wander with their dogs or family through the countryside really are acting most irresponsibly.
  Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of my farmers, who said that, unfortunately, sometimes not only the public but farmers act irresponsibly. Straying stock is
  948
  a real issue. Having checked with my local county council, which is enforcing the movement restriction order, I understand that under article 35 of the order farmers who fail to contain their stock can be prosecuted. We have to get that message out very clearly. I was also told yesterday that a neighbouring farmer had collected 50 sheep that had strayed from another farm. That may seem unbelievable, but it is true. We have to repeat the message to farmers that they have clear responsibilities to contain their stock.
  The great problem is that the outbreak has occurred when the industry is already having an awful time because of the collapse in farm prices and farm incomes. Therefore, like the farming unions in Wales, I hope that by Friday my right hon. Friend will be able to announce a licensed slaughter scheme, which would at least allow an income stream for farmers and related industries such as the haulage trade. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the absolute priority must be finding ways of ensuring that the disease does not spread. I think that farmers would understand it if a little more time were taken and a belt-and-braces scheme were developed to ensure that a licensed slaughter scheme allowed no chance whatsoever of the disease spreading.
  When the scheme starts to operate, it might confirm what some of us already believe. For whatever reason—perhaps simply because the market sometimes operates peculiarly—abattoirs, certainly in Wales, tend to be located far from the main sources of production. Maps showing how stock has travelled between Northumberland, Essex and Devon appear to suggest that the market has not got right the location of abattoirs around the UK. Perhaps we should be more prescriptive in encouraging abattoirs to be set up closer to areas of production.
  The benefits are obvious—jobs would be brought to areas where they are much needed, and the number of animals being transported around the UK would be radically reduced. The risk of disease travelling large distances would also be reduced.
  I learned today that supermarkets are clamouring for the establishment of a licensed slaughtering scheme because their customers are demanding British product. That is good news, as it appears that people have not lost confidence in the British product, as many farmers had feared. Customers are asking supermarkets when British product that has run out will reappear on the shelves. It looks likely that we can restore sales of British meat in supermarkets in the future. We must maintain that confidence, however: losing it, as happened after the BSE outbreak, would cause the industry to be plunged into yet another crisis.
  I spoke to Malcolm Thomas, the director of NFU Cymru, before the debate, and he asked that a specific issue be dealt with. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other hon. Members have touched on the matter, which has to do with the flexibility of animal movements, especially between holdings.
  In my constituency, the Castlemartin range is a large tank range, where thousands of head of sheep off the Preseli hills overwinter. The dozen different owners of those sheep are desperate to move them back to the hills, and the matter is clearly a major animal welfare issue. Farmers want to know whether a common-sense

  949
  arrangement could be made to tackle problems such as that, while at the same time ensuring that the disease does not travel.
  Another matter raised by Malcolm Thomas had to do with a farmer to the north of my constituency who has 800 store lambs in a large field that is virtually bare. The farmer has four fields full of grass less than a mile away, but he cannot move the 800 store lambs at the moment. I am sure that a sensible, common-sense arrangement can be devised to deal with such problems.
  Mr. Livsey: Similar problems have arisen in my constituency. Many sheep farmers would expect the last day of February to be the normal day for moving tank sheep. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that some sort of special licence system should be established in such circumstances?
  Mr. Ainger: I am sure that there is some way to achieve that, and I saw my right hon. Friend the Minister nod. It is imperative that we do so in the next few days. Genuine animal welfare issues are involved, especially in relation to the 800 sheep that I have mentioned. It has been suggested that sheep should be introduced to silage, but they do not like it and do not eat it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to come up with the practical arrangement that we need.
  When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, I hope that she will say when agrimonetary compensation will be paid. I recognise that claims are not due to be registered for the European element until 30 April, but farmers will clearly be facing a severe cashflow problem, regardless of what happens over the next few weeks. I hope that the agrimonetary compensation will be distributed as quickly as possible.
  I was first elected to the House in 1992, and the difficulty of distributing money to farmers in Wales existed then. Significant investment has since been made in computer technology to resolve the problem, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) knows. However, if the Government are prepared to get money to farmers as quickly as possible, it would be ironic if they were to be let down by the mechanism that they would have to use. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take up the issue with Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs, to ensure that available money is paid as quickly as possible.
  I dealt with one of the largest compensation claims ever dealt with by a constituency Member of Parliament. The claim arose when the Sea Empress ran aground. I listened to the argument presented by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about precedent, who said that some people should be targeted, and that others should not. The problem is difficult and complex. In the Sea Empress case, the international oil pollution compensation fund drew red lines on a map, saying that people outside those lines were not affected.
  If we go down the road of compensation for consequential loss, I fear that a similar problem will be encountered. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister is keeping open the possibility of consequential loss compensation, but he will have to grapple with the problem that I have set out: if the principle is accepted,
  950
  where does one draw the line? The problem is hugely difficult. The Sea Empress claim amounted to more than £50 million, and I know how hard it is to decide whether a hotel 20 miles from the coast suffered the same losses as did a hotel five miles from the coast.
  I have one question that I think the whole industry will have to examine. We seem to expect the public purse to be the first call when it comes to compensation for losses suffered when disaster strikes. Should not we look to the industry and say, "Isn't it about time you started looking after your own? Shouldn't you set up a compensation fund along the lines of the one run by the oil industry?" The international oil pollution compensation fund is now able to pay out up to £120 million on a one-off spill. Should not the farm industry look at establishing a similar fund?
  Clearly, premiums would have to be paid, and so on, but I believe such a fund to be an idea for the future. The time will come when a serious situation arises and the Government of the day may not have been as prudent as this one. The necessary resources may not be available, as they are today. Perhaps the industry should start thinking about how it can look after itself.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend has handled this debate superbly. I hope that in the next few weeks we will see the containment of this horrendous disease and its eradication. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made so far.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I disagree with the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) about the urgency of moving ewes off the hills to in-bye land to lamb. All farmers will see that as less of a Priority than preventing the spread of the disease. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would, I think, increase the risk to an unacceptable level. That should come second to the eradication of the disease.
  This has been a very useful debate. I should like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the victims of today' s train crash between the Newcastle and London trains. The people of Northumberland and the north-east must be wondering what they have done to deserve this. They have had the outbreak of foot and mouth diseaste—which, sadly, started in my constituency—and to lay there has been the tragedy of the train crash. They have probably also had some of the worst snowstorms since 1962, and many houses are without power. They have had a hard time, and I sympathise with the I problems that the outbreak is causing.
  Foot and mouth lisease is a personal tragedy. The Williamsons in my constituency, a well-respected Northumbrian farming family, were innocent victims of the outbreak; their stock was simply infected because they were near the source of the outbreak. They had a renowned herd of pedigree beef Limousin. To see those animals being lifted with a JCB and dropped on a pile to be incinerated by the side of the A69 was heart breaking. I am sure that the Williamsons will not mind my saying that MAFF officials have, in these difficult circumstances, treated them with extreme kindness and courtesy and could not have been more helpful. That should go on the record.
  Northumberland has two exclusion zones. The county council is struggling with closing footpaths. Some confusion has arisen. I have heard that Kent county

  951
  council has simply imposed a blanket ban, but Northumberland county council believes that it will have to put up notices on every right of way to close them. In a county the size of Northumberland, that will be extremely difficult. Local authorities might need further guidance about how they should close rights of way, but it is extremely important that they do so as urgently as possible.

  Another problem is that the county has only five animal health inspectors. Once animal health inspectors go to a farm where the disease is confirmed, they are categorised as "dirty" in the trade, and cannot visit another farm for a considerable period. Effectively, they are no longer very much use in this outbreak.
  The outbreak has led to schools closing. Some teaching staff live on farms, and a lot of children who live on farms are not attending school. The outbreak has had a profound effect on our lives. If it were not for the snow, I suspect that it would also have a profound effect on tourism. As was mentioned earlier, tourism is an important economic factor in the constituency, and that will be seriously damaged if the outbreak continues.
  Burnside farm has been said to be the source of the outbreak, but that is somewhat inaccurate. Burnside farm was split up a long time ago, and all we are talking about is a pig unit consisting of a number of sheds. I know that the Minister and his officials will inquire into the cause of this, but it seems rather a strange story. At this stage, our priority must be to control the disease, but it was something of a surprise to local people to learn that farmers at the farm that is said to be the source of the outbreak had been evicted from previous premises in south Tyneside—East Boldon—in 1995 after a long and protracted legal action by the local authority and English Partnerships, which had some ownership in the land. Once the two brothers had left, English Partnerships and the council were faced with a bill approaching £100,000 to clear up the premises. Shortly afterwards, the brothers popped up again in Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland, with a licence to go back into the pig-fattening business.
  The premises were visited on a number of occasions by trading standards officers and MAFF experts. No disease was found, but I believe that the way in which the farm was being kept was criticised Neighbours had complained regularly about conditions in the sheds, and I hope that in the fulness of time there will be a full explanation. It was obvious that the farm was poorly kept.
  Finding the source of the outbreak is vital. There was a rumour that swill had come to the farm from Newcastle airport, but that has been hotly denied by the airport. I am happy to put the record straight. However, there was, and is, an extensive collection of swill to that farm and the neighbouring farm, which has also been affected by the disease. It is important to find out how the infected meat got into the swill chain.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) spoke about globalisation. That is central to the control of disease. With the way in which the world works now, it will be virtually impossible to stop some diseases moving around the world unless there is strict control of the sources of production. In Europe, for instance, we now eat more Brazil an chicken meat than ever before. Brazil is making great efforts to export chicken meat to Europe. It is vital that the way in which chickens are produced in Brazil meets European
  952
  standards. I believe that even if we put a cordon round a country to check the food that it imports, the volume of food imported into this country makes it virtually impossible to make a check at the point of entry meaningful. Therefore, we have to go to the source of the product. That is a penalty of the global economy, but we must remember that the global economy is also an advantage to us and that our farmers benefit from it.
  There has been some talk about abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is an expert on the subject, and he may wish to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a misconception about abattoirs and their purpose, which Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned.
  The problem is that abattoirs these days are very large, multi-million pound, highly technical businesses. Wanting to go back to small abattoirs is like closing the supermarkets and opening the corner shops all day. A big, modern, state-of-the-art abattoir has to work 364 or 365 days a year. Lambs in the south-west reach maturity earlier because of the better climate. However, when the supply of lambs runs out, an abattoir cannot simply shut down and pay off all its staff—it has to bring in lambs from further and further afield, which is why animals have to be transported. Nothing that we do will change that. We cannot turn back the clock. Clearly, some small abattoirs are important, but the idea that we can have local abattoirs around the country to shorten journey times is economic nonsense.
  Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. Does he agree that the habit or practice of taking animals from the north to the south of England has been going on for years?
  Mr. Atkinson: That is true. There has undoubtedly been a change since 1967, as we can see from the map of the outbreak, and there is now much more movement. Abattoirs are not only big businesses; some of them are also specialised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow may talk about the specialised abattoir in his constituency. Such specialisation is why animals are transported around the country. There is little that we can do to change that.
  I shall touch briefly on the problems faced in the supply chain—for the hauliers, the auction marts and others involved in the whole process. Like all of us, I am pleased that the Minister is considering the movement of animals under licence. However, I suspect that it will be some time before that begins to solve the problems. I fear that the outbreak will be worse than we anticipated—its growth over the past 24 hours suggests that it is serious.
  If the Minister is unable to license movement directly to abattoirs, I urge him to consider some assistance for the supply chain. There are at least two specialist livestock transporters in my constituency—they do nothing else. They have no work at present. They can lay off drivers and staff, but they cannot stop the financial charges on their business. They will experience great difficulty. When the crisis is over, it will be no good if such companies no longer exist.
  The movement of stock directly from farm to abattoir raises the question of how to determine the price to be paid. If there is no auction mart, how can the price be assessed? That must be considered when the system is set up.

  953
  Insurance was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire. Today, a farmer in my constituency told me that his foot and mouth insurance runs out at midnight. This morning, the insurance company notified him that it would not renew his insurance—helpful as always. I hope that the farmer is contacting NFU Mutual, which might reinsure him.
  Farming is in a crisis. In previous outbreaks of disease, the farming industry could fall back on its own resources to repair some of the damage, but this time the industry is so low—so broke—that it simply cannot sustain further large financial losses if the outbreak continues.
  We are all grateful to the Minister and to his staff for what they are doing to try to contain the outbreak. Farmers in Northumberland, in the firing line, will also appreciate that.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate, although I am sure that none of us would have wanted these events to occur. I welcome the Opposition motion. Earlier in the week, there was a slight spat as to whether it was right to hold the debate now and to haul Ministers back from what they were doing. However, the House is always at its best when faced with a great crisis; we can all come together. In his inimitable way, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has managed to disarm many of the critics who might have tried to pull the rug from under him. I am sure that we all agree that he has done a good job in putting people's minds at rest.
  We cannot underestimate the gravity of the situation however. I do not have a specific constituency interest at present—I am extremely grateful that one of the first notifications of a possible outbreak, at Woodchester park in my constituency, turned out to be negative. Obviously, people in the constituencies of other hon. Members have not been so fortunate.
  One of the difficulties is that although it is relatively easy to determine that there is an outbreak of the disease on a particular farm or holding, it takes considerably longer to confirm that a holding does not have the disease. There is an incubation period before the animals show signs of the disease and that is a dreadful waiting time for people on the holding or on surrounding farms. That is not, of course, to underestimate the impact on those who actually have to deal with the disease.
  The outbreak is national. It seems to be getting worse day by day, although we are looking forward to an upturn. However, we must place animal health and animal welfare in context—I am not sure where we draw the line between the two, but veterinary science defines them separately. Within a relatively short period, this country—indeed, our continent and the world—has seen a number of animal diseases. There was the disaster of BSE and the continuing problems of bovine tuberculosis—I make no apology for mentioning them, although they are on a different scale. In my part of the world, we have been learning to live with bovine TB for some time—it is getting worse and we must find solutions. I shall say more about that later in my speech. In parts of the country, there have been outbreaks of classical swine fever. Now, there is foot and mouth disease.
  954
  Anyone who pretends that this outbreak is a one-off event that has come completely out of the blue should look back and think harder about what is happening in animal farming. If we do not learn from that, our successors will rue the day. There is evidence that such outbreaks are becoming more complicated; they are not necessarily longer lasting, but they seem to affect more animals more quickly. That causes us even more concern.
  On the plus side. I join in the plaudits to my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is clear from objective measurement of such matters that the Labour Administration have learned from some of the mistakes of the past. By that, I do not mean the previous Conservative Administration—I do not want to make party political points. Since the last serious outbreak—BSE—I am pleased that command and control structures have been quickly put in place Although a few people thought that some of the measures were rather draconian and could have been seen to be non-libertarian—telling people not to go to the country side is about as illiberal as we could imagine—nevertheless the speed with which the Administration have acted was right. That has been welcomed not only by the industry, but by all those who have an interest in the countryside.
  I am pleased about the drawing down of the agrimonetary compensation; arguably, it is a coincidence, but it could not have come at a better time. I very much support that, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise from comments on both sides of the House that this may not be the end of the story on the compensation that will be needed.
  It is pleasing to see the work of the state veterinary service. Some of its have been critical of MAFF's operation in practice, but the SVS has performed at the highest possible standard. It has links with the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency. I make a special plea that we should remember all those who work at the local government end—trading standards or environmental health officers. Those people are sometimes forgotten, but they are very much at the forefront because they have to make the initial visits and give clear recommendations. They always tell me that they are overworked and under-resourced. They tend to see themselves as the Cinderella services in local government. Perhaps we need to examine their work and ensure that they are properly resourced, because they have to deal with a legacy of different issues—which they do with great professionalism. We must never take those people for granted.
  The loss of income will have an immediate impact, but we must not try to ignore the on-going problems. The loss of income arises from the inability to sell animals, but inevitably regulations will be involved. The Select Committee on Agriculture is considering the forms used in the integrated control and administration system, and there is a general view that we need to deal with that matter with more of a soft touch. We need to consider how regulation has been geared up post-BSE.
  As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), in the debate on the Phillips report, which took place just before last week's recess, we considered not necessarily less but better regulation. The belief that cutting out all regulation is the answer to all the farm industry's problems would cost us dear. There is an underlying problem that leads to a loss of confidence, and it is why people leave the industry. That is

  955
  inevitable—people leave, as well as enter, any industry. Not many people want to enter agriculture, for obvious reasons, but we must find out who is leaving, and we always need to invest in younger people so that we can produce food for tomorrow as well as for today.
  I shall not go over the ground that other hon. Members have covered in dealing with the food chain. However, we must not fail to realise that we are talking not just about an immediate impact on the raw commodity—the animals—but about the fact that we are currently incapable of exporting them. That will soon affect the whole food processing industry and will have an enormous impact on the United Kingdom.
  We may have an agricultural trade deficit because we have always imported more agricultural products than we have exported, even though we could I be self-sufficient, as hon. Members know—but that has been made up for by the fact that we are a major exporter of all manner of different foodstuffs. Of course, those foodstuffs will be questioned in other parts of the world. We must be very careful not to talk up that problem, but we must be realistic. The loss of those export markets needs to be carefully scrutinised and we must do all we can to deal with the disease as quickly as possible to ensure that we restore confidence in those markets All that is known about and understood.
  I wish to dwell on some other issues for a few moments, some of which hon. Members have already mentioned. The Select Committee has devoted a great deal of its time to considering the relevance of the globalisation of the food chain. That has been mentioned by Opposition and Labour Members both today and in questions on Monday's statement. I have a clear view that although globalisation may appear inevitable to some people, it would be a disservice if we did not question it. Even if no one else has had reason to question globalisation, there is much evidence that consumers have begun to look carefully at what they buy. They are asking where their food comes from—of course, labelling is relevant—and whether they can buy it locally. They want to know which farm it came from. They want to know about the attractions of organic food, even though it is not necessarily local.
  All those matters are important and link with the key food chain issue—the relationship between science and the factors that are always found to be part of the communality of causation. Again, hon. Members have told us what they believe to be the cause. I am not sure that we know the cause; we certainly do not necessarily know who caused the problems. However, there is an interface between science, on which we rely so much to solve our problems, and the difficulties that we seem to cause ourselves, given the number of diseases that develop and how we deal with them.
  Vaccination has been mentioned. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Minister has ruled out vaccination with every good reason, as most hon. Members would rightly say, because vaccination would take away our status and would seem to be nothing more than a short-term expedient. A comparison can be made with bovine TB. Those who do not like the work undertaken to find the cause and method of transmission
  956
  of bovine TB call for vaccination. There are difficulties in trying to be consistent in how we deal with animal disease.
  Mr. Gill: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that we may have to reconsider vaccination? It is all very well to talk about having a high health status in this country, given that we live on an island. We could keep disease out of these islands if we did not import from other parts of the world. However, we are importing and there is perhaps a great political imperative to continue to do so. Perhaps there is a contradiction in thinking that we can retain the total health integrity of our own animals in this country, while importing products from all over the world. Has it occurred to him that we may have to revisit that territory?
  Mr. Drew: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not sure whether he makes an anti-European or an anti-world point, but I would approach the issue from the other direction. We should begin to question some of the global food chains. Instead of using vaccination to make animals more immune to those threats, we should try to remove the threats. I am not in favour of a little Englander approach, by which we eat what we produce. Clearly, that could not be contemplated; it is not what most people would want. However, we must revisit some parts of the food chain and perhaps get more balance back into it. That would encourage localisation, which I have always advocated. I shall not get into the argument about abattoirs. The hon. Gentleman has far more experience and knowledge of such matters than I have. However, we need to address those issues seriously.
  Science has brought us successes such as traceability, which has allowed us to check most animals origins. However, we must check what we feed to our animals, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point during the investigation. Most people would argue—perhaps with limited knowledge—that risks have been taken with animal feed and that we should carefully consider the causes of those risks.
  I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some questions about some matters that have already been mentioned, and he might like to investigate and consider their wider implications.
  Earlier, hon. Members raised the issue of common land. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) attended a briefing by those who implement the policy; it highlighted the problems of areas such as the Forest of Dean, where sheep graze openly. It would be nice to think that we could contain the animals, but the sheep in the Forest of Dean visit people's gardens as well as the more open areas. Therefore, we need clarity on how we should deal with those animals, because they and their contact with human beings could spread the disease. The issue affects me because of the common land in my constituency.
  When I intervened on the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I asked how we could assist farmers markets and farm shops. The people whose main business is to supply those outlets face a particular difficulty at the moment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to offer them clear advice. At present, it is not to hold the markets and not to open the shops, but the time will come when people's livelihoods will be affected not just because of their inability to farm, but because of their inability to attend the markets.

  957
  We are always told that one of the reasons we cannot offer compensation in the form that some of us might like is that it would fall foul of the state aid rules. At this time of crisis, it would be helpful to know that we could go to the European Union for a dispensation on any help that might be forthcoming.
  Regaining access to markets after the crisis is another issue. We must have a systematic approach to that, but it will not be easy. When the disease is eradicated—let us hope that that is soon—there will be a period in which Europe and the rest of the world will want reassurance that we are clear of foot and mouth disease. Regaining access to international markets is an issue, because there is a problem not only with the raw commodity—the animals—but with all the other products that we need to sell.
  Whatever our views on the European Union, we must all recognise the importance of the negotiations in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will engage. We need the EU' s support at this time. Although we may criticise it on how aspects of policy worked out in the past, we now need to pull together with our partners. I pay tribute to the sterling work that my right hon. Friend has done not just in this country, but in the discussions in Europe. The most important thing is to eradicate the disease, but we need to keep our markets open so that we can access them at the earliest possible opportunity.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He made a very interesting speech that was based on his great knowledge. His contributions to the debate and his media appearances have added to our understanding of the problem.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: it has been exemplary. Despite the pressure that he has been under, it has been noticeable that he has answered interventions thoroughly. Even though I was critical of some of his remarks on Monday, I have nothing but praise for his conduct and performance today.
  I am sorry to learn that a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease has been found in Essex. Chelmsford is very close to the abattoir in my constituency where the disease was found. The sight of the smoke that rose over my constituency from a great cauldron on Monday was depressing; I am sure that it will remain with me for a long time. I suspect that I have had a foretaste of what other Members may see. People's livelihoods for many years were literally burned before their eyes.
  The Minister was right on Monday to express sympathy for the farmers and abattoirs involved. He said:
  "They deserve sympathy and support, not blame. The best thing that the Government can do is to eliminate foot and mouth disease and help return the industry to normal trading as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 604.]
  Colleagues in the House have asked me about the abattoir in my constituency. In particular, they are surprised at the enormous distances that animals travel on their way to Brentwood. Inappropriate conclusions have been drawn from that. It is sad that a number of small abattoirs have disappeared, but it is wrong to draw the conclusion that Cheale Meats is responsible for the
  958
  decline in the number of small abattoirs and the fact that animals have to travel long distances. Cheale Meats is a specialist abattoir that is of enormous strategic importance to the pig industry. More than half the pig carcases exported from the United Kingdom come from Cheale Meats. Without the abattoir and its facilities, the number of live exports would increase dramatically, so it is critical that it gets back into operation as soon as possible.
  Ironically, an application to extend the abattoir's facilities for the storage of stock has been before Brentwood council. Had those facilities already been in existence, the transfer of the disease to Old English farm probably would not have occurred. Matters were in hand to deal with the possible threat of foot and mouth disease even before the outbreak. If it were not for the efficiency of the abattoir, the current outbreak of the disease probably would not have been detected as quickly as it was.
  Rumours have been flying around about the nature of the business of Cheale Meats. I am grateful to my Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who told me about an anonymous telephone call to his office today suggesting that there, was a financial link between the abattoir in Brentwood and the firm in Heddon-on-the-Wall in his constituency—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Members should please keep their voices down when an hon. Member is speaking.
  Mr. Pickles: The telephone call suggested that there was a financial link between the abattoir and the pig farm in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have checked that allegation, and I am pleased to say that there is no financial connection—either direct or indirect—between the two. I have spoken to the directors of Cheale Meats, who have given me that unqualified assurance. We have many problems to with in the current outbreak and people—especially those who do not have the courage to make themselves known—spreading malicious falsehoods does not help us to do that. I am happy to put the record straight on that particular point.
  It is not easy to telephone a farmer whose stock is being destroyed. However at the weekend I called my constituent, Mr. Gemill, and was struck by the quiet dignity with which ho took the news of the destruction of his life's work. The valuers are examining his stock and he will receive compensation, but he still has to go through the process of replacing those animals in six months' time. Many hon. Members will have to make similar calls, and they, too, will not enjoy them.
  Is this a convent time for me to stop speaking, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. SpeakerWhen the hon. Gentleman finishes, we will commence the statement. [Interruption.] Does he detect a hint?
  Mr. Pickles: I am as good as the advice that I am given. I thank the Whips Office for telling me that I should sit down at 7 pm, which I am happy to do, and then continue after the statement. I do not want to keep

  959
  the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions waiting, because the subject of his statement is important.
  Mr. SpeakerOnce the hon. Gentleman finishes, he cannot be called again.
  Mr. Pickles: That is all right.
  Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Gentleman.

  Selby Rail Crash
  7.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the tragic accident at Selby at about 6.20 this morning. I am grateful to the House, in particular to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for concluding his speech and to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to speak at this later time, which allowed me to visit the scene and report back to the House.
  The latest casualty figure is 13 killed. At this time we believe that that includes two train drivers. There are 75 other casualties, 10 of whom are in a serious or critical condition. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the injured and to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in this tragic and horrific accident.
  When I visited the scene, I again saw for myself the tremendous efforts of our emergency services and the many agencies that were involved in dealing with the accident. As always, they showed true professionalism, courage and efficiency in, yet again, the most difficult circumstances.
  The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the North Yorkshire police, working in conjunction with the British Transport police and other forces, the local fire brigades and ambulance services, the Royal Air Force air sea rescue helicopters, which attended the scene, and the local hospitals that treated the injured. The Minister for Public Health, is visiting hospitals this evening and will thank hospital staff for their work. I also want to pay tribute to the way in which members of the local community responded so quickly to provide help and comfort to the passengers who were involved in the accident.
  Let me turn to the facts of the tragedy in so far as they are known. At approximately 6.20 this morning, a Land Rover was travelling west along the M62 motorway, pulling a trailer that was carrying another car. It left the motorway as it approached a bridge that crosses the east coast main line. The bridge is protected by crash barriers, but the vehicle left the road some 30 m before the beginning of the crash barrier. It then travelled along and down the embankment, behind the safety barrier, before falling down the railway cutting and on to the track. In all, on present information, it is estimated that the vehicle travelled more than 100 m from leaving the main carriageway before reaching the railway line.
  The driver got out of the vehicle and phoned the North Yorkshire police. As he was speaking to them, the 4.45 am Great North Eastern Railway Newcastle to London train, carrying more than 100 passengers, collided with the vehicle on the track. The passenger train left the rails as a result of the collision, but remained upright. Almost immediately, it collided with the oncoming freight train. The time between the emergency call and the first collision was 40 seconds, and the two trains crashed within seconds of that.
  It is essential that this appalling tragedy is subject to the fullest investigation. A number of agencies are involved—the Health and Safety Executive, its railway

  961
  inspectorate, British Transport police, North Yorkshire police and the Highways Agency. All of them will conduct their own investigations. Therefore, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to provide me with an interim report within the next few days. I shall then make a decision on what further steps may be appropriate. I shall ensure that report is made public.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I know that he shares our view that it was appropriate to defer today's debate on other transport issues.
  The right hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House when he expresses shock and sympathy for the victims and their families. We join him in sending our condolences to the injured and bereaved. We also join him in paying tribute to the emergency services. The police and the helicopter, ambulance and fire crews distinguished themselves in harrowing circumstances and appalling weather conditions. Doctors, nurses and other national health service staff have been unstinting in their devotion to the injured. We thank not only the public services involved, but—as he did—the villagers of Great Heck, who were first on the scene.
  The victims and their families are uppermost in our minds. At this early stage, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any doubt that the casualty figures that he gave are the final totals? Have all the relatives of the dead been contacted?
  Faced with yet more scenes of smashed rail carriages on our television screens, and as we hear yet more harrowing first-hand accounts of a disaster, it is hard to know how to express what everyone feels, but nothing should stand in the way of our determination to rebuild confidence in the safety of the railway. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that it is too early to draw conclusions from the accident, and I welcome his call for an early interim report from the HSE.
  Everyone accepts that accidents happen. However, we need a full and comprehensive assessment before we can judge whether this was an appalling but freak tragedy, or whether the risk of a similar accident recurring is unacceptably high. The accident follows the tragedies of Hatfield and Paddington. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to resist adding to the burden of the Cullen inquiry into those accidents, so that its findings are not delayed further. However, has he considered reviewing the conclusions of the 1987 working party, which examined the risks associated with road/rail crashes at bridges? Will he also consider creating a successor group?
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman of our support for the Cullen inquiry recommendations to be implemented as quickly as possible and our support for his response to today's events. Will he join me in expressing support to those people who work on our railways? This accident is another terrible blow for a troubled and unhappy industry that has been desperately trying to restore its self-confidence and services to passengers. For GNER staff, this is the second tragedy in the space of a few months. Does he agree that a safe and reliable railway depends on all those people who have been striving, and will continue to strive, to achieve that objective? Does he also agree
  962
  that it is vital that we foster the confidence of the industry and those people who are working so hard to address its shortcomings?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am most grateful for his full support for the emergency services and their remarkable work, which they are still doing. I am not sure what the final casualty totals are, for obvious reasons. All those people who are known to be alive have been removed from the crash site. When we begin to lift the two trains that collided—one was doing about 125 mph and- the other was doing 40 mph—we are not quite sure what we will find. Therefore, I cannot give more accurate information at the moment. Certainly those who were involved have been removed to hotels by GNER and are receiving advice and help in those difficult circumstances. I am not sure whether all the relatives have been informed, but the great majority have been, and that task continues. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman, an accurate answer, but I will write to him tomorrow. If I receive more information tonight, I will ensure that he gets it.
  The hon. Gentleman's point about wanting a full investigation was well made, and he is right to suggest that we should not adopt the same procedure that we used for Hatfield, when information was passed on to the Cullen inquiry. We do not now want to delay the inquiry's conclusions, and I shall certainly keep that in mind when I receive the interim report from the HSE in the next few days. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman and the House informed on these matters.
  Research commissioned by the Highways Agency is currently being conducted on collisions at bridges, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As soon as that investigation has been completed, I will make that information available.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to conclude that we all want a safe railway system, and everyone strives to achieve that. We always need to be guided by the proper regulatory framework, and the question is whether that framework is correct. Lord Cullen is considering whether the management of our railway system and its safety should be improved, and we must await his report. As the hon. Gentleman said, we must remember that GNER crews were involved, and although we are waiting to find out exactly what happened, I believe at least two of them to be dead. They paid the final price in the most difficult circumstances. We should remember that it is often the workers who pay the price, along with the passengers, and that is why I particularly wanted to mention those two people.
  The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will all strive to secure a safe railway system and that there will be a full investigation. I await the interim report to find out what I should do, but I will report back to him and the House as soon as possible. I appreciate the fact that following our conversations this morning about the difficulty of there being a transport debate today, the Opposition were responsive and agreed to join us in doing what was best so that I could report to the House.
  Mr. John Grogan: This is the second time in recent weeks that my right hon. Friend has had to come to Selby in difficult circumstances. The first time, of course, was during the floods. As we sit here tonight on

  963
  this bleak Ash Wednesday, many of my constituents are gathering for a service in the local church. Will my right hon. Friend underline the fact that the people of Selby have once again shown great community spirit, resolve and resilience, as they did during the floods? I refer not only to those who were first on the scene this morning, in terrible circumstances, and who did what they could to help, but to those from voluntary organisations and local churches, particularly the vicar of 5,elby abbey and the vicar of Snape, who have been on the scene all day. Their contribution should be recognised and valued greatly.
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for the area, knows only too well that the same people—the emergency services, voluntary organisations and ordinary members of the public—who were involved in this incident came forward to deal with the terrible floods. The House greatly admires the speed with which people come forward to help. It is a source of comfort in the most difficult circumstances that we can rely on those people who do a wonderful job. I recognise that with the floods and this collision, the people of Selby and the surrounding area have suffered grew, pressures on them, but one is always amazed by the resilience of people who, when there is a problem, get together and deal with it. That spirit shone through yet again in this tragedy.
  Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and I join him and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in offering our condolences to the friends and relatives of those who tragically died and our best wishes to those who were injured in the accident. On behalf of the House, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the praise that he gave to the emergency services and the local people who so rapidly came to the aid of those injured in the tragedy.
  I thank the Deputy Prime Minister also for making it absolutely clear that the interim report will be made public as quickly as possible. Will he give us an assurance that the full report that will be published in due course will also be made public? Will he ask for consideration to be given in that report to the length of crash barriers on either side of bridges? As there has been confusion in the reporting of the incident, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as I believe he has done, that the Land Rover and trailer were the cause of the accident, and not, as some newspapers have reported, the vehicle that was on the trailer?
  I am delighted above all by what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the people who work on the railways. He can be assured of our full support in all his work to try to achieve a safe, reliable railway.
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Members on both sides of the House have offered support to the emergent y workers and the relatives who are suffering at this very moment because of this terrible tragedy.
  I shall certainly make the interim report public. I am all for transparency and my general approach is to make reports public where possible. The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that although the site is not being investigated as a crime scene at the foment, I cannot give full details until the officials concerned have conducted their investigations and taken statements. I must await their report, but I am committed to making available as much information as possible.
  964
  The Transport Research Laboratory has been commissioned to consider the length of crash barriers. It has done some work, and it will now be asked to do more. When that information is published, it will be made available to the House. I hesitate to say exactly what happened, but the visual evidence of the state of the Land Rover and the trailer carrying the car makes it clear that the Land Rover was hit by the train and, judging by its front part, almost completely demolished. It would be unwise of me to enter into any other speculation at the moment—I shall await the report.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the whole railway community will be shocked and saddened by this latest incident? It appears to merit the description of "accident" more than the other tragedies that have occurred in our railway industry in the past year or so. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, from what we know of the circumstances, no railway safety device in the world could have prevented that accident from happening?
  In view of the welcome remarks of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), would it be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to write to Mr. Christopher Garnett, the chief executive of GNER, to tell him that as far as regular rail travellers are concerned, he and his staff run a fine train operating company? This incident and the Hatfield crash are not the company's responsibility, and we ought to say so.
  Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the railway community will be shocked and saddened. The sequence of events is a remarkable set of coincidences: a car came off a motorway, travelled some distance on to the railway track and was then hit by a passenger train, which came off the track into the path of a freight train, all within seconds. As he said, it certainly seems as if that could be properly called an accident, but I must await the report.
  I have talked to Mr. Garnett. Anyone who knows him will know that he certainly cares about the railway system and about GNER. He was very shocked by the incident, as he was by Hatfield, and he was on the scene making sure that everything possible was being done, including having passengers allocated to hotels and ensuring that counselling was available. It was easy to see in his face his shock and concern about the fact that there had been yet another railway tragedy. Considerations of what happened and who is to blame provide no comfort at these moments; one must deal with the circumstances. He was in the thick of it, and I am sure that the House was glad to see a man playing that part.
  Mr. John Greenway: As one of North Yorkshire's Members, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for their tribute to the North Yorkshire emergency services. We do not have the strength of personnel that other parts of the country have, and the way in which they responded today was absolutely magnificent. This is arguably the worst tragedy that I can recall happening in our county in my 14 years in the House. Many of us have friends and constituents who use that train to travel to London at 6 o'clock every morning, and we are waiting desperately and anxiously for news of who, precisely, the victims are.

  965
  The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that at this juncture our thoughts are with the families of the victims and the injured victims. I endorse what he has said about the emergency services and the staff of GNER. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, the accident does not appear to be any fault of the railway. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to try to get the line reopened as quickly as possible. We do not want to suffer the great delays that occurred because of the Hatfield accident.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of warm support and for giving me the opportunity to thank the North Yorkshire police and the chief constable, who accompanied me when I visited the site of the accident. It is always difficult when politicians visit such sites, because we wonder whether we are getting in the way. However, it is necessary for a representative of the House to attend such sites and to report back. We have great hesitation about doing so, but I received tremendous co-operation from everyone involved, who wanted to say what was going on, and felt that Parliament needed to know. That is why I asked for the statement to be made later in the day.
  A hotline has been opened by the company for relatives who may be concerned about anyone who was travelling on the train. No official information will be given about those who may have died until the relatives have been informed. That is the normal custom, and I think that it is what the House would expect.
  Of course, we want to see the line reopened. It is the line that I use, and the same route. There was a speed restriction on the line after the Hatfield accident and the evidence of gauge corner cracking. Improvements were made and the speed restriction was removed only last week. A horrible thought is whether it would have been better if the restriction had still been in place, but it is one that really cannot be entertained. It is one of the terrible circumstances that surround the tragedy. However, the service had benefited from an improvement as a result of the lessons that we learned from the Hatfield accident. We were getting back to a normal service, and I think that the company was to launch a campaign next week to encourage people to return to the railways.
  These are difficult and terrible circumstances. Everyone wants to see the line reopened as soon as possible, but obviously in a safe manner. Everything must be done that should be done to improve the line.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that he took, in conjunction with the Opposition, to ensure that we had an early and proper statement. I am aware that he has had the harrowing experience of visiting the site. I join him in his compliments to GNER and its executive director for the work that he has undertaken.
  In replying to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), my right hon. Friend obviously could not say precisely when we shall see the line reopened. However, can he guess or make a guesstimate of when that might be? As the hon. Gentleman said, there have been great troubles on the line. It is our line, and we all want to see it get back to normal. That includes the
  966
  travelling public. Given the economic interests of the entire country, it is important that the line should be back in use as soon as possible.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I join him, in complimenting GNER, which is our local rail service. I cannot say with accuracy when the line will be open. When I have received the interim report, I may have a better idea of the extent of the damage. I have seen the state of the line. Wonderful efforts have been made by the maintenance people, who have been working extremely hard since the Hatfield accident, but this is a line to which they must return. I cannot give an accurate date for when that line will be reopened. However, as I have said, I shall be able to give further information when I have received the interim statement. I have no doubt that everyone involved would like to see the line reopened as soon as possible. I am sure that that is the wish of the House.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for both visiting the site today and reporting back to the House this evening. I join him in paying tribute to the emergency services. We especially remember those who lost their lives, those who have been bereaved and those who are seriously and critically injured.
  GNER has had a terrible six months, but its standing locally is extremely high. The company is based at York. As the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), knows, as do others on both sides of the House who represent parts of York, the city revolves round the railway. Today, I received a letter from York's economic development department about the damage that was done to the community and local business with the loss of the normal full-speed service, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was reinstated only on Monday.
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the extent to which weather conditions might have played a part in the accident I do not know whether the police were able to report or that today. Similarly, I do not know whether that will form part of his investigation, on which I know he will report.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Lady for her compliments to the emergency services, whose work has been remarkable. We have commented on them and supported them. I have commented on GNER services, which are identified I with the region and actively supported. I recognise that York has been the centre of our railway system for a long time and that many people will be concerned about disruption to services. I hope that we can reinstate those services as soon as possible.
  I looked into the police reports about the weather, and there was concern about how bad it was. The gritters were on the M62. I think that the last gritting took place at about 2 am. A judgment was made later that the freezing frost was not continuing. Anyone who saw the early film on television would be aware that the weather was not the normal sort of patters that has been seen in certain parts of the country. We must wait for the outcome of the inquiry to give us further information about what caused

  967
  the car to leave the motorway. At present, it seems that the weather was not responsible, but I would not want to say that for sure.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: Although my right hon. Friend will need to await the outcome of the investigation, I ask him at the appropriate time to give consideration to the provision of safety information for train passengers. When boarding an aeroplane, we take it for granted that such information will be made available. Is it not time to consider providing similar information to train passengers, especially about emergency, evacuation procedures, such as those that had to be used today by those caught up in a terrible accident?
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is interesting that on this occasion, compared with a previous accident when there was concern about whether hammers were available to enable passengers to get outside, notices enabled passengers to get hammers to break out. It is always difficult to know whether passengers should stay in the train or get out.
  We are talking of an electric passenger train, but the freight train carried oil and diesel, and there were fumes. Some passengers were obviously concerned that the fumes would lead to fire, as we saw in another incident. We have asked Lord Cullen and others to consider whether more safety information should be available. To be fair, the train companies have provided more information, but there was some talk earlier about whether the hammers were big enough and whether they could be changed. I think and hope that Lord Cullen will be able to give us further advice. I will follow up the matter with the Health and Safety Executive to ascertain whether there is anything more that we can do while we await reports.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I endorse what has been said about the management and staff of GNER, who have seen railway colleagues lose their lives in the accident. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that during all the recent emergencies the staff of GNER, at every level, have worked extremely hard to try to restore the quality of service and to support passengers in very difficult situations? As for reopening the line as soon as is reasonably possible, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that because of adverse weather conditions today, both lines to Scotland have been closed?
  Mr. Prescott: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about GNER staff. I travel on the service for about 20,000 miles a year. I fine that the staff have an identity with the company and feel happy about the services that they are providing. I think that that is the experience of us all. The staff want it to provide the best service, and that comes across.
  The importance of the railways emphasises that we need a good strategic network north and south and east and west. That reminds us how much we are dependent on the railway system. When we have these accidents, we are given the opportunity to think carefully about whether some routes should be compatible. For example, the route via Leeds is not electrified, but m my of the trains are. Today's incident is likely to bring such considerations to the fore.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: First, may I associate myself with all the comments from my
  968
  fellow North Yorkshire Members of Parliament? My right hon. Friend knows that I come from a railway community in every sense of the word, and that I have spent many years in York, working in the railway industry. Can he comment on media speculation that the train set involved in the incident today was the same one that was involved at Hatfield?
  Secondly, in my right hon. Friend's initial discussions with the Highways Agency, did the agency express any views about the geometry of the slip road? Having worked for many years on incidents connected with bridges on our railways, I endorse the remarks of the Opposition spokesman about the need for progress on the interface between roads and railways. The Highways Agency bridge authorities throughout the country and Railtrack must try finally to crack the associated safety problems.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and for his support for the people who were involved in this terrible tragedy and for the emergency services.
  I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point about media speculation. I do not suppose that it will make any difference, but I wish that they would not speculate without the facts, as that creates difficulties. From the initial speculation, one would have thought that the vehicle fell immediately on to the track. That is just not true. It careered for 100 m, well ahead of the crash barrier. The gradient of the embankment is 1:3. How the vehicle did not turn over is beyond me. It was a high-sided vehicle and was pulling another vehicle.
  Events did not happen as the media speculated from an early stage. From time to time we hear from some so-called transport specialist, who has seen nothing but tells us what should happen and what we should change. That is not helpful. It alarms the relatives, because they get the wrong information. We should find out as much as we can, give the information to the House, and trust the report based on the information available at that time. I hope, although I do not expect that there is any chance of it, that the media will avoid speculating about what happened. It does not help, and my hon. Friend's question gives me an opportunity to say so.
  It is true, I believe—I hope the inquiry will look into the matter—that one of the power units that was not damaged was one of those involved in the Hatfield crash. I must await the interim report before I can give a definite response. With regard to the slip road and the need to examine bridge and rail connections, the Highways Agency is looking into that. Research is under way and we will make the information available.
  Again, as I said, if one looked at the route that the vehicle took down the side of the road and 100 m to the rail, one would not have thought that that would happen. One would imagine that the vehicle would have stopped well before that, but it did not. As in all tragedies, it is never one incident. It is two or three things together that make for a terrible tragedy. Who was to know that when the vehicle came off the road, a fast passenger train was approaching at 125 mph, as well as a freight coal train carrying a massive weight—thousands of tonnes—and travelling at 40 mph? The impact was phenomenal.
  That set of circumstances defies belief. If I had come to the House and reported that such an accident had occurred, most hon. Members would have thought that it

  969
  was not possible. What one learns about tragedies is that the impossible often happens. That is always the difficulty for us when we try to avoid them.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who spoke a little earlier, may I associate myself with all the expressions of sympathy, the condolences and the tributes that the Deputy Prime Minister has paid? Will he pay tribute not only to rail staff, but to those passengers who, happily, were not too badly injured? From the interviews that have taken place during the day, it is apparent that great courage was shown by those who were still able-bodied after the tragic accident and who helped the more seriously injured to escape. Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay tribute in particular to members of the British Transport police? As he knows, their work is often forgotten, but there is no doubt that as well as GNER staff and the rail crews, British Transport police played a significant part today.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the expressions of sympathy and support from both sides of the House. I add my support for the work of the British Transport police. I travelled down with the assistant chief constable and discussed the situation with him. With so many agencies present, one tends to think that co-operation will not be possible, but it was not lacking at all.
  The various authorities—the transport police, the civilian police, the fire services and so on—have developed a technique for co-operation that is admirable. They arrive within a short time and get on with the job. They understand it and do it, and one cannot but admire such co-operation. If they can do that despite the different bodies that they belong to, we get the best of services to deal with the most difficult circumstances when a terrible tragedy occurs. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to praise the co-operative work of all the agencies involved in the incident.
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement that he made so promptly this evening, and associate myself with his tribute to all those from the emergency services. Our sympathy goes out to all the bereaved and the injured. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the recent spate of accidents and disasters, railways remain the safest mode of transport?
  In paying tribute to the emergency services, I emphasise the work done at Pontefract infirmary, where I understand that more than half the victims of the crash were treated. Not long ago, there was debate about the future of the infirmary. A strong case was made that the hospital is close not only to the railway, but to the A1, the M62, five or six working pits and an explosive chemical works in Castleford. Will my right hon. Friend convey my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who said in his statement two weeks ago that new money would be found for Pontefract, and that the accident and emergency service is safe there, 24 hours a day?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the emergency services and the statements
  970
  made from both sides of the House. He gives me the opportunity to say yes, rail is a very safe mode of transport, but the big question for us is whether we can make it safer. That is always the question on which the House will concentrate its mind. There will come a time when we will have more and more debates about it, but this is not the moment. I am pleased to say that all the signs are that it was riot a failure of a safety system that contributed to the collision today, but I must wait to see what the reports tell us.
  It was not only Pontefract hospital, but quite a few hospitals in the Yorkshire area that responded tremendously. That is why the Minister for Public Health is up there, saying think you on behalf of all of us for what they have done. As to whether Pontefract hospital is under threat, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is on the Front Bench and will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett).
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: I am not seeking to allocate blame or asking my right hon. Friend to do that, but I am concerned to learn tonight that at the point where one of the busiest motorways passes over one of the busiest railway routes in the country, the crash barriers intended to protect that it very busy railway route seem to have been inadequate and were certainly not long enough. Are those crash barriers the responsibility of Railtrack or of the Highways Agency?
  Mr. Prescott: First, as my hon. Friend says, we must wait to see whether any criticisms are made about crash barriers. That investigation is under way. As my hon. Friend rightly says, that M62 is a busy motorway—one of our busiest—and cross the east coast line. The barriers have not been designd to deal with a Land Rover and a vehicle that career downn a bank and go on to the railway line. A balance must be struck. The barriers are not designed to prevent cars from going on to the railways. They are designed to stop lorries running into the bridges over railways, for obvious reasons. Barriers are built where the motorway runs alongside the railway, and crash barriers have then been put in place.
  The matter will be investigated, and I assure my hon. Friend that the investigation will be reported to the House. The matter must be kept under constant review. The barriers are largely put in place to protect the bridges. As I reported to the House, the crash barrier is quite a long one. It is longer than is required under the regulations. Yet the vehicle left the road some 30 m before the beginning of the crash harrier and careered down the embankment in a way that surprised all of us. However there will be a thorough investigation and we will report back to the House.
  Shona McIsaac: As I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware, the freight train involved in this terrible accident came from Immingham in my constituency, and I am sure that he will appreciate that, when the terrible news came through, it sent a shiver of fear through the families of freight drivers there. My right hon. Friend paid tribune to the passengers and drivers, but will he also pay tribute to the freight drivers who do such

  971
  tremendous work moving goods around the country, and do all that he can to ensure that Railfreight retains business confidence?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her words of support. She is right that there is considerable freight train activity on that line, particularly with the movement of coal to the power stations, which was certainly a contributory factor in the tragedy. Thousands of tonnes of deadweight coal had an effect on the impact. Workers and passengers risk death in such incidents, and the families of railway workers rely on television and radio for the latest information to discover whether their loved ones have been involved in any tragedy. When people speculate on the television and in the press they should bear in mind that there are people who are extremely worried about their loved ones, whether they are rail workers or passengers.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: I add my condolences to all the families of those injured and killed, and my thoughts go to the workers from all the services involved in this terrible incident. It is clear from what has been said in the Chamber today that the accident was due not to a rail problem but a road problem, and he material used to guard motorways when they travel over roads or rail is of particular importance. In the village of Winton in my constituency there have been three incidents in a couple of years in which three different cars have gone off a motorway in similar circumstances to this tragedy, with resultant deaths. Fortunately, they did not hit the houses below. Will my right hon. Friend investigate whether concrete might be a more appropriate material for barriers in such areas?
  Mr. Prescott: There have been a number of incidents over several years where bridges go, over roads or rails. Those are always a matter of concern and are fully investigated. Where crash barriers are deemed necessary they are provided. Whether the matterials used for the barriers might result in an unsafe road is a matter of concern, but if my hon. Friend care to write to me with particular examples I shall be happy to follow the matter up with the Highways Agency.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: This was an appalling tragedy and the Secretary of State is right to extend sympathy to those families involved, to praise the emergency services and to institute quick and thorough inquiry. But will he personally consider the national standards for crash barriers and bride e parapets? They are meant to withstand 30tonne vehicles travelling at 40 mph. They were clearly not in place where this accident occurred. If the inquiry finds that he national standard must be upgraded, will my right ion. Friend give an assurance that that will happen?
  Mr. Prescott: As I have said, barriers are installed largely to influence the path of any lorry or car that collides with them; they will not stop such vehicles, but they might clear them from the bridge itself. However, the standards are being considered and the investigation will cover such matters. We shall take on board any recommendations and bring them to the House.

  Deferred Division
  Mr. Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on Deferred Divisions, the Ayes were 318, the Noes 119, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Foot and Mouth
  Question again proposed.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: This is an important debate. Unfortunately, my constituency is one of the two within Lancashire where foot and mouth has been confirmed. The other is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) where that horrible disease has been confirmed at an abattoir in Great Harwell; that is tragic news. My hon. Friend is suffering the same pain as I am, and people are rightly at a loss about what to do next. My hon. Friend is working hard and has been in touch with MAFF requesting help and advice on behalf of his constituents. They could not been represented by a better Member.
  On Monday, we heard on the bush telegraph that there was a suspected case of foot and mouth in Chorley. MAFF was informed, and by 11 o'clock the next morning I had a telephone call confirming that foot and mouth had been established in the village of Withnell. To have such a horrible disease confirmed in a constituency such as Chorley, which has hundreds of farmers who are now worried for their future, is the worst news possible.
  After I received the telephone call confirming the disease I telephoned the police, but I was told that they had not received confirmation. I was able to tell them that I had had confirmation from MAFF, but that matter requires urgent attention. Clearly, the police and other services involved should be told, and those who answer the telephones on behalf of the Lancashire police should be aware of the situation. The police should set up hotlines so that people who fear, or suspect, that they have foot and mouth on their farms can be dealt with immediately. We have the MAFF and the NFU hotlines, but the police, too, should have such a hotline. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn feels the same. People in Lancashire are worried that they cannot always get though to the right people in the police, so I hope that that problem is addressed quickly. Other constabularies in Britain should also ensure that they, too, have a hotline.
  Before hearing the news I had spoken to the leader of the council, Jack Wilson, who had also heard whispers on the bush telegraph. When 11 o'clock came I knew we had to move quickly. I spoke to the local authority, which had already established that refuse vehicles would not enter farms within the constituency, but would stay on the highway and refuse would be brought to them. The local authority had therefore responded quickly.
  Lancashire county council was also involved. I spoke to one farmer who rightly got in touch with the county council which, in turn, got in touch with me. Through its good offices, the council has played a major part. It has closed footpaths and is working with the police to ensure that people do not walk across the fields and spread the disease—the worst danger that we all fear.
  The problem is that people are in fear and do not know where the disease will strike next. The district council and the county council, including County Councillor Steve Holgate, rightly played their role. I have spoken to local councillors, who share the same views whatever their political persuasions. This is not about politics. Councillor Iris Smith, who represents the Withnell ward, and Councillor Kerry Jones were the first two people to whom
  974
  I spoke. I mentioned to Councillor David Dickinson of the neighbouring wart that there was a problem just down the road from him. I also spoke to the local farmers on the district council, including Councillors Harold Heaton and Frank Culshaw, to ensure that they were aware of what was happening within the Chorley constituency. Everybody rightly showed great sympathy and worry. The constituency may cover an area of 80 square miles and have hundreds of forms, but it is close-knit, and the message went out.
  The anxiety is about where the disease will go next. I feel sorry for farmers indeed, I always have done, as they have done badly for many years. I know that the Government have tried to address that problem, but now farmers face a new one. I want to ensure that this outbreak is not the final nail n the coffin of agriculture. I know that we all feel the same. Whatever happens and whatever is being said, we all know one thing: we want to ensure that when we have eradicated the disease, there is still a farming industry at the end of it. The House is united on that, and we should move forward. We want to ensure that farming will continue.
  The plight of a Farmer whose land neighbours an infected farm is a for lonely one. He cannot go out and does not have any contact with other people. Farming is lonely at the best of times, but now is the loneliest time for a farmer. He does not know what is going on and has no contact with other people. The Government have tried to address the problem with extra financial resources for farming. However, marry farmers may lose out financially because of the over- 30-months scheme. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that those voices are not lost, and that people who are struggling will be helped and looked after.
  The danger of any compensation scheme is that although people will get the money, they never quite know when that will happen. That danger is faced by farmers who have already experienced financial ruin. As they now face the extra problem of the disease and the burden that it brings, I want us not only to make the money available and award the compensation, but to consider making interim payments in cases of need, especially if the process is to be a long one. I would have thought that that was not impossible, so we should consider making interim payments available.
  Mr. Nick Brown: I make no firm commitment tonight, but I intend to set what can be done to pull the agrimonetary payments, its forward to the earliest date on which they can practically be made. I shall be talking to Commissioner Fischier to see whether I can have the Commission's help in achieving what my hon. Friend asks for.
  Mr. Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, which all hon. Members will welcome. I know that he is genuine and means what he says. We all recognise that and we welcome his assurance.
  It is sad in itself that the slaughtering has occurred in my constituency. No hon. Members ever want that to happen in their constituencies, but the problem also affects the farms adjoining those where the presence of the disease has been confirmed, which are waiting to see whether there are any signs of the disease. The farmers and their families sit there worrying, and they, too, face a

  975
  serious financial plight. They cannot take their animals to the abattoir or use the special rules that we introduce. The welfare of their animals is important. They must be fed and looked after, so there is a running cost.
  The clock is ticking away, and we cannot say how long the farms that neighbour those where foot and mouth disease has been confirmed will last. We do not know how long it will be before any cattle can be moved to special abattoirs. It is the plight of those farmers and the worry that they face that I am highlighting. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider whether special payments can be made to those adjoining farms. Nobody wants to move anything off them or to have any contact with them. Will my right hon. Friend consider that serious financial problem, which must be addressed?
  People will ask why we must eradicate foot and mouth disease. We must do so for the future of farming in this country. It is our utmost aim and our main objective to ensure complete eradication. That is the only way in which we can export in future, especially to the United States, which will not touch a country that has not completely eradicated foot and mouth. It is those markets that we need, and to which we want to return. It is crucial for farming that we get back into the international market. On that basis, can we ensure that we do not import from countries that have foot and mouth disease? Let us be strong and take a firm stance, like the United States, to ensure that we do not receive imports from countries that have the disease and are not dealing with it properly.
  I know that my right hon. Friend takes care of the farming industry. I know that that aim is in his heart and that he will continue to work on the industry's behalf. I speak on behalf of the industry, but especially for the Lancashire farmers, and my right lion. Friend came to Chorley to meet some of its hundreds of farmers. It is crucial that we look after them and do not allow our farming industry to bleed to death because it lacks the finances to carry on.
  I know that the Government are committed to meeting the needs of those farmers, but these things always come down to time. As my right hon. friend said, time is essential and we must consider the matter as urgently as possible. I know that MAFF has played a super role and that he has done a super job. MAFF must continue to work with the farming industry and local farmers in the Chorley area, as well as with the National Farmers Union. We would struggle without MAFF, und I cannot praise it and the Minister enough on farmers behalf, but I look forward to quick help and support to ensure that their livelihood is preserved. Let us get behind the industry and ensure that British farming is put back on the world map, and once again leads the world in quality farming with quality welfare. That is what I want to see.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Several hon. Members have mentioned the plight of abattoirs. Before I add my comments on that facet of the discussion, I must declare an interest. It is unlikely that there will be an abattoir owner in the next Parliament, although there might be so many redundant owner that many will seek nomination for election to Parliament.
  I question whether this Parliament has profited from the presence of an abattoir owner among its Members. I have regularly and persistently tried to flag up the threat to our
  976
  small abattoirs and the consequences of their closure. Just as regularly and consistently, however, the Government have tried to avoid facing up to the reality. Twelve months ago, I asked the Minister of Agriculture when he would implement the recommendations of the Pooley report. In reply, I received a written answer from the Minister of State, who stated:
  "it is our intention that this should be done as speedily as possible."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 79W.]
  I shall not bore the House by quoting from the many, many other questions that I have asked in the intervening 12 months, but I received an answer to a question on the same subject this week. I asked the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on meat inspection charges for smaller abattoirs. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who had to answer because of a change in duties and responsibilities, said, "I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible." Twelve months have passed since the Minister of State said that she intended to act as speedily as possible, but the Under-Secretary is now saying the same thing. Smaller abattoirs, which were seriously worried even before the foot and mouth problem arose, are still living in uncertainty because a new meat inspection charging regime is due to be implemented on 1 April and, as far as I know, they have not yet received from the Ministry a categorical description of what will happen.
  Before I pursue that theme, I must say that we heard an excellent, sensible speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who pointed out that many abattoirs are large and specialist, and that that fact necessitates the movement of large numbers of stock over great distances throughout the United Kingdom. Those abattoirs are so big because their customers are the big supermarket chains, which smaller abattoirs are unable to supply because they cannot guarantee the volume or meet the specifications regularly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred to the abattoir in his constituency that specialises in killing sows that are exported to the continent. However, there are two other categories of abattoir. Historically, a large number were associated with meat products factories, where the product of the abattoir was fed into the production of the factory. A few still exist, but my concern is for the future of small abattoirs, and the particular relevance of the small local abattoir in the context of the debate.
  The whole House wants the movement ban to be lifted as soon as possible, but hon. Members will appreciate the Minister's difficulty in lifting the ban completely and allowing the mass movement of livestock up and down the country to large specialist abattoirs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred. That would, of course, risk spreading the disease further. It seems to me, and perhaps the Minister agrees, that if the ban is to be lifted, it may have to be lifted incrementally and only within a radius of a few miles of abattoirs.
  In that context, smaller abattoirs will perhaps be able to reopen their doors, whereas larger abattoirs, denied the large numbers that they need to make their economics come right, may not be able to open on the same basis until the Minister can lift the ban completely.
  Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about those matters, but the Government

  977
  are considering direct movement from farm to slaughterhouse, and movement from farm to holding area to slaughterhouse, in part to enable batches of animals to be assembled from different sources, thereby facilitating the workings of the trade. The crucial issue for us is the risk of spreading the disease. I cannot compromise on that. There will be no movements in any form that risk spreading the disease. What matters is not so much the length of a journey as the conditions in which it is undertaken. In particular, on the advice of veterinary authorities, my absolute insistence is that animals that travel directly to a slaughterhouse, or from a holding area to a slaughterhouse, have no chance to mix with other animals that are not going directly to slaughter.
  Mr. Gill: Needless to say, I agree entirely that the ban must be lifted only on the basis of animals being consigned directly to an abattoir, so that the risk of spreading the disease is minimised.
  I return to my theme, which Ministers know that I have been pursuing for at least two years. I remind the House that in June I initiated a debate in Westminster Hall on rural abattoirs. I used a statistic given by a Labour Minister in the other place. Baroness Hayman said:
  "red meat slaughterhouses in this country declined in number from 1,385 in 1975 to 339 last year."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 797.]
  That is a dramatic reduction, and the casualties were mainly smaller abattoirs. Some of the problems that we are experiencing were, to my mind, entirely foreseeable. I am not saying that we could have foreseen foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever or BSE, but we could have foreseen the consequences of effectively driving the smaller abattoirs out of business. Our common sense alone should have told us that piling bureaucracy and costs on to small abattoir operators would make those abattoirs uneconomic and cause their closure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar talked about large abattoirs. I accept that they can employ economies of scale, but smaller abattoirs are important in the local community. We have too few already. Labour Members have queried whether we have enough and whether they are strategically situated, and we need assurance from the Government that nothing more will be done to prejudice their future. I say that because a reduction in the number of private butchers and specialist meat producers who supply niche markets is an inevitable result of the demise of small abattoirs.
  All parties in the House have flagged up the development of niche markets as one of the great hopes for the future of agricultural industries, not least the livestock industry—but without the smaller, specialist abattoirs, there will be no niche meat markets. Big plant abattoirs are not the least bit interested in dealing with small numbers of animals for specialist outlets, just as no big abattoirs are interested in taking an animal for private kill for home consumption, or slaughtering a perfectly fit animal that has to be disposed of. Only smaller abattoirs have been prepared to continue that service. It would be wrong, but administratively convenient, for Ministers and the Department to deal with a relatively small number of big abattoirs rather than the few hundred in existence, and many in the trade suspect that administrative convenience outweighs all the other considerations.
  978
  The situation is certainly serious: there is a prospect of the livestock industry being decimated. I do not think that any Member on either side of the House doubts that the margins on which livestock farmers currently operate are minuscule, and I beheve that this will be the last straw for many of them. There will also be a high attrition rate among specialist live stock hauliers. All that is bad news for the livestock industry in general.
  It is ironic that in imposing ever stricter standards on the British industry—I refer not just to the livestock industry but to abattoirs and manufacturing industry—we are making our own industry less and less competitive. Yet we are apparently prepared to admit imports from anywhere in the world, provided that they carry a piece of paper stating that the meat was produced in conditions of which we approve.
  Ministers will say that they have evidence in their Departments of instances of the law not being complied with in this country. What makes them confident enough to believe that the law in all the countries from which we import is being applied as rigorously as it is here, and that the products that we import meet the standards on which we insist?
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is not the truth of what my hon. Friend says demonstrated by the fact that the infection must have come from abroad? The disease had been eradicated in this country. Whatever else may eventually transpire, it has come here from abroad.
  Mr. Gill: Absolutely. The same point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was once Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food He said—I think I quote him correctly—that the cause of the disease had presumably come from abroad. If we did not have the disease a fortnight ago and we have it now, it must have come from somewhere; therefore it must have come from abroad.
  I understand the difficulty in which the present Minister finds himself, and I know that he understands the point that I am making to hem, which is: how are we to maintain our high health status while allowing imports from the rest of the universe? Is it fair to bear down on our own industry in se draconian a fashion, making it uncompetitive and putting sections of it out of business, while the product that it used to supply is supplied by foreigners?
  I believe in free markets and free competition, but we all face a dilemma that must be resolved. If the recent outbreak of classical swine fever was caused by someone carelessly discarding the proverbial ham sandwich, no amount of trouble that Ministers and Departments go to in order to ensure that our animal health status is maintained will be effective. Sooner or later, Ministers must address the question of food imports in a much more robust fashion, or else accept that the objective of maintaining 100 pet cent. animal health status is not feasible.
  That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), when I asked whether we would be able to turn our face against vaccination for ever. It is possible to do that for ever and a day, provided that there is a cordon sanitaire around these islands, and provided that we know that no import will destroy our 100 per cent. animal health

  979
  status. The question on which tie House, and the Government in particular, must now focus is this: where is the present policy leading us?
  We all agree that the slaughter policy is correct now, but we are dealing with a situation that is very different from that of 1967. The whole world has moved on, and, as many Members have pointed out, trade has been globalised since then. We must keep an open mind on, for example, whether we can sustain our high health status without vaccination; and we should perhaps reconsider the policy of slaughtering, slaughtering and slaughtering again until the disease has apparently been eradicated. Neither the Minister nor I can estimate how many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of animals may have to be killed before we get to the end of the problem.
  I have made this point many times, but I need to make it again. Ministers must understand that if the abattoirs close, there is scant prospect of their reopening. The reason is straightforward. Abattoirs operate on high volumes and low margins; they are now burdened with a huge amount of bureaucracy and inspection, and there are always the environmental pressures imposed on them by neighbours.
  As with galvanising works, everyone knows where an abattoir should not be sited, but no one will say where one should be sited— and if an abattoir owner has a site that could be developed for housing or any other purpose, he could hardly be blamed for cashing in his chips and going out of business in the present circumstances. That is regrettable.
  What is to be done? Movement must be resumed. We must halt the unnecessary closure of small abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to the parlous state of the United Kingdom's biggest pig abattoir. The problem does not just affect small or medium-sized abattoirs, or indeed large abattoirs; it affects all abattoirs, including the biggest, which is in Malton in my hon. Friend's constituency. The maintaining of the movement ban threatens the future of all abattoirs, regardless of size.
  Let me end by saying something that is self-evidently true: without abattoirs, there can be no livestock industry. The Minister needs to understand the importance of keeping all our abattoirs going, to provide the industry with an essential service and to convert its product into a food that the public will, I am sure, wish to buy. I believe that, given the choice, the vast majority of the British people would prefer to buy meat produced in this country.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I should start by declaring a tangential interest. I own five acres in Derbyshire, which are occupied by about 15 sheep. I receive no money or material gain from that. I have asked the young couple who look after them to take precautions, mainly to prevent possible infection from me because I travel a good deal within my constituency and there is a suspected case—although, fortunately, the initial test has proved negative—in Hartshorne in my area. We hope that the outcome will continue to prove negative, but, clearly, that case has caused much concern among the local farming community. The community of south Derbyshire respects its local farmers, although it does not always agree with everything that they do, and regards them as an important part of what is essentially a rural community with strong ties.
  980
  Let me touch on the immediate issues. The first relates to a conversation that I had this morning with a farmer who is not from my constituency, but from the neighbouring constituency—that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). The farmer raised comparisons with the way in which the crisis had been dealt with in 1967, which shows that some people farming now were farming in 1967 and they have accurate memories, as they see it, of what happened then. From what he had observed from a distance, that farmer felt that animals were being slaughtered and carcases destroyed less speedily than in 1967. I remarked that I thought that one of the difficulties was the different circumstances now; the infection is much more widespread. In 1967, it was concentrated in particular areas and it was easier to marshal resources to destroy animals speedily. Nevertheless, I pass on the remark that he made from his experience.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). He probably knows that I agree with much of what he said about abattoirs. When he strayed into references to foreigners, he lost my sympathy somewhat, but I have pursued a long campaign in my time as a Member of Parliament on the competitiveness issue: how we regulate and charge for abattoir services and the effect that that has had, particularly on the small abattoir community.
  I think that I have achieved some progress. Initially, the competitiveness issue was not regarded as relevant; it was regarded essentially as a matter for individual Community countries, not a concern of Her Majesty's Government. Then a full survey was conducted of relative charges and charging regimes and, not to everyone's surprise, it was discovered that the regulatory regime that we applied was rather more rigorous in some ways and certainly more expensive.
  I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's comments about the slow progress in implementing the recommendations made in the Pooley report. Small abattoirs still await a clear answer on the appropriate charging regime that they should have, which would better secure their future.
  The incident in my constituency relates to an abattoir. As I said, I hope that it does not end up being a proven case. This afternoon I spoke to one of the workers at the abattoir. He had been laid off and was, not surprisingly, concerned about what would happen to him in the period in which his workplace was shut. He pointed out that around 90 per cent. of the produce of the abattoir, which is largely a specialist halal operation, is exported to Germany. Thus there are two problems: the constraint on movements that the business would face; and the constraint on exports, which is its main source of income.
  I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments about the consequential implications for other parts of the agriculture supply chain at this time of crisis. That business is not large and it appears to have traded in good faith. In those circumstances, the needs of such businesses deserve proper consideration. Obviously, farmers close to that business who have had no part in any matter relating to the crisis so far, but who are nevertheless restricted on their premises, also need some thought, because there are now implications for their cash flow. I believe that yesterday's announcement goes some way towards that, but it does so in a random way—which is inevitable if it is relying largely on agrimonetary compensation. Many of

  981
  those who are not affected will receive some assistance, whereas many of those who are affected with some severity will receive the same assistance. Obviously that will cause difficulties.
  I believe that there is scope to examine further the possibility of supporting consequential losses in some manner. I urge the Minister to continue investigating that issue and to use whatever means are available. I know that he has sympathy for those who have been placed in that situation. I also realise that it is a complicated process to satisfy his colleagues in the Government and, potentially, the European Commission that he is doing the right thing. Nevertheless, I urge him to continue with that focus.
  The action that my right hon. Friend has announced to try to get the supply chain working again will have the most immediate effect, and it is what most business people would like. They would rather be paid for doing their job than paid something by the Government not to do it. In that light, I very much welcome the announcement and look forward with great interest to seeing the details of how the scheme will work. I am sure that that interest will be shared by many members of the South Derbyshire farming community.
  The other gap that I have identified was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—the briefing to local authorities on their role in the matter. I spoke to South Derbyshire district council about refuse collection from farms, but it had already identified the need to respond effectively. I just wonder, however, whether that knowledge is fully shared across the country. In some parts of our country, the linkage between the local authority and the local farming community is perhaps a little less robust. In that respect, there should be a clear brief on what should be expected, and some of the points made by my hon. Friend are certainly relevant. I think that clearer guidance is probably necessary.
  As for the medium to long term, I have already addressed the issue—although the hon. Member for Ludlow has done it much better—of clarification of the role of small abattoirs. I am trying to examine whether some of our difficulties—of course not the original infection, but some of our difficulties with migration of the disease across the country—have been caused by unnecessarily long journeys. I certainly accept the knowledgeable comments that have been made about specialisation in the abattoir sector. Although specialisation has made some long journeys inevitable, other long journeys are not inevitable.
  We should bear in mind the experience of the 1960s, when outbreaks were concentrated around particular places of infection, partly because the movement of animals across the country was not as intensive as it is now. I think that there is now an opportunity to re-examine that issue and certainly to clarify the charging regime that the abattoir sector now faces.
  We also need to examine the supply chain within agriculture. Some well-informed remarks have been made in this debate about the changing way in which the supply chain is working and the increasing specialisation of some sectors, both of which have led to particular types of beasts being taken on long journeys around the country to
  982
  particular abattoirs. I am not sure how robustly understood that is or how well we understand the risks associated with the way in which supply chains have developed.
  Supply chains have developed for entirely understandable market reasons. As those who have listened to my speeches before will know, I am essentially a strong, robust supporter of the marketplace in agriculture. Nevertheless, operation of the market does not always entail proper risk awareness. There needs to be some thought about that issue. Yesterday, I listened to a farmer who was on the television talking about the number of movements that seem to be made. A hon. Member earlier in the debate spoke about the apparent frequency of movements.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this matter in many forums on many occasions, and he will know that I share his general support for the importance of the market. However, I am very concerned about the pernicious effect of supermarkets, for example, in breaking the link between the supplier the retailer and the consumer. The extension of food-produce supply chains of the type that the hon. Gentleman described is largely the result of the breaking of that link. We need to look for ways to reunite purchasers with the source of the goods that they purchase. Farmers' markets represent one of those ways, but I fear that, sadly, they will be among the victims of this outbreak.
  Mr. Todd: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. He and I have disagreed in the past. I do not think that it is possible to roll back history, but we need to understand what we have done. I am not sure that we do understand that, and I shall return to the point at the end of my remarks.
  I want to make three final points. First, we have failed to grasp the consequences of farm diversification. We press on farmers the need to diversify, and it is right that we should: I do it too, but the problem came home to me again yesterday, when I visited a farmer in my constituency. We talked—I should add that the meeting took place outside his premises—about the impact of the outbreak on his business. He told me that he had moved into horses, for which he lets out some buildings. People come in to look after the horses, or to go riding from the farm.
  That diversification introduces a further risk that the disease might be spread by the movement of animals. It certainly makes control more complex: the farmer to whom I spoke has had to stop people entering his farm, horses from leaving it, and so on. Such difficulties for farmers are in part the consequence of the thrust to move away from the raw material production on which they had concentrated until recently. We must try to understand the risk implications of diversification rather better.
  Secondly, reference has been made to globalisation and the implications associated with imports. It is clear that this outbreak started from something imported but, once again, we cannot roll back the frontiers in that regard. We must try to understand better the risks involved with imports, and to establish more robust controls at our borders. We cannot avert those risks utterly, but we must try to minimise them wherever we can.
  We must understand td that increasing proportions of our foodstuffs come from abroad because that is what our consumers want. It has been said that our consumers

  983
  really want to buy British. I wish that that were true, but all too often consumers either want to buy foodstuffs that are not—and cannot be—produced in this country, or foodstuffs that can be produced here but at a cost that is higher than people are prepared to pay.
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the lion. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. In case he is worried, I assure him that I shall not attempt to intervene a third time. I believe that, sadly, most consumers have become less discerning. They do not know the origins of the products that they buy. That is part of the break in the link that I described earlier: people not know where their food—whether it be processed food or all sorts of other foodstuffs—comes from. It is not that they do not want to exercise choice, but in many circumstances choice is now almost impossible to exercise.
  Mr. Todd: It was never possible for people to have the totality of knowledge that we might wish for, but we have another opportunity to bring hone to consumers the importance of thinking carefully about what to eat. The outbreak almost certainly derives from an import of some sort, and we must recognise that the choices open to consumers carry implications. We cannot stop people making the choices that they want to make, but we can make sure that they are aware of the risks involved.
  Finally, we have very little knowledge of the consequences of the intensification of agriculture in Britain. That intensification took place for entirely market-oriented reasons. I subscribe o that motive, and I do not want to roll back the process, entirely. However, very often we have intensified agriculture in ignorance, and sometimes with a painful lack of knowledge of the scientific and risk implications.
  I say that because, at my suggestion, the Select Committee on Agriculture started an inquiry, prompted by the Phillips report, into research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathy and into the implications of intensive farming. So far, we have had a good deal of evidence on research into TSE, which I expected. There has been a strong emphasis on that important subject. However, there has been virtually nothing on the revolution that has taken place in agriculture over the past 30 years and the possible implications that that may have for animal health, human health and our environment.
  It is painful to acknowledge that we seem to be so poor at understanding the revolution that has taken place before our very eyes—certainly in my lifetime, and I have lived in the countryside for most of my life. That process has crept past us without our having any proper understanding of its implications. We have simply accepted incrementally, on the argument of the marketplace, what has come about, without examining thoroughly enough what steps have been taken and whether we have subtly and silently accepted a risk that, frankly, we would not have accepted had we known more about it. What I am suggesting is not an immediate task for the Minister, who has plenty to do, but I would like us to consider whether we need a much stronger research programme into the implications of some of the choices that we have made.
  I will say what I have said many times in these debates. I believe that there is a bright future for United Kingdom farming—and this is a strange time to say it. To be honest, the brightness is not shining through the gloom around us.
  984
  However, there is a tremendous amount of enterprise and a strength of product that could create wealth and jobs in our countryside into the future. That vision is always before me, even when we face a dark subject of this kind, and we should constantly hold it up to our farming communities. They are feeling about as gloomy as one can imagine at the moment.
  We are giving our farming communities more support, but I think that we also need to give them greater evidence of our faith in their future. I constantly hear it said that the Government no longer care about farming. As a committed supporter of British farming, I find that terrible. Any lover of the English landscape would find it terrible too. We need to give far stronger evidence of our commitment and faith, particularly at times of crisis such as this.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is always fascinating to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), although I do not share his limited optimism about the future of the farming industry in the United Kingdom. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I and my many constituents who farm find it difficult to imagine that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. However, I hope that he is right. I, too, believe, that we have the science, the farming, the soil, the weather and the history to beat the pants off any other agricultural nation in the world. Sadly, the problems facing the industry are such that I, for one, am not enough of a visionary to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it does exist.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench on calling this vital debate at this time in our farming history. I do not wish to bring any hint of party political bickering into what has thus far been a level-headed and sensible debate, but in the long history of the Government failing to call any debate on farming—I think that there has been one Government debate in the past two or three years and eight or nine called by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which strikes me as a strange recordit is particularly unfortunate that in this of all weeks the Conservative party has had to call the debate and force the Government to come to the House to discuss this vital topic. As recently as the day before yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was decrying the fact that we were wasting his time by calling him to Westminster to answer to the nation for what is going on.
  This has been a good debate, and I intend to talk about the crisis that faces the nation. None the less, it is worth registering the fact that the Conservative party cares enough about the crisis to have called the debate, but that the Labour party does not. The Labour Government spent yesterday banning foxhunting. They feel more strongly about a few foxes than the many hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep that may have to be destroyed. I regret that. I feel passionately about foxhunting and about farming. The history of this week will be noted by people in the countryside and if they were able to be in London on 18 March—unfortunately, they cannot be—the Government would know that.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman chastises us for not holding a debate. I welcome the fact that we have held a

  985
  measured debate. Before it began, I looked at the history of BSE; it is interesting to note that, during the period when the hon. Gentleman was an adviser to the then Conservative Government, nearly all the debates on BSE were called by the Labour Opposition because the Conservatives did not want to talk about it.
  Mr. Gray: I accept the hon. Gentleman's chastisement. It will also have been heard on his side of the House, so the Government will have understood that he is equally unhappy with their record on the matter.
  This matter is not one for levity or for party political bickering. I hope that the House will forgive me for introducing a slight element of that, but I wanted to register those points at the beginning of my remarks.
  I am deeply concerned because my constituency is primarily a livestock and dairy farming area. One hundred yards across the border with the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), there is a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in the Bromham abattoir. I understand that a second case has been confirmed today at a farm a short distance from the abattoir.
  My constituents include a large number of livestock farmers. I saw many of them last Friday at Chippenham market. Naturally, they are holding their breath as they watch the appalling tragedy that is unfolding across the nation; those of us who are not farmers, who live in towns and have occupations such as that of Member of Parliament cannot understand that. Farms in my constituency tend to be family farms and are generally of 400 or 500 acres, with between 100 and 150 milking cows. The farmers tend to do most of the work themselves nowadays; because of the crisis in agriculture, they have laid off most of their workers.
  What an awful prospect those farmers face. Day in and day out, they work with about 150 animals—milking them twice a day, knowing their background and pedigrees. They know their animals as many of us know our families. They face the prospect that, by tomorrow, there may be huge bonfires, such as those we saw in the north of England, and that their yards will be eerily quiet and they will have nothing to do. They will have no means of employment and no income—they have precious little at the moment. What an effect this outbreak will have on those individuals; we have not touched on that matter sufficiently in the debate.
  Farming is not only about large farms and abattoirs; it is about family farms such as those throughout the west of England. It is also about people who live, work and breathe farming and livestock. If foot and mouth came to their farm, it would bring a catastrophe that those of us who do not farm can only imagine.
  Before I discuss the practical handling of the crisis in my constituency, I express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friends about the overwhelming importance in the medium to long term—once this horrible event has passed—of finding out why the outbreak occurred. We know that it came from abroad—the Minister said so during his opening remarks—but we do not know whether it was a sandwich in an airport rubbish bin or illegally imported meat; we do not know
  986
  where it came from. It cannot have been brought in on the wind; it must have been on some form of transport. It is vital that we know in detail, and publicly, where this terrible tragedy cam from.
  Having been rather ungracious towards the Minister earlier in my speech, I now add my voice to those that we have heard throughout the debate to point out that he seems to have acted with decisiveness, clarity and urgency. He has taken precisely the right steps to contain the outbreak.
  I was at Chippenham market at 1 o'clock last Friday, when the auctioneer made the announcement about the ending of the transportation of livestock to the dairy ring, which was then in use. Hon. Members can imagine the feeling around the ring about the appalling catastrophe facing farmers. I went around speaking to them, and, to a man, they all said, "Thank goodness that is being done. It is a terrible prospect, but it is exactly the right thing to do. We've got to contain the outbreak now, and we must take urgent and dramatic action to do so." The Minister and his officials have done exactly the right thing.
  One or two of the farmers in my constituency have been in touch with MAFF officials in the south-west. They were very impressed by how efficient, courteous and, to use a rather new Labour word, caring the officials were; they have been absolutely switched on and first class. Similar comments were made earlier, and I am sure that the Minister will pass our thanks to the south-west office in particular. The people facing the appalling events that may happen on their farms or in their abattoirs are under great stress, but they have been handled extremely well.
  I congratulate the people, whom I saw last night, from the Countryside Alliance on acting with equal determination and straightforwardness in cancelling the march that would have taken place on 18 March. They have been working flat out on the project for 18 months. Half a million people were planning to come to London, using a large number of buses and trains. A ship was even chartered in the north-east of England, and four of my constituents who are disabled were planning to attend. It was a huge event to cancel, but it was absolutely right to do so. Irrespective of one's views on hunting, I congratulate the people in the Countryside Alliance on having taken the clear and straightforward decision to cancel the march.
  I should like to raise two or three issues on the practicalities of the past few days' events. First, I want to touch on the way in which the livestock industry operates. Of course, I accept the great wisdom of those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), rightly think that the meat industry tends to deal in large quantities. It is true that the supermarkets demand 5,000 head of sheep one week and 5,000 head of something else the next. Those animals must be found and transported to the abattoir that the supermarket requires.
  Of course meat production tends to involve a large-volume industry, but our experience in the west country is slightly different. We still have a large number of family butchers, purchasing meat from animals killed in local abattoirs. In my constituency, apart from the abattoir affected by foot and mouth disease, the excellent Drury abattoir at Tockenham is still struggling and surviving the crisis in family abattoirs. However, Newman's abattoir at Malmesbury has had to close,

  987
  despite the fact that it achieved international notoriety because of the two pigs that were released in Malmesbury a year or two ago. None the less, it has had to close, but Drury is carrying on.
  In the west country generally and in my constituency, many family farms still produce livestock that is slaughtered at the abattoir down the road, with the meat being sold at a local retail outlet. Huge movements of animals across the nation, huge abattoirs and cellophane-wrapped meat in Sainbury's may be inevitable, but rather like the inevitability of the closure of village shops, I hope that it does not happen. I will continue to support Drury and the local meat retailer in the hope that we can preserve some localism in the meat industry.
  Mr. Nicholls: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend and I both come from the west country, does he agree that it is heart-rending that, even in the absolute misery of their despair, farmers are saying that if there is compensation in due course—we have all been impressed with what the Minister has said recently—it must be for not just themselves, but their communities? The fact that, when they are in the depths of despair, they are also thinking about the others who have been affected says something about the communities that we represent.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I hope that his constituency will not be affected, but it may well be because Devon is one of the centres of the outbreak. He is right that those who operate abattoirs or run heavy goods vehicles to transport animals are currently receiving no income at all—they have had to close down. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire told us about the worker from an abattoir in his constituency who has been laid off today. That will happen across the nation. However, those businesses have not been told that they will receive compensation from the Government, but they will seek some means of surviving when the crisis is over.
  We should be particularly concerned about two sectors in the livestock industry. First, what are farmers to do with beasts that are just under 30 months old? How long will they have to keep them and what compensation will they receive for the feed that they have to give the animals until they become eligible under the over-30-months scheme? I know that the Minister will give careful thought to that issue.
  The second group is finishers. They finish the beasts off, but what will happen if they cannot do anything with them and the animals go beyond the specified date? How can one assess the value that one has lost from such a finished animal? Will the Minister also consider that point?
  We know about the restrictions on the movements of animals and the restrictions on walkers, but what will happen if large areas of the countryside are closed off? Chippenham is only a mile or two away from an affected abattoir, and the people there do not know what they should or should not be doing. For example, there has been talk about closing schools, but should the schools remain open? I have set an absolute rule that members of the Conservative party should do no campaigning of any sort in villages or the countryside. We shall continue to campaign in the town, where we should be reasonably all right. However, people do not know what they can and cannot do in the restricted areas.
  988
  That point applies even to the Avon Vale hunt that is based a few hundred yards away from the affected abattoir. It was told nothing at all, and it learned only from the news that the neighbouring abattoir had a case of foot and mouth. It was told nothing until it took the trouble to ring MAFF officials in the south-west. It was then treated courteously and was told precisely what it could and could not do. It has been given a special dispensation to bring in fallen stock. Everything is fine now but, initially, the hunt did not know what it could do.
  If the tragedy expands across the nation, I hope that the MAFF official responsible—it may be the press officer—will find ways of getting the message across. It should go not only to livestock owners and to farmers—they probably already know what they can do—but to the much wider audience in an area such as mine. People are very worried about the disease, and they do not want to contribute to it spreading. Apart from the obvious point about not walking across farms, they are not clear about what they can do.
  Hon. Members have referred to how other organisations, such as the police, should react to the crisis. I have been asked to raise an interesting case with the Minister about the way in which the Wiltshire police reacted to the actions of the farmer at Manor farm, Thorn Hill, Wootton Bassett near Swindon. He lives down a dead-end road that no one, apart from the residents of two or three cottages alongside it, uses. He was determined to stop the disease spreading on to his farm, so he decided to put straw and disinfectant on to the road. That may not be entirely effective in preventing the spread of the disease in all circumstances, but it makes a useful contribution.
  Unfortunately, the police told the farmer that he was not allowed to put straw and disinfectant on to the road and that he would be responsible if anyone driving along the road were involved in an accident. They insisted that he should clear the road of the straw and disinfectant. I am told such cases have also occurred in other areas, because the police are unclear about the road traffic regulations and about the risks that straw and disinfectant on small roads, such as this one, and larger roads create.
  MAFF officials should talk to other agencies, such as the police and the emergency services, to make it clear to them what farmers can do and what would happen if straw or disinfectant on the road resulted in a tragic accident. Who would be responsible? Is it possible that the farmer might not be held responsible? Will the Minister take the trouble of letting Mr. Tim Bennett of Manor farm know the answer to those questions? The issue has been raised in newspapers and in other areas.
  The Minister knows the appalling consequences that livestock farmers face. The debate has been useful. It has given us many opportunities to ensure that he is fully aware of the catastrophe facing farmers, such as those in my constituency. I hope that he will listen carefully to those concerns. Of course there are urgent matters to which he must attend to contain the disease, and that is the priority. However, in 1967 the farming industry was reasonably healthy and could handle a similar crisis. I doubt that areas such as mine, where there are predominantly family farmers, can handle this crisis.
  The issue of compensation and rebuilding the industry after the crisis has passed is overwhelmingly important. If the Minister does not pay that due attention and merely

  989
  does the least that he can get away with by providing agrimonetary compensation—which we needed to keep the farming industry alive before the crisis—the farming industry will die. He must find a way to compensate farmers and supporting industries for their losses so that we can look forward, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, to having the same healthy farming industry in 10 or 20 years' time that we used to have. The Minister's heart is in the right place, but I appeal to him to rip it out and show farmers that he cares deeply about the crisis by doing a few things on the ground to preserve the industry.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Many hon. Members are anxious to speak. If contributions are as brief as possible, I hope that not too many people will be disappointed.
  8.57 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I shall try to be brief, not least because I was not able to hear the opening speeches in full because of my commitment to sit on a Select Committee. I apologise for that.
  On behalf of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, I thank my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for their hard work and dedication, which Opposition Members also acknowledged. In Staffordshire, we are keeping our fingers crossed that we will escape the disease. I congratulate the Minister on his work, in particular for the information that has been made readily available on the website and for the full transparency surrounding events.
  The words "foot and mouth" do strike terror in communities—I remember the 1967 outbreak. My late mother, many years before, had lived through a series of animals being killed and burned. The disease has brought terror to generations of farming communities. That is why it is so important that we do everything that we can to deal with it.
  I have misgivings about the scale of agricultural production. I hope that this terrible crisis will mean that we have a debate about how to ensure that we look after the needs of local agricultural production. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I, too, have campaigned in the House for ways to protect smaller abattoirs, not least because of their contribution to the production of organic food.
  I shall concentrate not on animal health, but on public health. I note that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency have clearly stated that the crisis poses no direct risk to public health. I agree with them.
  In any crisis, the first task is to get the emergency services to deal with the situation as it presents itself. Urgent action is being taken to deal with the current situation, but there will be secondary effects. I seek reassurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will liaise with others, not least environmental health officers. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Where it is essential that carcases are burned following slaughter, it is important that there is
  990
  consultation locally About the most appropriate place to do that. What liaison has there been with the chartered institute, local environmental health officers, water companies and the Environment Agency?
  It is crucial that where there are vast pyres of slaughtered animals, none of the remains or the ash gets into water courses and systems. We want to avoid contamination of any kind. Joint action is needed by the Ministry, including its vets, and local authorities, waste agencies, the Environment Agency and environmental health officers. I should be grateful for assurances that liaison is taking place between the right people so that on-going problems can be dealt with.
  Those pyres should not be sited close to food producers because we do not want cross-contamination to occur. In view of the work done by the Pennington taskforce on E. coli 0157, what risk assessment has been carried out of the possibility of E. coli 0157 reaching water supplies? What is the risk of fires burning at an insufficiently high temperature, which could mean that there is a danger of remains containing pathogens contaminating the ground and, subsequently, water courses? That is a critical point in view of the high number of private water supplies throughout the country.
  What is being done about the risk of salmonella? The speed and temperatures at which the carcases are burned may mean that residue could contaminate the water supply. There is also concern about the destruction of prions. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many of the cattle that are being slaughtered, and how many of those that have been burned, are in the high risk, over-30-month category? What precautions are the Government taking? Other public health issues include green-top milk, about which we need assurance. How do all those issues affect the Food Standards Agency?
  The Government are rightly concentrating all their-efforts on the dangers posed by the outbreak. However, I should be grateful for assurances on the secondary issues about which I am concerned and about the local consultation procedures that will be put in place.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I speak for three reasons. First, I have been a beef farmer in my constituency from long before I represented it in this place. Secondly, I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. Thirdly by strange co-incidence, I was a young graduate researcher who acted as secretary to the specialist committee of Conservative Members in the affected areas that reported on the outcome of the 1967–68 epidemic. I have some back knowledge of these matters.
  I am sure that the slaughter and stamping-out policy is the right one. We all agree that we must leave the vets and the authorities to get on with the job and not get in their way. The debate has not frustrated them in that sense. In my view, anything else must be secondary to that.
  In the interests of time, I shall make four brief points about the current situation, and then move on to the medium and longer term. In Northamptonshire, there has been one outbreak just outside my constituency. There is concern about disinfectant, which the Minister has substantially answered. There are some slight concerns about price gouging. Given the 1967 experience, the right

  991
  hon. Gentleman needs to be certain that all the disinfectants that he is prepared to license are equally effective against the foot and mouth virus. There were concerns about that in 1967.
  Secondly, many colleagues have spoken about compensation. I add the consideration that if foot and mouth disease develops into a full-blown epidemic and there are large-scale slaughterings there will be a tendency for the prices of replacement stock to drift upwards. The right hon. Gentleman will have to bear that in mind. Thirdly, there is the question of the resources that are available to the Minister. He responded satisfactorily by saying that he woultl be able to draw in other veterinary assistance, if necessary from the European Union or further afield.
  There is also the importance of administration and the Ministry. We had some experience of these matters when the BSE crisis hit us in March 1996. Members, local authorities and other public bodies should be informed of the need to keep everybody up to speed. It is necessary also to plan for possible contingencies. I shall mention two. The first is whether the census will have to be put off; the second is what will happen to the county council elections, let alone one or two other possible elections at that time.
  It is important that the Minister has sufficient firepower. It is important also that he should have an extra string to his bow—so he might gei one or two bright officials who are not on the job to consider what has happened, to review the 1967 and subsequent experience and, as it were, to think outside the box so that the right hon. Gentleman can be kept up to speed.
  Fourthly, I declare a direct interest in the licensed slaughter scheme. It happens that a motorway was built through my farm, and I have stock 400 yd down wind of it. Northamptonshire is criss-crossed by motorways and other major roads. I hope that the Minister will have regard to the importance of local disposal of stock—given the extreme virulence of foot and mouth disease, he should not even inadvertently pave the way for an incubating animal to take a trail of virus throughout the country, as happened to some extent before we knew that that could happen.
  Those are my immediate concerns. In the medium term, there is a worry that the Minister and his policy of slaughter and stamping out will corm under pressure. We hope that the disease will be contains d by the rapid action that the right hon. Gentleman has taken, and we are pleased that he has done that. There is a striking difference from 1967. In contrast td everything that has been said about the intensification of the industry, there has been an intensification of media interest. When we got to the point where hundreds of thousands of animals were slaughtered, there was huge concern and people began to ask whether we were doing the right thing, and whether we would have to move to a vaccination policy, on a selective or a general basis.
  We all very much hope that that will not happen. Perhaps, like Queen Victoria, the right hon. Gentleman must not counsel the possibility of defeat, but if he is a wise Minister, he will have that in mind as a long-term contingency, and he would be prepared to consider it if it ever became necessary. As we deal with the situation, it is extremely important that both the short-term tactical
  992
  considerations, some of which I have advanced, and the rolling concern that I am sure will develop are properly handled.
  From my experience at that time, I believe that the then shadow Minister, the late Joe Godber, of whom I was very fond and for whom I worked for a number of years, would have been proud of the speech made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). We emphasise the same sort of approach, but it depends on a degree of reciprocity, which the Minister has shown himself ready to undertake. He must be prepared to receive confidences and representations from all round the House and, if necessary, to share them.
  When the pressures that we were experiencing became extreme, Joe Godber asked the then Minister, the late Fred Peart, who was widely respected, whether he could have a briefing from the chief vet. I happened to be the only other person in the room when that briefing was given. It was extremely useful and gave us a detailed and authoritative professional sitrep on where we were and how the epidemic could be contained and eventually stamped out, as I am confident it will be in the present case.
  There is one final longer-term consideration for the Minister. I have dismissed from my remarks some of the speculation that properly exists about the origin of the outbreak. No doubt there will be deficiencies in the handling; there always are. There are already queries about information. The Minister should not be ashamed of that, and we should not press him too hard on it.
  There will also be longer-term considerations about the structure of the agriculture industry, its intensification, and whether, for example—I mention this only as a possibility—it will be necessary to think in terms of a rest period between a series of moves. That would be very difficult for the commercial trade in agriculture, but it may come to that.
  Those are all long-term considerations. In 1968, after the epidemic was contained within a period of six months and at a cost of almost 500,000 head of livestock, it was decided that there should be an authoritative report under a distinguished independent chairman into the entire matter and the lessons that were to be learned.
  I suggest to the Minister that there will be serious long-term issues to consider. They need not be party politically contentious, but they will undoubtedly be sensitive areas. The best course may be for him to put them on one side for now. Perhaps we would back him on that, against the promise that when the outbreak is over, he will commission an independent inquiry to look at all the factors. That will help in the way that Lord Phillips did in relation to BSE.
  Let us concentrate on the job today. Let us be aware that there are wider implications, which many hon. Members in all parts of the House have rehearsed. Let us hope, above all, that by concentrating on the immediate issue, and by having the right kind of dialogue on how to resolve it and any problems that arise, we can stamp the thing out in good time. Then, it will be the time for a longer look at what needs to be learned.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I do not intend to

  993
  repeat points that have already been made, but I may inevitably do so, as unfortunately I have not been present for the whole of the debate. I apologise to the House for that. For part of the evening, I was necessarily engaged elsewhere.
  I was present for the opening speeches. In this debate, I have no difficulty in supporting the Opposition motion. I am grateful to them for the opportunity to say that.
  I join hon. Members in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister. His contribution to today's debate will be remembered with credit by many of us for a long time. For me—I still consider myself to be a new Member although I have been here for four years—it was a singular honour to hear his contribution.
  I have not been present throughout the debate, and, in the interests of brevity, I hope that hon. Members will understand if I abandon references to their contributions; but I cannot allow the contribution from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to pass without comment. It is appropriate that I should speak on the subject shortly after him for two reasons.
  It is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman introduced his remarks with a reference to foxhunting. I have heard his views on that subject before, and we have debated them in the Scottish media. I have also heard his views on whether I should have a view in this place on foxhunting, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. However, we can agree on the importance of agriculture to my constituency, where the hon. Gentleman has his roots. Last year I had the pleasure of hosting him and his mother at the farm where his ancestor made the first Dunlop cheese in the village of Dunlop. It was a beautiful afternoon, as I remember it.
  The area within a 35-mile radius of the main town in my constituency, Kilmarnock, supplies between 25 and 30 per cent. of Scotland's milk. The high rainfall which that area experiences is conducive to grass growing, not grain crops. Ayrshire is consequently one of the most intensive livestock areas in Europe. When one adds to that the fact that 15 per cent. of Scotland's over-30-months scheme cattle come to Kilmarnock to be slaughtered, I am sure that the House will appreciate why a collective sigh of relief emanated from Ayrshire farmers when the news came through that the farm in Aberdeen had proved negative. No one in Scotland wants to see the funeral pyres associated with the eradication of this terrible disease. Currently, Scotland is disease free, and, of course, we want to keep it that way.
  Although relieved, Scottish farmers are not complacent about that. This evening, there are threats in a parish which abuts my constituency, and I understand that there are checks in Dumfriesshire, the county south of Ayrshire. That is why farmers in Scotland, and particularly in Ayrshire, fully support the Government in their aim to eradicate this dreadful disease. They support all the restrictions that have been placed on the movement of livestock and have issued a collective call to the public in full support of the Government's advice to keep out of the countryside until foot and mouth can be contained and eradicated. During the past decade, the collapse in the milk price has put enormous pressures on their industry. A serious outbreak could deal it a blow from which it could never recover.
  994
  I spoke today to Willie Campbell of Low Holehouse farm in Galston. Despite his address being in my constituency, his fann is not in my constituency. He is the chairman of the Ayrshire NFU, a respected commentator on the industry and currently the Scottish representative on the Milk Development Council. Coincidentally, that council was due to meet in London tomorrow, but, responsibly, he is preparing his contribution with a view to making it by telephone.
  Willie Campbell made the same point to me as that made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. This crisis is not only a business tragedy, but a deeply personal tragedy for farmers In Ayrshire. There is no agribusiness there, but there are hundreds of family farms. He conveyed to me a depressing picture of what he and his colleagues and theil, families are facing. The level of anxiety among his fellow farmers is immense. He described to me the terror that he saw etched on the faces of other farmers whom he met recently. He was reassured by the news that the Government intend to draw down their full entitlement to agrimonetary compensation. He said that while that money will not solve the financial pressures that the dairy industry faces, it is welcome news and will make a contribution to easing the pressure.
  Willie Campbell also welcomed the proposed licensed movement scheme. In Ayrshire, there are significant numbers of upland sheep that need to be brought home to the lowland fields for lambing. He hopes that the animal welfare considerations implicit in such circumstances will mean that that scheme will allow their movement. It is imperative that it does as some of his ewes are due to lamb tomorrow.
  The dairy industry cannot survive unless there is movement of milk. Chat must be done in a manner that ensures that milk tankers cannot carry the infection. For that they depend oil disinfectant. Farmers in Ayrshire today telephoned four suppliers but could manage to secure only 5 litres of disinfectant. They are reassured to some extent by my right hon. Friend's announcement that he intends to place in order today increasing by 35 the types of disinfectant that can be used, but it is the availability of that disinfectant that concerns them. However, it is not only disinfectant that is in short supply in Ayrshire, but the necessary spraying equipment. When it is available, it comes at a cost that some farmers cannot meet.
  The farmers of Scotland go to bed tonight praying and hoping that Scotland, which accounts for 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom' s agricultural production, will remain disease free and will be allowed to come back on stream in the not-too-distant future. However, they send a strong message to the House that if it cannot do that, they will join in partnership with farmers, politicians and the Government in trying to eradicate the disease.
  Finally, I am reassured that MAFF and the Scottish Executive are working well in partnership. The test of the devolution settlement is how it performs in a crisis, and in this one it is performing well.
  9.20 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for his response to my intervention. He promised to keep the House closely informed not only by being in attendance with his colleague the Minister of State, but also by perhaps

  995
  introducing a bulletin or something similar. Those remarks are deeply appreciated. He has done a great deal today to unite the House. The tone of the debate was brilliantly set by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and the Minister responded in an exemplary manner. We are all grateful to him and we want to help him.
  I should like to make one point, as that is all that I have time to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made an extremely perceptive and powerful speech that was based on much experience. He told the Minister that he should vot worry too much about the phrase "creating a precedent", as we have an unprecedented situation. I remember well the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 1967, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr Boswell) spoke so eloquently a few moments ago. That was contained within parts of England and Wales, but the current outbreak is going all over the place. Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I pray that it will not go north of the border, but it is in Wales already and many parts of England. Of course, the time is coming when agriculture will be on its knees in a way that did not happen in 1967.
  Agriculture is not only the basic industry of this country and the most important of all our indigenous industries, but is responsible for the countryside that we all love and cherish. The consequential effects of a devastating and desolating epidemic would be felt not, only by those who practise agriculture, but by the tourism industry, those who are anxious to bring people to this country and all who have helped to make its wealth in that manner. Thus, although the provision of compensation to enable farming to survive may have elements of tie unprecedented, it should be considered further. I know that the Minister is keen to do all that he can to help, and when he is considering compensation, he should, of course, think primarily of those who are directly affected. However, will he consider all the other farmers who are affected, and also the other industries? Whatever he can do will not only help our great industry of farmits to survive, but aid the survival of the countryside as we know and love it.
  It is crucial for every hon. Member, to remember that, as we all have a responsibility. Although very few people work on the land, there is not a single family that does not depend upon those who work on the land and what is produced from it. Every home in this country is affected directly or indirectly by the state of agriculture, and every family will be affected in some way by the extent of the epidemic. It is absolutely right that the Minister should use every weapon in his armoury to try to contain and then defeat the disease. He should have unqualified support from all hon. Members and all parts of the country in what he seeks to do.
  We should not be diverted by other matters. If it is necessary to postpone a census or a county council election, it must be postponed.
  As for the general election, the Government have a massive majority, an unfinished programme in other spheres and 15 months of their tern, left. In my view, it would be far better to answer to the electorate when the full five-year term has been completed. It is crucial that nothing should divert our attention, from fighting this appalling disease or from ensuring that British agriculture emerges from it with the optimism mat the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) wants it to have.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall be brief. I say amen to what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, or 95 per cent. of it anyway, which was very sound indeed. I offer my sympathy to my constituents, Robin Lloyd and family and David Thomas and family, who have had their outbreaks confirmed today. The situations of several other farmers in my constituency are under close examination.
  I am pleased to report that Powys county council has made the whole of Powys a prohibition area. The county holds a quarter of a million acres of common land and about 1 million sheep, and the situation is serious because outbreaks have occurred on the boundary of mountain land. I hate to think what would happen if the disease spread to that.
  I want to make a few brief points. In 1967, when I was working in Northumberland, I was involved on the periphery of the outbreak and what I saw was appalling. I have been a farmer, managing 1,500 acres, and I was brought up on a farm. I commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who gave the Minister some sound advice. The methods of disposal being used now are the same as those used in 1967. Huge heat has to be generated to get rid of the disease, but I wonder why the incineration process involves a delay. It could start a lot earlier and there could be graduated burning.
  Access is a problem. On Sunday, 100 people from Ross-on-Wye appeared in my constituency even though the Ministry of Defence has banned people from entering its 32,000 acre estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) realises the importance of that matter. On protection, there is no doubt that lorries need to be sprayed when they enter certain areas and that disinfection pads need to be put in place. The situation at Burnside farm buildings—I know where it is and that is what I prefer to call it—is very serious. If the disease was present for two weeks, an education and training problem clearly needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.
  Imports from third countries are a problem and I alert the Minister to the fact that a person cannot enter New Zealand with even a sandwich in his pocket—it would be incinerated. We must be that particular in respect of the situation in Britain and food brought in at airports and ferry ports should be burned on sight and destroyed. Also, I urge the Minister to consider banning pig swill. Cutbacks have affected Ministry vets and veterinary investigation centres have been closed. That loss must be examined as well.
  We must consider consequential loss compensation not only for farmers, but for organisations such as Farmers Ferry, which operates out of my constituency and has exported 1 million lambs in the past 12 months. It will find it hard to continue. We must consider that fact, because we need the infrastructure to continue after the crisis is over. We must be eternally vigilant and must show no complacency in attacking the disease, which, as we know, is highly infectious. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on what they have done so far.
  Keeping the food chain going is vital for the future of the industry and the movement of livestock direct to abattoirs is one of the most important points that has been referred to this evening. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about the

  997
  need for support for the industry: it is vital at this time. I believe that the nation, and those who are present here now, want the contingency fund to be used. I think that the current outbreak could prove more serious than that of 1967, and that it needs to be tackled head on in terms of protection and, indeed, compensation.
  The industry needs a future, and if we are not careful it will not have one. However, following the Minister's statements this evening I am confident that he will ensure somehow that it survives and, eventually, prospers.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. James Paice: We have heard from many Members on both sides of the House with direct constituency involvement in this tragic crisis. Sadly, the number of Members with such involvement has increased day by day—an increase that we all hope will cease.
  We have heard in particular from my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), both of whom are directly involved, and both of whom made excellent points. I especially appreciated the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who cut his speech off in its prime to allow time for the statement about the rail crash.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) demonstrated his experience as a farmer, a Minister and a political adviser, recalled the last major outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and—as others have said—presented a number of sensible proposals.
  Last week, while using the opportunity of a parliamentary recess to take a few days off, I received a phone call saying that there had been an outbreak of foot and mouth. Like other Members, I am sure, I asked myself how much more British farming would have to take at this dreadful time. That thought was immediately followed by a comment to my wife: "Poor old Nick must wonder what he did in a previous life to deserve this." He may tell us—or perhaps the Minister of State will tell us.
  I have to say that my sympathy evaporated rapidly on Monday, when I heard the Minister's outburst over this debate. He has regained his composure, however, and, as many Members have said this evening, he has redeemed himself totally by his manner—by the way in which he has addressed the issues, and by the courtesies he has shown both on the Floor of the House and privately to me.
  We have heard many speeches and interventions, which shows that this subject is of real interest to many Members. I hope the Minister now accepts that it was right to hold the debate—a debate that has taken place against the background of an industry in crisis. The industry is losing 400 jobs a week, and experiencing year-on-year financial losses. Net farm incomes are lower than living expenses, and there are no reserves on which to rely. Upland livestock incomes are about £2,500 a year, while lowland livestock incomes are about £1,500.
  I too remember the 1967 outbreak. It happened just after I started work in farming. It lasted about five months, and I pray, as others must do, that this outbreak is dealt with more quickly and does not last as long. It has horrendous implications for animals as well as human
  998
  beings. For obvious reasons we have talked about farm animals today, but we should not overlook the threat posed to animals in zoos, including many rare species of antelope and other cloven-hooved animals. The unique wild cattle of Chilli lgham are threatened, as is wildlife, including our deer population. But of course it is even worse for farmers, many of whom are seeing their life's work being wiped cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham also made some tremendously potent remarks about the human factor in the context of, for instance, schools.
  Many people who do not understand agriculture may find it perverse that farmers who breed and rear stock simply so that it can be killed and eaten should, at the same time, care passionately for that stock and its welfare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out, however, many of those farmers have spent decades breeding pedigree stock to a high level—stock that now goes to the flames in the same way as the humblest mongrel bullock.
  The tragedy was brought home to me the other night when I saw one of my oldest friends being interviewed on television as his stock were being slaughtered in the background behind him. I understood and empathised with him and with many other farmers as that happened.
  I join in the tributes that have been paid to Ministry officials, to the vets and to all the others not directly employed who have been and are closely involved in the crisis. I strongly welcome the Minister's robust rejection of the idea of vaccination, a line for which he will have our support.
  Farmers are affected in two different ways. There are those whose herds are compulsorily slaughtered and who receive full compensation equivalent to the value of the stock. However—thew Minister has not mentioned it, but I presume that this true—they will not be allowed to restock for some six months, as was the case in 1967. Therefore, they will have no income on which to live. They will have to live off the capital that comes from that compensation—not a situation that we would wish to encourage.
  Then there is the group of farmers—a much larger group, I am thankful to say—who are not slaughtered out, but who are hit by th movement restrictions and the other problems that will increase as the crisis lasts. I welcome the Minister's comments about a licensing scheme. Obviously, we all look forward to hearing the details, such as how it might help smaller producers, those who produce for farmers markets, those who have cattle coming up to 30 months old, and those who have lambs rising to the end or their lambhood with the potential eruption of their second teeth, the carcases of which need to be split. The scheme will be welcomed by many abattoir workers, including those in my constituency who have contacted me, anxious about the future of their jobs.
  I understand that there are derogations for injured animals and casualties, but I am told that those are somewhat complicated. I ask the Minister to find out whether they can be simplified. I do not know whether he is in a position to say what the position is regarding TB reactors. Rightly, we have heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about the TB situation. Obviously, reactors should not be held on farms longer than is necessary.

  999
  There are other movement issues. The Minister showed that he recognised those. There is the issue of moving sheep into buildings or near to land for lambing. There are sheep on agistment, or tack as it is sometimes called—a feature that often expires today, 28 February, when they would be expected to go back to their upland farms. That is an issue not only for the sheep farmer, but for the dairy farmer, on whose grass they are currently grazing. The Minister obviously understands that.
  If we can regain some of the supply trade through the licensing arrangement that the Minister proposes, the issue of prices will still remain. I appreciate that getting the trade going is the first priority. I welcome his comments with regard to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) on private storage for sows. I hope that he will also consider introducing such a scheme for sheepmeat because that product, too, relied on an export market, which for the moment is denied us. That must hit trade particularly.
  We welcome the agrimonetary compensation. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is already having discussions with the clearing banks, but I emphasise the need for further help in the form of compensation. The need for help will increase the longer the outbreak lasts. This is a national emergency, and Conservative Members believe that that justifies a call on the contingency fund.
  Mr. Nicholls: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the Minister and the wary in which he has conducted himself in this debate, which has been exemplary, but does not the country's ability to face up to the consequences of what has happened depend largely on the success of the economy? For all sorts of reasons, the economy is doing extremely well. Although it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to give an open-ended commitment to compensate everyone for everything, the situation is vastly different from that in 1967. We hope that he will be able to say that he will at least consider a slightly wider band of compensation than he perhaps has so far been able to consider.
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend makes an important point in support of my case. It is not entirely true that there is no precedent for further compensation. My attention has been drawn to remarks made in 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in which he mentioned moving towards compensation for consequential loss. Additionally, the over-30-months scheme itself is a form of compensation for loss.
  Mr. Nick Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges that. Consequential compensation could save money if it shortens the crisit. If agisted sheep, which I mentioned earlier, cannot retarn to their original farms, it might be cheaper, however horrendous that may be, to kill them out and provide compensation than it would be to succumb to the temptation to weaken the restriction orders.
  I should like to mention some of the organisations that deal with the impact on farmers—including the rural stress information network, the Royal Agricultural
  1000
  Benevolent Institution and the Samaritans, which have reported a tenfold increase in calls in the past few days. Last year, the Government provided more money for the rural stress information network. Although it was a tiny sum for the Government, it was not a small sum for the organisation. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it needs more help.
  The Opposition strongly support both the legal and the voluntary measures to restrict movement. I hope that the Minister will confirm that all Government agencies—not only the obvious ones such as the Health and Safety Executive and farm assurance, but even the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the countless others that are involved in these matters—have been told to cease farm visits.
  I hope that the Minister will also do as he suggested in reply to an earlier intervention from me and examine whether the pig development scheme could be extended to cover the position of pig farmers which, as he rightly acknowledged, is somewhat different from that of sheep and cattle farmers.
  Earlier, I also mentioned wild deer. Since 1967, the United Kingdom's wild deer population has exploded. Although that is very welcome for many reasons, will the Minister comment on what should be done about wild deer in areas where there are outbreaks? It would be disastrous if the disease were to infect the wild deer population. I do not want one, but is a localised culling of deer necessary to stamp out the disease?
  Today is not the time for recrimination, or even for detailed examination of the background to or the causes of the crisis. As the Minister said, we must now concentrate on controlling and eradicating the disease and on helping farmers to get through the crisis. However, the day will come when we have to examine the cause, how it has been handled, and whether it was caused by illegally imported pigmeat.
  On that issue, it is now five months since Ministry veterinarians said that the swine fever outbreak was caused by illegally imported pigmeat. To my knowledge, despite several requests from the Opposition, the Government have not yet made a further statement about the origins of that outbreak. I therefore hope that the Government will be considering additional import controls—about which, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, we have repeatedly expressed our concerns. Such measures are not protectionist controls, as he has sometimes chided us, but controls for protection. [Interruption.]
  Other import and export issues have to be examined. They may seem far-fetched now, but—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is rabbiting away on the Treasury Bench. The whole of this debate has been conducted in polite appreciation of one another's points of view. I am sorry that he seems to want to alter that at this late stage.
  We have to examine, for example, whether the virus is coming from countries where foot and mouth is endemic, but from which we do not import meat. Could it be carried on the surface of fruit, for example? That may seem far-fetched, but it is an issue related to the globalisation of trade that has to be examined.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) talked about what might be called domestic imports, when people bring in items such as sandwiches and other food in their luggage. Another issue is whether

  1001
  the virus can be carried in semen or embryos, both of which are important export markets for the United Kingdom that have now been closed.
  As other hon. Members have said, we shall also have to examine the issue of abattoir closures. My assessment of the way in which the crisis has been unfolding is that, although there are many reasons to lament the closure of abattoirs, and although the initial outbreak in Essex was at an abattoir, most of the cases that we have heard about seem to be related more to livestock markets than to abattoirs. It appears that the very innocent purchase by Mr. Cleave of stock in Northumberland has been the primary cause of the spread of the disease. I feel immensely sorry for him, given the responsibility with which he—unwittingly and innocently—finds himself burdened.
  Circulation of livestock is not a new phenomenon. I can remember as a child seeing trainloads of Irish cattle coming into this country to be fattened. That circulation has been going on for decades, and it is not the new development that other hon. Members have suggested.
  Foot and mouth is a horrendous disease. It has implications for animals, wildlife, farmers and hauliers, and for the countryside. Some farmers may decide not to restock, and that will have implications for the landscape. Nothing must be left undone in dealing with the outbreak, and I hope that the Minister understands that clearly.
  It is very rare to wind up an Opposition day debate without partisan rancour, but I am happy to do so today on an issue that has brought all sides of the House together. I wish the Minister and his staff the best of luck in the challenge that lies before them. Most of all, however, my thoughts are with the farmers and their families, who despair for their future.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Before I respond to the debate, may I briefly associate myself with the sorrow expressed by the whole House at the rail crash earlier today? Many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are, like me, regular users of the east coast main line. Many will have constituents among the passengers or crew, or the relatives of those people. The House has certainly been united in sorrow at that incident.
  The House has also been united in this debate on the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and on its effects on farmers, agriculture and the countryside. The length of the debate allowed many issues to be addressed, and I welcome that. It allowed my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is always generous in giving way, to deal with an enormous number of interventions and direct questions from hon. Members of all parties. However, many other issues have been raised in the course of the debate. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and others about the importance of the Government keeping the House informed at every stage about developments with the disease and its effects.
  The participant in the debate for whom I have most sympathy is the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He responded in a very public-spirited way to the House's desire to listen to the statement by my
  1002
  right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, he thereby sacrifice d a large amount of time to which I feel that he would have been entitled, given the importance of events that took place in his constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman has been very active in pursuit of the interests of his farming constituents and of those employed at the Cheale abattoir. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Bas ildon (Angela Smith) came to see me at an earlier stage to discuss their concerns about the abattoir's ability to attract business under the over-30-months scheme. I therefore know that the hon. Gentleman's interest is of long standing, and that it does not arise solely out of the tragic circumstances of the past week.
  The hon. Gentleman addressed some questions to me, one of which was when the abattoir in his constituency might reopen. He will understand that the Ministry must be totally certain that the virus has been totally eradicated first. There are national and European Union rules about the time that must elapse before the various checks and tests can be carried out. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know if we have further information on that point.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned checks on wild deer, an issue referred to also by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The state veterinary service is carrying out a rapid risk assessment and we hope to share the results of that as soon as possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister gave the House an update of the situation and told us about the number of confirmed cases, which stands at 26. As is usual, and as has happened in regent days, a number of cases are still under investigation, of which two or three at least seem highly suspicious.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is essential to stop the spread of this awful disease. In my constituency there are a number of caravan parks surrounding farms. l am very concerned that this weekend the caravan parks will be open to tourists, many of whom will come from east Lancashire and the Chorley area and could carry the disease. What measures can local authorities take to stop these people coming to caravan parks? What can thy do to ensure that at least the lanes are properly disinfected with straw put across them? They say that they have no powers to put straw and disinfectant across the lanes.
  Ms Quin: The local authority can contact its local animal health office and work in conjunction with MAFF, and it should do so if it is concerned, because there are powers that can be taken. I am familiar with the site that my hon. Friend mentions—in fact, I once visited it. The Caravan Club has issued recommendations to all its members not to trayel at this time of year and to respect a number of restrictions, as well as fully respecting the measures that the Government have put in place.
  There are now at least 26 confirmed cases as well as a number of cases under investigation. That figure includes what appears to be the first case in Northern Ireland, in sheep which were smirced from Carlisle market. There is very little consolation, if any, in this situation, but it is worth saying that so far there seems to have been no significant lateral wind-borne spread of disease. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, it has been possible to make

  1003
  the link between the Devon case, which, in turn, links back to Northumberland, or between Northumberland and the Cheale abattoir. That has been the pattern so far.
  As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, there is no doubt that the considerable movement of animals throughout the country means that the situation is very serious. The number of right hon. and hon. Members from virtually all regions of the country who have spoken about their experience of the plight of their farming constituents as a result of the outbreak has borne dramatic testimony to that.
  I think that all areas were mentioned. The south-west is a very important agricultural area. It was pointed out that East Anglia has already had tremendous difficulties, particularly with the recent outbreak of classical swine fever. Wales was mentioned, as was tile north-east where, like the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) I, too, saw the gruesome and distressing sight last weekend of animals piled up near the main road, very visible to everyone passing. I was talking to farmers in that area when the case in Devon was confirmed. People in Northumberland told me and the links between the markets in Northumberland and the particular farm, or farms, in Devon which were then affected.
  I very much welcome the warm tribute paid by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) to the chief vet, Jim Scudamore, and his excellent staff. The hon. Gentleman's comments were echoed by a large number of Members, but he chose especially apt words to describe the work of the chief vet and his staff. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and others about the helpfulness of Ministry staff, not only at head office but throughout the regions. Indeed, one Northumberland NFU member asked me to mention how sensitively the Ministry staff at Carlisle dealt with the distress and concern that was obviously experienced by so many farmers in that region.
  I strongly welcome the support expressed on both sides of the House for the measures taken by the Government. We welcome the terms of the Opposition motion. That is an unusual experience, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire pointed out. I cannot remember a similar occurrence, but we are dealing with exceptional and unprecedented circumstances—a point that was strongly made.
  Although obviously we look back io the 1967 outbreak, which many hon. Members recalled when they spoke, we should not make false comparisons. There are many
  1004
  differences, especially in relation to the difficulties—indeed the crisis—that the agriculture sector has undergone. For that reason, we are being extremely sensitive not only in ensuring that the measures that we have already taken to help farmers are effective, but in considering what else we can do.
  Mr. Ainger: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Quin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way. I have only three minutes for the rest of my remarks. He expressed concern about the irresponsible movement of stock by farmers—although most farmers have been entirely responsible, as hon. Members have pointed out. However, we are certainly prepared to take up with the Home Office and the police any failure to implement the rules that have been clearly put in place. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.
  There was much mention of consequential losses and so on. Those are difficult matters. We are open to consideration of ways in which we can help, although I appreciate the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the implications could be extremely far reaching; they could even stretch to the tourist industry, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The issue is not easy, but we shall definitely look into it.
  The debate has been impressive, with Members showing a powerful empathy with the plight of farming constituents, their families and communities. We shall keep the House fully informed about the cases and outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, the measures for tackling it and the ways in which we can help the agriculture and food industries to recover. However, as everyone has agreed, combating and eradicating the disease has to be and will remain our foremost aim and priority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House expresses concern about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, sympathy for farmers facing the loss of their livelihoods and for others working in the livestock sector, and appreciation of the work of those fighting to contain the spread of the disease; endorses the action of the Government to restrict the movement of livestock; welcomes its efforts to identify the source of the outbreak; urges, where necessary, a temporary suspension of rights of way across farmland; welcomes the Government's announcement that it will draw down the full amount of agri-monetary compensation available for livestock farmers; and calls on the Government to consider what other help can be given to the industry.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
9.59 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This is an important motion, covering extremely important material. It refers at some length and in some detail, and with an element of retrospection, to the detailed salary provisions for the Electoral Commission. Those salaries are very substantial indeed and the commission's work is very important, so the matter will require lengthy and detailed consideration by the House, especially as it has a bearing on political parties, election matters and, of course, referendums. So we should start by considering the motion in considerable detail—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That Standing Order 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.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
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. Betts.]
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. Betts.]
Hon. Members: Object.

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

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Drink Driving
  10 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Vivien Sumner of Pulborough. It relates to the tragic death of one person, and the severe injury of another arising from a drunken driving incident. The drunken driver was sentenccd to seven years in jail, with a five-year suspension to run concurrently. It seems nonsense to have concurrency for the suspension of licences and prison sentences because it results in a less effective ban on driving.
  The petition states
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward measures which will ensure that any driving ban imposed on persons convicted of drink driving does not begin until their full sentence at conviction is spent irrespective of any shortened sentence.
  To lie upon the Table.

NHS (East Kent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I am very grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the state of the national health service in east Kent. I asked for this debate for a very simple reason. I have had the great privilege to be the Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe for nearly 18 years. In all that time, I have never received anything like as many complaints from my constituents about the NHS as I have in the past few months. Most of the complaints I have received relate to the William Harvey hospital, but before I come to the hospital, I want to make two other points.
The first relates to the reorganisation of primary care. I was not enthusiastic about the replacement of general practitioner fundholding by primary care groups, but the Shepway primary care group, covering an area almost exactly coterminous with Shepway district council and my constituency, has done well. It has built strong local links and developed a strong local identity. Now, barely two years from its formation, it is to be reorganised, and a possible form of reorganisation would involve a merger with Ashford primary care group. I hope that that merger will not take place. Local links are of great importance in the delivery of primary care. They should be maintained and strengthened, rather than diluted. They would be diluted if this merger were to go ahead.
My second point relates to one particular and specific respect in which health care in east Kent has deteriorated during the past four years. Heart disease is not trivial. Those who are suffering from it should be examined and treated as soon as possible. I am sure that everyone would agree with that. It is therefore worth examining how those who are suffering from heart disease are treated by the NHS now as compared with March 1997, immediately before the general election.
In March 1993, 63 people in east Kent were waiting more than 13 weeks for admission to hospital for cardiovascular surgery. By October 2000, the number had doubled to 124. The number of those waiting more than 13 weeks to see a cardiologist had increased from 40, in March 1997, to 220 at the end of last year. Those figures, alas, speak for themselves and the tale they tell is very bad news for my constituents.
I want to devote most of the time available to me to the state of hospitals in east Kent and, in particular, to William Harvey hospital, which is situated at Willesborough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but which serves most of my constituents.
The remarks that I am about to make are not directed at the staff of the hospital. For the most part, they are striving heroically in the most difficult of circumstances to give their patients the care that they deserve. However, in far too many cases, the patients are not receiving that care.
I have, of necessity, had to make a selection from the many complaints that I have received. Time does not permit me to refer to anything like all of them. I shall begin with the case of Mr. Duff, whose wife came to see me at one of my regular advice centres. This is what I
1008
was told by Mrs. Duff, as set out in a letter that I wrote to the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust on 27 November. I wrote:
"Mrs. Duff's husband has a bone marrow problem which requires frequent blood transfusions. In the past these have taken place with no difficulty at all and Mrs. Duff is pleased with the way in which her husband has previously been treated at the William Harvey Hospital. More recently, however, Mr. Duff has had to put up with quite unacceptable conditions. On August 25 he had to wait in the Accident and Emergency Department for 27 hours. On October 2 he had to wait for 30 hours. Last week when Mrs. Duff phoned the hospital on Wednesday, she was told that no bed would be available for her husband until Monday or Tuesday of this week.
I am sure that you would agree that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs."
The chief executive of the trust replied on 28 December. He said that
"the dates you have given for Mr. Duff's admission do not accord with our own records, nevertheless he would have experienced long waits in the period that you describe as did a number of other patients. As you know we are doing all that we can to improve the situation because it is unacceptable."
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Horton, wrote to me on 20 November. This is what they said:
"We have a 43 year old son who is blind, mentally handicapped, spastic and confined to a wheelchair. He has to have everything done for him. At the end of last week he was taken ill. The local doctor said he should go to hospital. He was taken to the William Harvey at Ashford."
With considerable restraint, my constituent continues:
"I am going to moan … With all of his ailments he had to wait 4 hours in Accident and Emergency at the William Harvey before he was seen by a doctor. He was then sent to a ward where he was looked after O.K. put on a drip with antibiotics plus his tablets.
I'm not moaning at the treatment he received, it is the 4 hour wait. The waiting time to be seen at any hospital is disgusting."
She adds:
"So much for T. Blair and Co."
On 24 January, my constituent was sent an apology by the chief executive.
On 26 November, my constituent, Mrs. Anita Law, wrote to me, and this is part of what she said in her letter:
"My husband has recently died at the William Harvey Hospital from in particular, abominable sepsis and infection from MRSA.
He went into the hospital for the reversal of a colostomy following an operation for bowel cancer the previous year. He was clear of the cancer and was informed that the operation would involve a week's stay in hospital. At no time was he counselled as to the risks of any post-operative infection or given any facts that would have given him any reason to refuse the operation at that time.
He entered hospital on July 13th and eventually died on the 20th September 2000.
I am writing to you following the recent press and TV coverage of the problem in our Hospitals. As a trainer and assessor within the Hospitality Industry, during the daily visits I made to the William Harvey I was dismayed at its dirty conditions and standards and practices of cleaning and nursing staff. Standards which would not be acceptable to the Catering and Hotel Industry but are deemed perfectly OK for our sick, both young and old… My daughter, whose husband is in the Army, was recently in hospital in Germany following a miscarriage after the death of her father. I visited her there and was extremely impressed at the hospital's standards of cleanliness. It was built just after the end of World War II, probably by us! If our continental neighbours can do it, why not the UK?"
Mr. Damian Green: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, the William Harvey hospital is in my constituency, and I echo his remarks about the

1009
conscientiousness of its staff. However, my experience reflects his. When I last visited the hospital, people had been waiting on trolleys in the accident and emergency department for 24 hours. I have received a constant stream of letters and telephone calls from people complaining not about the standard of care, but about the standard of cleanliness and, in particular, of food, which is so important for convalescence. In the years that I have been associated with Ashford, I have never known the health service in a more parlous state.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I am saying.
I shall quote from one more letter. As I have not been able to contact my constituent to obtain her permission to do that, I shall not mention her name. She made an official complaint on 8 August about what she rightly described as the appalling treatment that she received after the delivery of her baby at the William Harvey hospital on 26 June. He was born at two minutes to 5 in the morning. My constituent and her husband expressed concerns about him a number of times during the day. It was not until 10.30 pm that an auxiliary nurse took the baby to the special care unit—an act that might have saved his life.
My constituent's letter of complaint then deals with what happened in the following 24 hours. She was told that her baby might be suffering from Down's syndrome, but that it was not necessary to telephone her husband. Despite her earlier requests, a telephone was not brought to her until 6 am.
When her husband arrived at the hospital, he had trouble getting into the maternity ward. No one seemed to be expecting him and he was told that his wife was on the delivery ward. He asked for a wheelchair to take her to the special care unit, but was told that she had to have breakfast and a shower before she could see her baby. Eventually, after a confrontation between her husband and the staff, she was allowed into the unit and the doctors, who were doing their rounds, were able to explain the situation to her.
It was suggested that she should be moved to a separate room where a video link would be set up so that she could see her baby in the incubator, but when she returned to the ward she was told that the room was not ready because workmen were in it. She was subsequently told that it did not have a working video link anyway. By late afternoon, she was moved to another side room.
Lack of cleanliness is a common theme of the complaints that I have received. My constituent found the toilet in the side room so unclean that she had to put baby wipes on her feet and clean the floor. Her bed sheets were not changed for three days. She eventually changed them herself.
My constituent needed to have her breast milk expressed every few hours so that her baby could be fed down a tube in his nose. To do that, she needed a breast pump. Although she asked several times for it to be sterilised, she often had to wait more than an hour for that to be done. Some of the staff did not know how to sterilise the pump. In the end, she and her husband asked to be shown how to operate it and did the sterilising themselves.
I have not mentioned all the complaints listed by my constituent. She made her official complaint on 8 August last year. Not having received a substantive response, she
1010
wrote to me on 21 December. She said that her baby son was suffering from atopic eczema and rubbed his face raw at night. The waiting list to see a skin specialist was 30 weeks, so she and her husband paid for a private consultation. In her letter, she said:
"The National Health Service has failed my family." Who could disagree?
I wrote to the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust about her complaint on 2 January. On 9 January, he sent any constituent a letter informing her that a letter responding to her complaints had been prepared and that it would be signed and sent to her shortly. The chief executive wrote to me on 23 January saying that he had asked for a letter to be sent to my constituent as a matter of urgency. On 5 February, she still had not received the letter. I wrote to the trust again. The letter was not sent until 7 February. Her complaints were upheld.
It gives me no pleasure to recite that litany of abundantly justified grievances. I want my constituents and, for that matter, my family, who have used the accident and emergency department at the William Harvey hospital, to receive decent medical care from the NHS.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a compelling case. Is he aware that a meeting of 81 consultants—almost half of those in east Kent—passed a unanimous motion saying that a lack of capacity is preventing them from delivering quality health care? Is it not ironic that in the face of those problems, East Kent health authority is still committed to a £100 million reorganisation that, at best, will leave capacity unaltered and may even reduce it?
Mr. Howard: There is no doubt that the consultants' view gives rise to a great deal of concern. I do not pretend that the national health service in east Kent was perfect until four years ago, but I know that it has deteriorated during the past four years. I have never before received complaints of the kind, on the scale and in the number that I am receiving now.
Yesterday, I received a document entitled "Moving Forward: A strategic outline case for modernising hospital services in East Kent". It contained the following sentence:
"The NHS plan gives East Kent the opportunity to maintain the current bed baseline it 1,975, although there may be some realignment between the number of acute and intermediate beds within the health economy as a whole."
That will give no comfort to my constituents who spent such lengthy periods in the accident and emergency department because no bed was available for them in a ward. It will give no comfort to all my constituents who fear that at any time they may find themselves in that position.
In the light of that sentence, I hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, will not spin us fantasies about what may or may not happen in the far-off future. The condition of the NHS in east Kent today is unacceptable. My constituents and I want to know how and why that situation has come about and what the Government propose to do about it now. I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on securing this debate. He wants high-quality health services for his constituents, and I can assure him that the Government want that too. That is why we are undertaking a major programme of long-term investment and reform in the NHS. The investment will bring more staff, more beds, more new hospitals and reform in the way in which health care is delivered. Patients will be treated in modern, high-quality facilities with the latest equipment and the best-trained staff. Reliability will be improved and waiting times will be cut. Of course, that will take time to deliver, but the NHS today is the fastest-growing health service of any major country in Europe.
Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: I will give way, ever though I am only one minute into my speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to answer certain questions, he might like to give me time to do so.
Mr. Howard: I am very sorry to intervene so soon, but the investment to which the Minister referred will not lead to more beds. The document that I received yesterday made it clear that an increase in bed numbers is not intended in east Kent.
Ms Stuart: I would be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would listen so that I can outline not only what we are doing now, but the overall direction of our policies and how they will improve matters. I remind him that the situation that he and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described did not suddenly occur on 1 May 1997. Opposition Members might reflect for a moment on the causes of that situation.

I turn now to an outline of our policies and how we are improving matters not only in the William Harvey hospital but in the whole of Kent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is most concerned about how the reforms and investment will affect his constituents, and that is right and proper. East Kent health authority will receive £469.6 million in 2001–02. That is a real-terms increase of 6.2 per cent. on the previous year and around 40 per cent. on the £262.7 million that it received in 1996–97.
Significant additional funds have been made available to the health authority this financial year to address the pressures from emergency admissions experienced in recent months. Those include almost £2.2 million for accident and emergency admissions, almost £1.6 million to expand critical care services, £400,000 for elective capacity in the private sector to cut waiting lists, and £1.15 million to deal with winter pressures. As the right hon. and learned Member can see, there are good foundations on which to build.
Before I turn to the changes in east Kent, I shall deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns about primary care trust reconfigurations. I understand that there is support for a stand-alone, shared-way primary care trust. The configuration of PCTs in east Kent is a matter for local determination, and I will ensure that the
1012
right hon. and learned Gentleman's views are brought to the attention of the health authority. The decision will be very much a local one.
I return to the foundation on which we have been building. We cannot maintain the status quo; that must be accepted. Health services in east Kent cannot stand still—they need to change. They need to be modernised to ensure that everyone receives faster, fairer and more convenient services.
The way forward has already been decided. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the east Kent reconfiguration, which will centralise specialist services at Ashford and Margate and retain a core of local services at Canterbury. That was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) following extensive consultation in 1998.
At no point during the process has the driving force for change in east Kent been financial savings. That force has been the need to modernise services. For that to take place, there will be expansion of the William Harvey and the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospitals and refurbishment of Kent and Canterbury and Buckland hospitals. On 15 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that work will begin this year to procure these £102 million developments. They will ensure that everyone in east Kent receives the NHS services for which we are striving. We will not turn back from this.
In the shorter term, I appreciate that change is unsettling and that there will always be people who would have preferred an alternative course of action. However, the decision has been made, and I believe that it is the right one. Everyone must now work together to ensure that the changes are a success.
I want to be clear. I am not saying that everything is perfect in east Kent. Of course it has not been perfect, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has provided examples to illustrate that. I want to focus on the direction in which we are heading. The expansions and refurbishments will take time to complete, and I am aware that the transitional arrangements are causing some concern. However, things are not as bad as they are sometimes painted. I shall give a few examples.
At the William Harvey hospital, a new ward with an extra 54 beds opened in July 2000 to allow transfer of acute medicine from Buckland hospital. A 19-bed medical acute assessment unit opened in August 2000, and the critical care unit was enlarged from six to 10 bed spaces in December 2000. At the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, the critical care unit was expanded from five to 10 bed spaces in December 2000, and a new block with an extra 75 beds, including a 23-bed medical acute assessment unit, was opened to accommodate catchment change from the Canterbury area in January 2001. At Kent and Canterbury hospital, December 2000 saw expansion of the surgical ward block by 18 beds, the establishment of a separate gynaecological unit and the expansion of renal in-patient beds.
More action is required in the interim period and other actions are due to come on stream in the near future. These include the completion of a new cross-sectional imaging suite at the William Harvey hospital, the opening of an extra operating theatre and the starting of a £1.1 million modernisation of the accident and emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

1013
hospital. At the Kent and Canterbury hospital, there will be the completion of the refurbishment of the day surgery area in April. There will also be the completion of a purpose-built unit for the health care of older people service, including two rehab wards, a stroke unit, a therapy centre and day hospital in June, and the opening of the new cataract centre in July.
I fully accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns that the situation in east Kent is not perfect. However, we are making steady progress. We are not talking about aspirations in the distant future; something really has happened. There are positive developments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given examples to show that the NHS in east Kent has failed a small number of patients in recent months. I say a small number, and I do not mean to lessen the seriousness of the individual cases, but we need to get them in perspective.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of how many more complaints he has received recently about the NHS. To get a sense of proportion, the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust received 266 letters of complaint between October and December last year. During the same period, it received 2,392 letters of thanks. As Members of Parliament, we all know how much more likely it is that a letter of complaint, rather than a letter of thanks, will be sent. We must not forget the many patients who do not have cause to complain.
Mr. Howard: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have listened carefully and patiently to what she has said. She has spent considerable time speaking about her future plans. Can she please tell the House how those future plans, even the long-term plans, will address the problems that I described, if all they aspire to do is to maintain the current bed baseline in east Kent? If there are not more beds, how will people be admitted to the wards more quickly, rather than spending dreadful periods in the accident and emergency department?
Ms Stuart: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not consider it presumptuous on my part if I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with his analysis of the problem. What I have described are not future changes; they have already happened. Change was needed because maintaining the status quo would not be acceptable.
The number of beds must be seen in the context of what has happened in respect of medical assessment units, better bed bureaux, better management, the intermediate care that is being put in place, and what we are doing together with social services with regard to home care packages. The national beds inquiry made it clear that the decline in the number of acute beds cannot continue, but a range of other provisions must be put in place.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the package as a whole. The experiences of his constituents that he described are convincing evidence that change is needed in Canterbury and the whole of Kent. I was particularly struck by his comments about dirty hospitals. Yes, some of our hospitals have cut back on cleaning, and I remind Opposition Members how that
1014
came about. It is a result of the way in which the previous Government managed the NHS. It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads; that is the truth.
Mr. Green: I shall he brief, as I know that the hon. Lady does not have much time. First, my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear, as did I in my intervention, that we are speaking about managerial problems that have occurred in the past two years. That has nothing to do with what happened long in the past or what will happen long into the future. We are discussing care at the William Harvey hospital now.
The second point that the Minister has not addressed is that, in the end, we will have roughly the same bed numbers, yet her Government plan to increase the size of Ashford by 3,000 houses a year for the next 15 years. To say that the same bad numbers will be adequate for the population of east Kent is risible.
Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman simply has not listened. It is a matter not only of bed management and acute bed numbers, but of home care packages and rehabilitation. The situation must be looked at in the round.
I shall refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). We have had Adjournment debates on his concerns. As an immediate response to the letter to which he referred, the acting regional director for the South East regional office asked the chief executive of East Kent Hospitals NHS trust and East Kent health authority jointly to undertake an urgent review of those concerns. The trust has agreed to some of the actions proposed
The status quo is unacceptable. I have outlined the steps that we are taking and the direction in which we are moving. I recognise that the reconfiguration in east Kent has been particularly unpopular in some quarters, but let us not be fooled—some of the opposition is based on self-interest, not the interest of east Kent as whole. Ministers must think of east Kent as a whole.
That is not to say that some of the issues raised locally are not valid. Of course they are. Let us be clear that the Government will take immediate action where NHS services are failing to deliver, but we will not allow much-needed progress to be derailed. If we did, the only people to lose out would be the people of east Kent.
The modernisation of east Kent will proceed. The programme of change has gone well so far. I acknowledge that there have been some problems in east Kent in recent months, but I stress that those have not been caused by the reconfiguration. They are a sign of the need to invest in and modernise the service in east Kent, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Apart from the changes that I have outlined, by March 2001 there will be better separation of emergency medicine and elective surgery, and the potential preparation of a dedicated gynaecology unit at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital. By April 2001, we expect to see the completion of a new cross-section imaging suite at the William Harvey hospital, an extra operating theatre is due to open at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, and the refurbishment of the day surgery area is expected to be completed at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. By spring 2001, there will be a £1.1 million modernisation of the accident and emergency

1015
unit and the completion of a purpose-built health care and older people's services unit, including two rehab wards, stroke unit, therapy centre and day hospital at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The transfer of services for the elderly from Nunnery Fields hospital will be managed much better. By July 2001, the new cataract centre is expected to open, subject to planning permission.
1016
To say that no progress has been made is simply not the case. I accept that there are problems in the transition, but the direction of travel is clear. The outcome that we want is a better health service for all the people of east Kent.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  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.
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 119.

  Division No. 138]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Allan, Richard

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Colman, Tony

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cotter, Brian

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cummings, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Darvill, Keith

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

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

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brake, Tom

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Breed, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Burnett, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Burstow, Paul

  Feam, Ronnie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flynn, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chaytor, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  1018

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harvey, Nick

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hume, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Joyce, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

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

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  Livsey, Richard

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  1019

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Singh, Marsha

  Touhig, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

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

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Tynan, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chapman Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Evans, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Fabricant Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Flight, Howard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  1020

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Mates, Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gale, Roger

  Norman, Archie

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hayes, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Horam, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Townend, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Walter, Robert

  McCrea, Dr William

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Sierra Leone
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mike Gapes: Today, I shall speak about an important matter: the situation in Sierra Leone. Four weeks ago today, I was privileged to go to Sierra Leone with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I shall refer to various matters arising from our brief visit and draw attention to wider political, economic and military issues affecting the region.
My abiding memory—I am still coming to terms with it—is of a visit to the amputee camp in the middle of Freetown, where 226 people who have had arms or legs or both hacked off by Revolutionary United Front terrorists are living with their families in a self-help community of around 1,000 people. It is financed and assisted by international development agencies and supported by a number of other organisations and Governments, including ours. I was introduced to some of the people living there. A little girl called Marie Koroma was brought to see me. She is about two and a half years old; when she was 13 months old, her left arm was chopped off by an RUF terrorist. That is the reality in Sierra Leone that we must deal with. It is essential that our commitment and that of the international community and the United Nations are maintained for as long as necessary.
Sierra Leone has an interesting history—for many years, it was a positive history. The country was founded by freed slaves, and throughout our colonial administration its people held the British in high regard. They have now had almost 40 years of independence, but ordinary Sierra Leoneans ask what they have to celebrate; they say that those years have been wasted. The country was agriculturally self-sufficient and exported agricultural products. It has a difficult climate and fosters diseases such as malaria, but, like other countries in the region such as Gambia, it has potential for economic development based on tourism. However, that has suffered enormously in recent years.
I shall not go into the history of the conflict, preferring to concentrate on the future. However, it is worth recalling that in May 2000 my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) introduced a debate in the Chamber during which he drew attention to the importance of explaining to people in this country our actions in Sierra Leone, the reasons for those actions and the fact that our commitment may not be short term. I was fortunate to speak in that debate, and I am pleased to be able to raise the issue again today after having had the opportunity, for the first time, to go to Sierra Leone and see what we and others are doing.
236WH
In 1999, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced an important report which, although concerned mainly with other matters, referred to the situation in Sierra Leone. It provided an important historical introduction by setting out the context and explaining how the democratically elected Government of President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah came to power in 1996. Since then, there have been several coups and attempts by different groups to overthrow democracy.
As the report makes clear, and as everyone to whom I have spoken has confirmed, Sierra Leonean society consists of many different tribal groups and is 65 per cent. Muslim and 35 per cent. Christian. However, the people live harmoniously and the conflict has nothing to do with tribalism or religion. I asked a military commander in the Sierra Leone army—judging by his name, I suppose that he was a Muslim—about this issue. He laughed and said, "My wife is a Christian, my deputy is a Christian, and his wife is a Muslim."
Despite the nature of that society, there is conflict. It is based on one factor: greed for diamonds. The 1999 report from the Foreign Affairs Committee quotes one witness saying that
"some people would argue that diamonds have been the curse of Sierra Leone."
Diamonds have financed a conflict that has throughout centred on control of the diamond mining areas and the activities of a foreign Government—the regime of Charles Taylor in Liberia—who are using the RUF as proxies in Sierra Leone to control Sierra Leonean diamonds and profit from their export and sale.
None the less, having visited Freetown and some of the surrounding areas, my message is positive, not pessimistic. I saw children smiling and waving as they went to school dressed in their pristine school uniforms. I saw the little kiosks that are being set up on the beach to sell Coca-Cola and ice cream to tourists whom the people believe will one day visit Sierra Leone. I am told that where a few months ago there was nothing, there are now signs that the people are returning to normality.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We are listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman's moving description of his visit to Sierra Leone, and I am pleased to hear that he gleaned some cause for optimism from it. Was there any evidence to suggest that British Government efforts to stem the flow of blood diamonds have been successful? I am sure that we all want progress to be made in that respect.
Mr. Gapes: I saw no such evidence. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that question when he winds up.
We visited an area known as Wilberforce, which has a major, albeit rather basic, hospital that treats a variety of people; military personnel financed by the Department for International Development are playing a key role in its medical services. Among those in the hospital beds were members of a rebel faction—the West Side Boys—who had been injured in the conflict. To judge by the history of the conflict in Sierra Leone, people from the other side are not usually taken to hospital to be treated and allowed to recover, so their presence was an interesting sign of returning normality.

237WH
Another interesting aspect was the way in which community activities such as schools were coming back together.
Important work is being carried out by our people in Sierra Leone. We are making a significant contribution, working in support of the United Nations, as well as playing our own distinctive role. We are making a small contribution to the United Nations force and as observers in the UN operation, and we are the lead country in the establishment of the international military advisory team. Our most significant role is in the short-term training programme to rebuild and establish democratic, competent, accountable and efficient armed forces for Sierra Leone. The problem in recent years was that the drug-crazed, diamond-fuelled factions were able to mobilise far more people and have a much greater impact on society than the badly trained and badly equipped official forces of the state. State power in the country almost disintegrated.
In May last year, when the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement in the House, the RUF was in the suburbs of Freetown and it controlled almost the entire country. We went in initially to evacuate our civilians and other European Union civilians; we then started the process of consolidation, held the airport until the UN forces came to take it over and began to work to establish and restore the state power of the democratically elected president and his Government—all vital work.
In less than a year, 6,500 people have been trained by our armed forces. We were fortunate to visit the area in which that training is carried out by Gurkha soldiers of the British Army. A young member, aged about 20, of the Sierra Leone army who was being trained by Gurkhas said to me, "These Gurkhas are very good men—very tough. Please keep them here. Please train all Sierra Leoneans with Gurkhas." I walked around the area with Major Ashok Kumar of the Gurkhas, a namesake of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). Children and adults shouted out, "Hello, Ashok."
British people walking down the street got the same positive reaction. We are incredibly welcome and there is great support for our actions. As we passed along the streets, people would shout out, "Hello—thank you!" In all my visits to places around the world, I have never seen a reaction like that. In certain countries, at certain times, British citizens have not been quite so popular. I emphasise the popularity of what we are doing, which is vital to the future of Sierra Leone.
The British joint taskforce under Brigadier Jonathan Riley, those who are working with the Sierra Leone army and those who are carrying out the vital training mission have an important role to play. I was pleased by the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that the short-term training mission, which was due to end in the spring, is to be extended to September 2001. To take forward the programme in the long term, we intend to form with the Canadians an international mission, which we hope other countries will join.
What is the programme's future? When the Secretary of State for Defence spoke in the House on 23 May 2000, he said that we would be in Sierra Leone
238WH
"no longer than is necessary."—[Official Report, 23 May 2000; Vol. 350. c. 863.]
However, in the Select Committee on Defence on 7 February 2001, in reply to a question that I asked, he said:
"We will stay for w long as we are needed."
I welcome that change of tone and emphasis, because our impact on Sierra Leone is proportionately greater than our impact on any other country.
We have for many years had long-term commitments in Cyprus, we have a long-term commitment—albeit unintentional—in Bosnia, it appears that we are developing a long-term commitment in Kosovo, and British forces have other long-term commitments in other parts of the world. However, our commitment to Sierra Leone is more important than any of those in terms of its impact, its long-term potential and the gratitude of the people, which is something that we have not always received. That is not to decry the work we do elsewhere, but emphasises the vital difference that we are making in Sierra Leone.

I am proud that we are considering staying for as long as we are needed, but we need to tell the British people why that is necessary and to demonstrate the benefits of our involvement. I am concerned about several difficulties. Until I went to Sierra Leone—now I speak as the chairman of the all-party United Nations group—I had not fully appreciated why British forces in Sierra Leone were not flying the UN flag. Following my visit, I have a better understanding of the situation and believe that our relationship with the UN is correct. The development of the UN peacekeeping operation was not optimal—indeed, there was well-documented tension between the Nigerians and the Indians; the latter have now left Sierra Leone. There have also been problems, which I shall discuss later, with the deployment of the UN force and its future role.
I have received a letter from Oxfam that raises several other concerns. Despite the ceasefire agreement worked out in Abuja last November, it appears that UN forces are unwilling to move into areas previously or currently controlled by RUF rebels, even though the agreement states that they should. The Sierra Leone Government are keen for that to happen, but it is not happening and there are serious questions to be asked about when it will happen. Until it does happen, significant areas—perhaps one third of the country—will remain outside the ambit of the legally elected Government of the country, and it will be impossible to reintegrate the country as a whole.
In a similar vein, at what point will the Abuja process lead to the demobilisation and disarming of the rebels? To that difficulty, which is inevitable in all conflicts, two approaches can be taken: try to negotiate the solution, or try to win a victory. At this stage, the Sierra Leone forces are probably not strong enough on their own to be able to win or hold the territory, but the problem must be resolved at some point. We know from experience that the RUF did not abide by previous agreements. There is enormous resistance to loss of control of the basis on which such organisations are run and financed—diamonds.
The situation in the neighbouring countries is also a cause of concern. One of the consequences of the effectiveness of our operation and the deployment to

239WH
Sierra Leone of 10,000 UN troops, which number is supposed to increase, is that the RUF rebels have switched their focus. There is now a bitter conflict across the border in Guinea, and the Government of Guinea are fighting hard against the RUF. As a result, refugees who previously fled from Sierra Leone into Guinea are now trapped in a very small area between Guinean forces and RUF forces. It has been stated in the press that as many as 400,000 people are in danger of starvation because they are not receiving necessary food supplies. This week, some convoys reached part of the area with food for between 1,300 and 10,000 people, but it has been reported that hundreds of thousands of people are trapped between the conflicting forces. A corridor must be opened to allow those people to return to Sierra Leone, away from the conflict.
It is vital that more work is done for those people internally displaced in Sierra Leone, not refugees across the border. There are reports of large movements of people away from the areas in the north-west towards Freetown and Lungi, where there is an airport. That is inevitable because of the British presence and the deployment of UN forces in Freetown and beyond. Such areas and those within the ambit of the Sierra Leone Government offer security and the potential for a good life whereby people live without the threat of suffering. A great effort must now be made to help refugees in Guinea and internally displaced people in Sierra Leone. They must be fed, provided with transport and safe routes and moved into liberated areas. Such areas are growing all the time—indeed, we visited a place that had only just become open as a result of recent changes. However, such matters are taking time: as the liberated area spreads in one direction, conflict arises with the other side and the population is squeezed in between those areas.
It is essential that the international community, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, international aid agencies and non-governmental organisations can undertake their work securely and get through necessary resources to those who need them. Recently, some NGOs expressed anxiety about the security of their personnel in some areas. I would welcome a response on that matter, as it is clearly vital that they are able to do their job. We are making a great contribution to the security of Sierra Leone and NGO personnel do important work, often funded by the Department for International Development or other Governments in the European Union and elsewhere.
I should also like to mention public opinion in Sierra Leone. This week, I read a report of a seminar that was organised by representatives of what they call civil society in Sierra Leone. That report is strongly critical of the UN's role and calls urgently for more robust action to meet threats and deal with such problems. A cause of wider anxiety is the question of what effective action will be taken against the sponsor and host of the RUF, Charles Taylor's regime in Liberia. I understand that sanctions were supposed to be implemented against Liberia; the Governments of Guinea and of Sierra Leone strongly pressed for that, but not all other Governments in the region supported it. Can the Minister confirm the decision reported in the press this week to defer by two months the implementation of those sanctions? What is the current position and what is our Government's attitude? What steps are being
240WH
taken to stop the blood diamond trade and introduce economic and other sanctions on Liberia, whose sponsorship, funding and organisation have lain behind the problems in Guinea and Sierra Leone in recent years.
I should like to ask about our future role and commitment to Sierra Leone. During our visit, I met President Kabbah. One of the interesting questions raised in our discussion was how we, as a functioning democratic society with civil control over the military, could contribute to the development of pluralistic multi-party democracy in Sierra Leone. In 1996, Sierra Leone had a democratic election in which lots of different parties stood. On the second ballot, the president was elected with nearly 60 per cent. of the vote, having received about 37 per cent. in the first ballot. However, Sierra Leone's political system is obviously undeveloped and political campaigning is impossible in large parts of the country.
The decision to postpone the next presidential elections was absolutely correct, as a free and fair election would be impossible in the current circumstances of conflict. That postponement gives us a great opportunity. I hope that our Government, through their support for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other measures, will send resources, training missions and teams to help to build a pluralistic democratic political culture in Sierra Leone. Civil control of the military is a vital issue not only for Sierra Leone but for Africa generally. I remember the book by Ruth First, "The Barrel of a Gun", in which she explained the role of the military in African societies. We must develop a political culture in west Africa and elsewhere based on democratic control of the armed forces. The recent changes in Nigeria are welcome, but such changes can be transient or temporary. We must make sure that we achieve a functioning democratic civil society in Sierra Leone in the long term.
During my visit to Sierra Leone, I was incredibly impressed by the commitment of our people there. I witnessed our efforts to defend a democratic Government, establish security and provide the foundations of future prosperity and democratic society. A lot has been done, but there is still a lot to do that will require a long-term commitment on our part. We must remember that Sierra Leone is a Commonwealth country with which we have long been associated. It is good that Canada, another Commonwealth country, is making a contribution, but the commitment to help will also require support from our EU partners and others, including, of course, the UN.
In the UN forces there are Kenyan troops; there is a potential for a deployment of Pakistani forces; and Nepalese forces have recently carried out an inspection mission to decide whether to deploy troops, which would be welcome, as Gurkhas are already in the area with the British Army. In addition, many other countries, including Jordan and India, have made significant contributions in the past. We must not forget the major contribution made by Nigeria, whose forces have suffered huge casualties during the many years of the conflict in Sierra Leone. International commitment and effort is required, and I am proud that the United Kingdom is playing a vital role. I hope that that will continue for as long as we are needed.
10.2 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on his initiative in applying for this debate, on his success in securing it and, above all, on the sincerity and comprehensiveness of his presentation. I also thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who kindly invited members of the Select Committee on Defence to accompany him on what was essentially his second trip to Sierra Leone since Britain became so heavily involved. Not only that, but when we were there, the Secretary of State took every opportunity to keep us fully involved in all that was happening in some of the more sensitive briefings, and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, gave us the opportunity to meet President Kabbah. We were both grateful for that.
President Kabbah made a good impression on us all. He struck us as a man of great calmness, thoughtfulness and, in so far as it is possible to make judgments on a short acquaintance, integrity. I could not help reflecting on the tragedy in which his country finds itself. It is one example—there are so many in international affairs—of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, every time that we were seen in parts of Freetown, there would be shouts of welcome such as, "You are welcome here. Thank you for being here. Thank you for coming." It is strange that if there were to be a referendum in Sierra Leone today on whether the people would be better off as a colony under British rule, or in their present state of oppressed independence—
Mr. Gapes indicated assent.
Dr. Lewis: I see a wry look of agreement on the hon. Gentleman's face. There can be no doubt that they would wish that they were still a part of the supposedly exploitative British empire of the past. That empire would not have stood for the sort of terrorism and banditry that has had such terrible effects on the people of Sierra Leone in recent years.
When I visited the amputee camp with the hon. Member for Ilford, South, I was reminded of why the early evidence of Nazi atrocities in the second world war was not believed. The disbelief was a reaction against what was seen in retrospect to have been baseless atrocity propaganda from the first world war, which centred most memorably on the story of the Belgian babies' hands. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914 and violated Belgian neutrality, there was a story that they cut off the hands of Belgian babies so that they would not be able to hold weapons when they grew up. Subsequently, it was thought that no such injury would be survivable by such a young child. The Gentleman and I know that such injuries are survivable. As he pointed out, they are survivable even by a child as young as Marie Koroma, who was 13 months old when her left hand was chopped off in that bestial way.
We were told that the purpose of such atrocities was to terrorise the population—to show them that that was the sort of treatment that they could expect if they dared to support the legitimate Government of their country. It was intended to deny support to the Government force, and, undoubtedly, to encourage chaos and force
242WH
people to flee from their homes. It is believed that about half of the 4.5 million inhabitants of Sierra Leone fled from their homes within the country, and that about half a million fled beyond the borders of the country.
The Gentleman stated clearly that the motivations are diamonds and exploitation. As far as can be seen, the activity is being fuelled by the interference of a country outside the diamond area—Liberia. Its leader, Charles Taylor, seems to be playing a strange game. Apparently he has a habit of ringing up President Kabbah every so often and making friendly inquiries about whether he can assist on minor matters. He professes to be in favour of steps towards a peaceful settlement and expresses concern about the degradation, terror and misfortune being inflicted on the Sierra Leonean people.
I would like to join the hon. Member for Ilford, South in pressing the Minister to spell out clearly, for the benefit of all hon. Members, the Government's assessment of the role and activities of President Taylor and Liberia in the troubles in Sierra Leone. If they believe that President Taylor and his agents are responsible for what is happening in Sierra Leone, what steps are they taking—and what steps do they propose to take—to put pressure on Liberia to cease its malign interference in Sierra Leone?
When we were in Sierra Leone, we were told that 600 British military personnel were taking part in the training mission. If it is possible for 600 British military personnel to achieve a genuine and—to use a vogue word—sustainable change in the circumstances of the people of that unfortunate country, that is a good investment of time, effort, money and British personnel. We have an historical connection with Sierra Leone; we arguably have a continuing moral responsibility for the country, even though with the ending of its colonial status we sadly—one might say—no longer have a legal responsibility. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends worry about the overall effect of undertaking individual commitments that are in themselves worthy but which may cumulatively lead to an enfeebling of our capabilities to intervene militarily in other theatres, should other crises arise. Therefore, we must keep in mind the intended end game for this intervention.
What scenario does the Minister envisage for liquidating this commitment by the end of the autumn? If the Sierra Leone army is by then perfectly capable of re-establishing and maintaining control over the country, I shall be pleased to hear it. However, that is an optimistic prediction; there is a long way to go, although much progress has been made. The briefings that we received when we were in the country suggested that, as a result of the international presence in general and the British presence in particular in training the Sierra Leone army, between 40 and 50 per cent. of the land area had been brought back under Government control, pacified and stabilised. That would be a great achievement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked the hon. Member for Ilford, South what progress had been made in cutting off the flow of blood diamonds—as she put it—from Sierra Leone. Given that the diamond areas are the ones most heavily infested with RUT forces and are relatively close to the border of Sierra Leone, the likelihood is small of impeding that flow for any considerable time. We are certainly unlikely physically to have stopped the flow.

243WH
Will the Minister tell us whether that can be achieved successfully? Is it being attempted through international arrangements controlling what happens to the diamonds after they leave the country?
The people behind the horror in Sierra Leone have a sense that the writing is on the wall. The reports that filter back into Freetown from the diamond mining areas inform us that the rate of diamond extraction is being accelerated dramatically. That suggests that the people involved are aware that their opportunities for exploiting the mines may not last indefinitely.
We need to be reassured that the Government, in undertaking a worthy mission, can be certain that a stable situation will be the result at the end of their intervention. Those who have disturbed the peace, terrorised the population and sought to exploit the country's potential wealth to their own sectional advantage must be sure that, not only have they failed in their endeavour, but that they will never be allowed to do something of that sort again. If it is the case that the RUF's campaign would have been unsustainable without the external support of Liberia and its president, the only hope of arriving at the situation that I have just described is to show the people who are fundamentally and ultimately responsible for what happens inside Sierra Leone that outside that country they cannot escape retribution for what they have done.
The Government favour the setting up of an international criminal court. I have always supported them in that endeavour. My final request to the Minister is therefore that when all this is over and an international criminal court is set up, those who did what they did to little girls like Marie Koroma—a myth in 1914, but reality in the 21st century—will be brought to justice before the bar of world public opinion.
10.16 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for initiating it. I apologise that I was not here to hear the start of his speech; I had a constituency meeting that had to take place this morning. However, as he and others will know, I have sought to maintain an interest in this subject during my time in the House, especially recently, and so wanted to add a word or two, in support of his speech. Let me make it clear that mine is very much a Hughes Back-Bench speech and that it in no way trespasses on the greater authority that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) will have if he catches your eye, Mr. Cook.
My links are in many ways far less credible than those of either of the hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken, for the simple reason that, despite my best efforts, I have not yet paid my first visit to Sierra Leone. Having hoped to go there in January, I now have a firm resolve to go in May—other things permitting—and very much look forward to that visit. Many Sierra Leonean nationals live in my constituency—the number has been hugely swelled by the civil war, during which people have felt obliged to leave for the United Kingdom. One reason that I feel that I understand something of what has occurred is that among those people are two party colleagues of mine who are councillors in Southwark: a Sierra Leonean national,
244WH
Councillor Columba Blango, who with his family is obviously involved with the community; and Councillor Derek Partridge, who is the former high commissioner to Sierra Leone. With such expertise at one's fingertips, one will not go too far wrong. Many other active members of my community are in direct and regular contact with Sierra Leone.
Britain has the pivotal external role in Sierra Leone. I do not understate the huge contribution of Nigeria, of which it is rightly said that it gave voluntarily and to great sacrifice, but, as has been said, Britain is the country to which Sierra Leone looks for help in its hour of need. Sierra Leone is probably more loyal than almost any other Commonwealth country. I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis): were there to be a referendum on whether Sierra Leone should remain independent, its people would probably vote to become part of the United Kingdom again. That means that we must, as the Government have attempted to do, respond to the request for us to play a key role—not one that restrains the development of democracy and peacebuilding among the nationals and those who will stay in Sierra Leone, but as a means of securing and strengthening the democratic process. People must not feel that they will not have our support when they need us. The military peacekeeping process and the civilian peacebuilding process are equally important.
As the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, East made clear, peace and reconstruction in Sierra Leone cannot happen if it is destabilised by pressures from outside its borders. Liberia acts as a hugely destabilising force. Secure frontiers are essential to prevent the growth of rebel forces and the exploitation of politics and economics. Without them, a rich, fertile and successful country will be pillaged and ravaged by others for their own interests. The Commonwealth and the United Nations should endeavour to achieve secure frontiers, so that other countries cannot exercise malign and oppressive influences.
Mrs. Gillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of reports that Burkina Faso has been involved? Can he shed any further light on that? Will he join me in asking the Minister to outline the destabilising factors that continue to exert influence within Sierra Leone?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right. Several countries in west Africa have exerted influence. A key question—I would be grateful for an early ministerial response—is whether the Government are making clear to the new American Administration the importance of supporting and upholding democracy in Sierra Leone and of providing no permissive encouragement to other regimes to behave in ways seen in Guinea, Burkina Faso and Liberia.
My next point was central to the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South. Everyone accepts that the postponement of the presidential election that was due this year is understandable under the constitution of Sierra Leone. Another factor that unites Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom is that we both confront the prospect of elections in the near future, and both may be postponed for a while. As I understand the position in Sierra Leone, there is constitutional provision for a six-month postponement. There is no desire to evade

245WH
democratic procedure, but there is an urgent need to ensure that free and fair elections are possible. They are not possible when so much territory is not safe for travel.
Many people—not only colleagues in Southwark, but charities such as Christian Aid—believe that it is essential to build up democratic processes and especially the next generation of leaders in Sierra Leone. Multi-party democracy is new, but unstable because of its newness: it must be given the chance to flourish. The people of Sierra Leone may need to renegotiate the constitution: theirs is not a constituency-based system, nor one in which the Executive is accountable to the legislature. Those are serious weaknesses. Building a multi-party democracy depends on the ability of people and structures to overcome those weaknesses. Bodies such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council—both of which are supported by the Government—the voluntary sector, charities and others have a key role to play. Hon. Members can contribute through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other agencies.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, is there, to echo the words used by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, a continuing commitment to the normalisation of affairs in Sierra Leone and to building peace, even though it may be a long and hard road? The commitment must be secure; if it is not, much good work will be undermined. Secondly, will the Government continue to search for more and better ways of supporting, both directly and indirectly, people who can build up the democratic process? There is a danger of a democratic deficit in the next generation of leaders. People need to be encouraged and enabled to be strong leaders in difficult territory. Sierra Leoneans in this country are grateful for the Government's interest. It must continue. Britain has the key role to play.
10.24 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I start by joining other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on raising an important subject this morning. His knowledge and his stories were moving. It was invaluable for all of us to hear him and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) report back on what they saw during their visits. Liberal Democrats are strongly committed to supporting the Government initiatives in Sierra Leone, which have provided an example of our troops at their best and the role that we can play internationally. Many people are proud of that.
Sierra Leone represents a crucial test for our policy in this region of Africa. If we can get it right in Sierra Leone, lessons can be learned for other parts of Africa. It is therefore critical that we reinvigorate our efforts in west Africa in the next few months. The hon. Member for Ilford, South touched on the increasing problems in Guinea, which are a reason why today's debate is so important: there is a need to step up our activities in the area. In a complex situation, we have reached the difficult and critical point at which we must decide whether we are satisfied with our achievements, or whether we should step up our involvement to tackle some of the humanitarian issues to which I shall refer later.
246WH
Liberal Democrats support 100 per cent. the Foreign Secretary's statement that
"Britain will not abandon the people of Sierra Leone to the mercy of murderous thugs".
It is good that the Government made that clear so quickly. There are two clear objectives. The first is to sustain the legitimate Government of a Commonwealth country; hon. Members have mentioned our historic connections with the area. The second objective is to protect innocent civilians from the brutality of the rebels in the area, try to restore law and order and ensure that human rights are not violated. We strongly support that twin policy.
The Government were right to become involved in providing advice and training in the region, and we have heard how welcome that advice is. The 600 individuals who are out there training show that we punch above our weight, and their work has obviously had an enormous impact on Sierra Leone's army, which, it is reported, has become much more effective. I also welcome the Government's recent announcement that they are happy to make that commitment run through to September, by which time the international military advisory and training team, supported by the Canadians, will be able to carry on that effective work. None the less, I should like an assurance from the Minister that September is not a fixed date and that we will withdraw that support only when we are absolutely confident that the IMATT can perform to the same standard as our personnel. Frankly, I have my doubts about that. We have heard about the role of the Gurkhas, and I would be extremely anxious if the Department wanted to stick to the September deadline regardless of the circumstances.
Liberal Democrats differ from the Government on involvement on the ground: we should like British troops to be part of a United Nations force. I know that the Government have rejected that and I understand the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, but we are worried about current UN capability in the area. About 2,000 troops left recently when the Indians and the Jordanians decided to withdraw. Those countries that remain part of the UN force do not have the skills and the abilities that we could bring to it. We have heard about our training role, and it seems a great pity that that skill is not to be transferred to the UN forces so that we could play a critical role on the ground, especially as failure could prolong the difficulties in the region. Although I entirely understand the Government's anxieties about our troops being involved in a prolonged campaign, matters might be brought to a head quicker if our troops were involved in the UN force rather than confined to their current limited, albeit welcome, role.
On the subject of back-up for the troops, the Minister will be aware that 112 military personnel serving in Sierra Leone are suffering from malaria and that 15 claims for compensation have been made. The Government have set up a tri-service board to investigate and report on the matter, but I ask the Minister to offer a few words of comfort and to give an absolute assurance that our troops will be protected from malaria, although I know that it is difficult because of the time scale involved and because troops are moved around. Furthermore, will the Minister publish the full text of the tri-service board's report? Press releases and

247WH
background papers have been issued, but we would have more confidence if the full text were made available to reassure us that everything possible was being done to protect troops from malaria.
Other hon. Members mentioned the difficult situation in Guinea. It is comforting that in the southern part of Sierra Leone, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East referred, the Government seem to be in control; and we played our part in making that happen. However, as a consequence, trouble has moved northwards and into Guinea. The Independent this week carried alarming reports of the humanitarian difficulties affecting refugees who left Sierra Leone for Guinea. The United Nations has described that crisis as the largest in the world at present.
I am especially anxious about the region known as the "parrot's beak" and I would welcome the Minister's views. It is flanked by rebels on both sides and hemmed in by hostile Guineans to the north There are several refugee camps in the region, each with a population of several thousand—the biggest, in Kolomba, has 30,000—all of whom are in extreme danger and face hunger because of lack of supplies. Fighting is intensifying as the rainy season approaches, and there is grave concern about what will happen when it kicks in. Food envoys to the camps have been attacked by rebels and one camp was without food supplies for four months. The refugees, who face attacks as rebels move into the area, are not welcomed by some in Guinea, who say that they are bringing the war from Sierra Leone. President Conte of Guinea has not used the most helpful phrases about those individuals, who are trapped between two forces.
What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Department for International Development about humanitarian aid and the role of the United Nations in that difficult territory? United Nations staff have been kidnapped and killed in the region, which is highly volatile. Although much has been achieved in the south, and despite the humanitarian concerns, there is a reluctance to move into an area in which hostilities are occurring.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in urging that consideration be given to our long -term exit strategy. What is the Minister's view about Britain's involvement in setting up democratic structures? My hon. Friend made a helpful suggestion about the role of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council. Liberal Democrats support the Government's stance, but we are anxious that we have reached a critical point. Are we happy to let matters rest, or are we prepared to make a commitment to continue the training beyond September if we believe that others cannot train as well as we can?
We urge on the Government our belief that the situation will most effectively and speedily be resolved by UN troops playing a full role. That would send a strong message and put skills on the ground to deal with the problems in the region. Will the Minister also comment on what humanitarian aid we can give to help to address the difficulties emerging in Guinea?
10.35 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on securing the debate, which is long overdue. Sierra Leone seems to have slipped off the Government's agenda over recent months. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who showed personal courage in visiting an area in which our troops are deployed, no doubt bringing them succour, and seeing the situation at first hand. Nothing—certainly not reliance on reports—replaces witnessing events on the ground. My first question to the Minister, whom I welcome to his new post, is what plans he has to follow in their footsteps by visiting Sierra Leone. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has continuously shown great interest in the matter. I endorse his remarks about the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I am worried about the fact that the British Council is being greatly run down in Africa; many of our posts there have closed because of the Government's changes.
We all share the desire for peace, security and the return of harmony to Sierra Leone—that is a given. We all endorse what the hon. Member for Ilford, South said about his visit to the amputee camp and Sierra Leone's potential. This weekend, I went to Zimbabwe and saw the situation there. I spent a similar amount of time in Zimbabwe as the hon. Gentleman spent in Sierra Leone, and witnessed the destruction of another African country with great potential. As in Sierra Leone, many of the problems of Zimbabwe reflect the desire for wealth and power, particularly through the diamond trade.
The Gurkhas, who have been tremendously praised in the debate, are a phenomenal division of our armed services. They have contributed greatly to our deployments throughout the world, not least in Kosovo where, during my previous visit, I saw them building shelters for our troops, who are doing a first-class job there. The Opposition give our troops who are deployed abroad every support and praise.
Sierra Leone is indeed a sad country. Until the 1990s it was reasonably stable, but then occurred the disastrous series of coups that led to the recent troubles. It is incredible that until the end of the 19th century the level of education in Sierra Leone was higher than it was in this country. Today, however, despite its phenomenal mineral wealth and the potential about which we have all heard, it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a derisory gross domestic product and a male life expectancy of merely 37 years.
I do not have much time to speak—I want to hear the Minister's response to the questions that other hon. Members have asked—but I wish to raise one issue that has not been mentioned: the progress of the Lomé peace agreement. I hope that the Minister will put some flesh on the bones of that agreement and tell us what progress is being made. Specifically, I should like to know what efforts have been made to transform the RUF into a political party, as was part of the agreement, and whether that transformation is happening. The disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants is a key part of reconstruction, so perhaps the Minister could let us know what progress is

249WH
being made on that front. Furthermore, the release of prisoners of war was due to take place; has that happened? I hope that the Minister will also tell us about humanitarian assistance throughout Sierra Leone, which was another objective of the Lomé peace agreement.
We have not heard about the truth and reconciliation commission that was to be set up; perhaps the Minister can inform us of the latest position on that. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East raised the prospect of bringing before an international criminal court the perpetrators of some of the horrendous crimes that have been committed. We would all support that aim, but part of the Lomé peace agreement was an amnesty for crimes committed before the agreement's signature. I should like to know about the progress of those amnesties, how many have been granted and to whom. Another part of the agreement related to the exploitation of natural resources in Sierra Leone. It would be helpful to have an update on what legitimate exploitation has taken place. We know of the doubts that still hang over the illegitimate use of diamonds and possible intervention and interference by neighbouring countries, but I hope that the Minister will tell us what has been happening legitimately on that front.
On the question of the military deployment, it has always appeared to Opposition Members that the Government have been making policy on the hoof on Sierra Leone. We have had constant reassurances that we would perform certain tasks and go no further, but a few months later those tasks seem to expand. Mission creep has taken a strong hold on the Government's policy in Sierra Leone. We have evidence of that in recent announcements. On 19 December last year, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"We are making preparations for the short-term deployment of a surgical team to Sierra Leone to cover the possibility of a gap in medical cover"
because of the withdrawal of certain UN troops. He went on:
"The team will be withdrawn as soon as possible once alternative arrangements are available."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000: Vol. 360, c. 89W.]
Will the Minister update us on the team's status, what alternative arrangements have been made and the likelihood of its being withdrawn in the near future? In another written answer published Friday 26 January—not so long ago—the Secretary of State made yet another announcement that we were increasing our presence in Sierra Leone, saying:
"We plan to increase the IMATT's overall size from the 90 posts originally envisaged to 126."—[Official Report, 26 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 725W.]
That seems to follow the established pattern of the continual upgrading and reassessment of the tasks that British forces are in Sierra Leone to complete. Will the Minister enlighten the Opposition as to who is making those assessments, why they appear to be so inaccurate and why the tasks and expenditure in that area continuously expand?
Mr. Oaten: Will the hon. Lady confirm whether she is for or against the increased activity?
Mrs. Gillan: I cannot answer that question at this stage, because of the scant information available to the
250WH
Opposition. I am searching for further and better particulars because I think that it would be more helpful if, instead of adding like topsy to announcements on an ad hoc basis, a longer-term game plan were laid out for the information of both Members of Parliament and, more importantly, British armed services serving abroad. Will the Minister think longer term rather than shorter term, as seems to be the Government's major problem? I want to leave time for the Minister to respond, but I hope that he will undertake to write to Members who have contributed to this debate if he cannot respond to all the questions asked today. The reconstruction and peaceful reconciliation within Sierra Leone concerns all of us.
Finally, the memorandum of understanding signed with Sierra Leone provides for written notice of termination of three months if we are going to withdraw our troops. Will the Minister tell us whether that memorandum of understanding is still in place, or whether it has been added to or amended? We want to make sure that we contribute positively to the rebuilding of Sierra Leone, and that our service personnel are fully backed up by the House in carrying out their duties on behalf of this country. I hope that the Minister will provide the reassurances that we seek.
10.46 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): First, I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for securing this debate, which has been extremely useful. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that one does not necessarily become an expert on everything just by becoming a Minister. Listening to today's debate has been an important part of my learning process about Sierra Leone. I single out my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for their outstanding contributions, which reflect the fact that they have been to the country, experienced and seen it. There is no substitute for that and both hon. Gentlemen articulated their experiences effectively. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked whether I intended to visit Sierra Leone. If I am privileged to be in office long enough, I shall visit the country. I am to visit west Africa next month, but the precise itinerary has yet to be determined. If I do not visit Sierra Leone on that trip, I expect to do so on a future one.
There is a fairly broad consensus, especially on the fundamental point that it is right that we are in Sierra Leone. It is a small country, it is poor and its people have suffered appalling brutality. However, it is a democracy, it has an abundance of natural resources and it has a vibrant and energetic people. Our purpose in Sierra Leone is to reassure those people that they have not been abandoned, and to help them to achieve the peace that they need to develop their country's potential.
It is incomprehensible and deeply depressing that a country so endowed with natural riches can be described as the poorest in the world, but the figures produced by the United Nations speak for themselves: in Sierra Leone, life expectancy is 37 years; of every 1,000 live births, 316 babies die and for every 100,00 live births, 1,800 mothers die. Those bald statistics are a sad reflection of a civil war that has lasted more than a

251WH
decade and anchored Sierra Leone to the bottom of the United Nations human development index. Poverty has bred poverty as the economy has collapsed, leaving a young and disaffected population clamouring for non-existent jobs. The terrible conflict has caused the needless deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and resulted in some of the most barbaric atrocities of modern times: thousands of innocent people, including babies, have had limbs hacked from their bodies, and more than half of Sierra Leone's population of 5 million has been displaced. It is difficult to imagine the suffering endured by the people of Sierra Leone.
Our presence is intended to send a powerful message to the Revolutionary United Front about our determination to bring the conflict to an end. How that happens is the choice of the combatants: the sooner they realise that they have no hope of forcing themselves on the people, the quicker we can undertake the huge task of lifting the country from its knees and restoring the people's capacity to build a better future for themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described our strategy for Sierra Leone in his statement on 6 June. That strategy has not changed: our priorities are to repel the rebels, restore the peace and rebuild the country.
Mrs. Gillan: Before he leaves the subject of the RUF, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made under the Lomé peace agreement and the transformation of the RUF into a political party?
Mr. Wilson: Under the terms of the July 1999 Lomé accord, the RUF is entitled to form a political party, but its leader, Foday Sankoh, broke that accord in May 2000 and we believe that he has lost the right to any further involvement as a political leader. The RUF must appoint a new leadership if it wants to participate in elections, when they are eventually held.
Our priorities remain to repel the rebels, restore the peace and rebuild Sierra Leone. They are the necessary elements for sustainable long-term development and represent the essence of our commitment to the people of Sierra Leone. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and others referred generously to our military assistance to Sierra Leone, which is fundamental to our goal of providing the Government of the country with the means to defend its people from brutal rebel attacks. Since June 2000, British forces have trained and equipped 6,500 soldiers. On 26 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the training will continue in its present form until September, by which time a total of 8,500 men will have undergone instruction. That programme has begun the development of an effective and accountable Sierra Leone army.
It would be remiss of me not to place on record, even at the cost of brevity, a tribute to the dedication of the men and women of the 2nd Roy Anglian, the 1st Royal Irish, the 1st Prince of Wales Own and the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles. I refer to all our forces involved in providing first-class training and support to the new Sierra Leone army. Incidentally, I shall write to hon. Members about all points to which I have not referred,
252WH
including the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who asked about malaria provision for our troops.
Mr. Oaten: Is September a cut-off deadline, or one that will be reviewed?
Mr. Wilson: I am coming to that. When the regiments have finished their work, an international military assistance and training team—IMATT—will take responsibility for longer-term training, but that does not signal the end of our involvement in the new army. Britain will continue to play a major role in IMATT. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
Britain will remain at the forefront in providing training and advice to the Government of Sierra Leone and in helping to build the structures necessary to ensure the democratic accountability of the new army. We shall continue to strengthen and redefine the role of Sierra Leone's Ministry of Defence, paying special attention to aspects of civilian control. Our assistance does not end there. We are also helping the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. In addition to the 15 military observers, we have, at the request of the United Nations secretariat, provided a senior officer as chief of staff as well as another six officers to perform key tasks within the mission. In addition, our rapid reaction force is ready to come to the aid of UN peacekeeping operations anywhere in the world, including Sierra Leone.
We shall maintain an operational headquarters in Sierra Leone until the end of 2001. Through military exercises, we will continue to remind the rebels that our over-the-horizon rapid reaction forces are never far away. We hope that further bloodshed will not occur. A negotiated solution is not impossible. We welcome the Abuja ceasefire that was signed in November 2000 between the Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF, and we would all like to believe that the new agreement has reawakened the prospect of a negotiated settlement. I do not need to remind hon. Members that Sierra Leone has suffered many disappointments in the past five years. In 1996, the Abidjan accord collapsed, as did the Conarkry peace accord in 1997 and the Lomé peace accord in 2000. Although those agreements provided a realistic basis for peace, the persistent duplicity of the RUF undermined each of them. Although I am encouraged by the Abuja ceasefire, the history of false starts causes me to regard that new agreement cautiously.
A credible disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process is urgently required to encourage combatants to disarm. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has focused particular attention on that vital component of the peace process. The United Kingdom has developed model pilot projects that will provide visible evidence of the benefits in store for combatants when they have laid down their weapons and been demobilised. We shall continue to support the Sierra Leone Government, the World Bank and others in developing incentives designed to persuade combatants to give up the fight.
I am pleased to say that Britain played a leading role in the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1315, which paved the way for the establishment of the special court for Sierra Leone. It has been created to deal with

253WH
those who bear the greatest responsibility for the heinous crimes under international and Sierra Leone law that have been committed in recent years. That court is being established at the request of the Sierra Leone Government, with the support of the international community through the United Nations. It will have a crucial role to play in demonstrating the determination of the international community to bring to justice all those who are responsible for such crimes. I hope that I have answered a point that has caused concern to hon. Members.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister tell us how that court fits in with the amnesties for crimes committed prior to the Lomé agreement? What is the status of those amnesties?
Mr. Wilson: The special court will deal with only a limited number of the most serious offenders. In parallel, we are supporting the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, which will play an important role in establishing the facts of what has happened in Sierra Leone. It will provide a forum for those involved in the conflict on all sides to set out the truth. By definition, a special court would not deal with all matters and an amnesty is perhaps part of the overall mix.
Britain was also a key player in the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1306, which imposed a ban on the import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone not controlled by its Government's certification scheme. That was a robust and imaginative response to Sierra Leone's tragedy, and sends out a powerful message about the need to end the trade in conflict diamonds.
254WH
We shall continue to work to secure a worldwide certification scheme to halt the flow of illicit diamonds that fuels conflicts.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked what progress had been made in reducing that trade. I am pleased to report that the Sierra Leone Government recently reported to the United Nations sanctions committee that there has already been a small but significant increase in the number of diamonds passing through the Government's control. We shall build on that. More widely, the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of international and UN activity on the creation of an international certification regime, which will prevent conflict diamonds fuelling wars elsewhere, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola. That was a matter in which my predecessor was particularly interested and I intend to carry on that interest.
Malign external influences not only make our work in Sierra Leone much harder, but threaten the stability of the wider region. UN Security Council resolution 1306 established an independent panel of experts to examine violations of the UN arms embargo and links between the trade in diamonds and arms in Sierra Leone. It clearly identifies President Taylor of Liberia as a prime supporter of the rebels, supplying arms and equipment in return for diamonds. We are determined to ensure that measures are adopted to put pressure on President Taylor to end his connections with the rebels. Liberia's support for the RUF has been largely responsible for the conflict in Sierra Leone spreading to Guinea. I will write individually to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to explain our policy in Guinea. Although it is important to set out our record on that matter, time does not allow me to do so today. I hope that what I have said to hon. Members and what I will add in writing will satisfy them.

Shipbuilding (South Coast)
11 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I am pleased to have an opportunity to lead this important debate on shipbuilding on the south coast. Hon. Members of all parties with constituencies in that area and further afield share my concern about the potential destruction of an industry that has been a major factor in our regional economy for many years. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) has already sent his apologies for not being able to attend. I am sure that many of those present are hoping to contribute to the debate to reinforce our widespread concern, and I hope that they will not take offence should I refer to their constituencies in passing.
Shipbuilding on the south coast has a long and illustrious history. Not for nothing is Portsmouth known as the home of the Royal Navy. From the very beginning, the south coast of Hampshire has been a major centre for warship building. Centuries ago, the New Forest provided the hearts of oak for the old wooden hulls. Nelson's Victory and many other ships of the line were built in the shipyards along our coast. The tradition has lived on throughout the centuries with the naval port at Portsmouth and the commercial port of Southampton becoming the prime drivers of economic success in our region. A wealth of engineering and manufacturing industry has developed around those two great ports, ranging from building railway locomotives in my constituency of Eastleigh to manufacturing submarine and power cables in Southampton and Eastleigh and an advanced electronics industry.
As a student apprentice in the Portsmouth dockyard back in the 1960s, I was part of a work force of more than 22,000. The Vosper Thornycroft yards at Portchester and Woolston employed at least another 5,000 people. All those yards were, at that time, building ships for the Royal Navy. Together with the port of Southampton, the victualling yards, the armaments depots and the range of support services for the naval and merchant fleets, the industry in our region employed approximately 100,000 people. It is no wonder that Hampshire had, and still has, the most defence-dependent economy of any shire county.
Underpinning the shipbuilding industry was a large, well-trained and highly skilled work force. At any one time, some 1,000 apprentices were under articles in Portsmouth dockyard, and there were at least a further 300 at Vosper Thornycroft, providing a constant stream of new talent for the industry. It is a matter of record that shipbuilding in the United Kingdom has seen massive decline. Over the past 60 years, the tonnage of merchant ships being completed in British yards has fallen from more than a quarter of world tonnage to approximately 1 per cent. According to a paper produced by the Shipbuilding Forum, our merchant shipbuilding industry has been reduced to:
"A small industrial sector concentrating on niche markets for specialist high added value ships such as off-shore oil exploration vessels, local ferries, dredgers and tugs."
A once mighty industry has been reduced to making dredgers and tugs. An industry that employed many hundreds of thousands now employs fewer than 30,000
256WH
throughout the nation. The number employed at Portsmouth dockyard, now only a naval base, has reduced from 22,000 to approximately 2,000, and the number employed at Vosper Thornycroft has reduced from 5,000 to only 1,200, with half that number now threatened with redundancy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could have helped Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton by giving an assurance about the type 45 programme, which the company has desperately been seeking?
Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman anticipates some remarks that I hope to make strongly and lucidly later. If he will bear with me, I am sure that he will support my comments.
An industry that once boasted dozens of firms building warships throughout the United Kingdom is now reduced to two prime contractors: BAE Systems in the north and Scotland and Vosper Thornycroft in the south.
I can well understand the concerns of hon. Members with constituencies in the north of England and Scotland, where shipyard jobs have become dependent on MOD orders, but I am equally concerned about the need to retain and strengthen competition in this specialist industry, to foster innovation and to ensure that the Government and the taxpayer get the best value for money. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that that concern is shared not just by employees and employers but by trade unions, who as a matter of policy agree that competition is best for our industry.
Mr. John Burnett: My hon. Friend cites a number of shipyards, but I ask him to bear in mind Appledore shipyard, which is in my constituency. It is globally competitive and an excellent shipyard that provides excellent value for money at the smaller end of shipbuilding.
Mr. Chidgey: I well understand my hon. Friend's robust and reliable support for the excellent shipyard in his constituency. Appledore has a sound reputation throughout the world, but if he can recall, I spoke of prime contractors for shipbuilding, which is why I said that there are just two. Of course, much fine work is done at Appledore, which works closely with shipbuilders in my area, and long may it continue to do so. While I share the concerns of hon. Members whose constituencies are in the north of England and Scotland, my role today is unashamedly to put the case for shipbuilding in the south—the home of one of the two remaining warship prime contractors.
A recent book entitled "Warships for the World" states:
"Royal Naval vessels built on the South Coast made a major contribution to naval operations during the 1991 Gulf war."
Five locally built Hunt class mine counter-measure vessels
"played a vital role in clearing lanes through extensive minefields off the Kuwaiti coast, while HMS Gloucester"—
one of three type 42 destroyers built by Vosper Thornycroft—

257WH
"shot down the only Iraqi missile aimed against Allied naval vessels."
That is a matter of record, but what is perhaps more important is the export record achieved in our local yards in Woolston and Portchester by Vosper Thornycroft. It is a unique record in the British shipbuilding industry. Since the 1960s, Vosper Thornycroft has sought and won orders around the world. It has sold vessels to Malaysia, Kenya, Brunei, Singapore, Nigeria, Holland, Sweden, Panama, the Bahamas, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Italy, Oman, Venezuela, Tunisia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Brazil. That record is unsurpassed by any other shipbuilding firm in this country. The book continues:
"Shipbuilding on the South Coast has a long and highly successful record. In 1937 VT built as a private venture the very first motor torpedo boat—MTB 102—which served as a prototype for large numbers of vessels that served throughout the Second World War."
To bring us up to date, during the 1960s it developed the technology for the first glass-reinforced plastic royal naval warships. In the past few months, as the Minister will know, it has been contracted to design and construct the world's first trimaran warship demonstrator, the RV Triton. That is an unsurpassed record, not just according to the textbooks but in the perception of the South-East economic development agency.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the trimaran. Members of the public may not realise that one of the other participants involved in that programme is the United States, through the Darpa Organisation. Interestingly, the Americans placed the order for that advanced design and test vehicle in the shipyard to which he refers. That should not go unnoticed.
Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman must have visited the Woolston shipyard not so long ago to have such detailed information. He is absolutely right. The Americans are watching this exciting new development with great interest, and are, I understand, providing much of the instrumentation that will assess and evaluate the vessel's success.
As I have said, shipbuilding is important for our region. Our economic development agency says that defence and marine technology are major business sectors in the south-east, with high growth and high value potential. That is why SEEDA is working so hard with the industry and with key groups such as research institutions and training providers to develop a favourable economic and competitive environment, but it needs Government support to do that. In particular, competition needs to be encouraged and sustained in the defence market. That is crucial, because it keeps the pressure on improved productivity and cost control, which benefits not only taxpayers but the competitiveness of UK firms as a whole in an increasingly robust export market.
The benefits are clear. We have in Vospers the United Kingdom's leading warship exporter, with some 273 ships supplied to 34 countries in the past 30 years, and £1.5 billion worth of export orders won in the past 10 years. That statement may sound like it comes from a
258WH
company brochure, but it comes from our economic development agency, which appreciates the value of the industry in the heart of our region.
Vospers is at the heart of a cluster of marine industries with world-class potential. The marine sector includes many small firms, which are often technology based with high growth potential. The presence of the company, with its direct link to the naval procurement programme, stimulates innovation among many suppliers. Severing that link would jeopardise the technological investment on which competitiveness increasingly depends. The impact will be felt not only in my constituency but among a vast catchment of firms that operate in the south coast maritime industry cluster. That is why SEEDA launched and supported the campaign for south coast shipbuilding. It brings together private companies, local authorities, Members of Parliament and members of trade unions in a partnership approach. It is an excellent example of how an economic development agency should work, and I applaud its efforts.
Vospers and the other marine engineering companies have a bright future in the south-east. They can maintain and create many business opportunities and jobs, given the right support. We want the Government to support that vision through fair competition, not preferential treatment. To use a hackneyed but vital phrase, we merely want a level playing field. We want to be able to compete equally with the others.
In the region, shipbuilding and repair involves eight companies that account for £225 million a year in turnover. Shipbuilding and repair secures £100 million a year in exports, and employs more than 3,000 people in the south-east. It is a growth industry worldwide. Some 2,400 new ships are built every year worldwide. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is keen to double shipbuilding and increase ship repair by as much as 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The south-east plays a major part in the sector.
Further shipbuilding losses will have a knock-on effect throughout the entire marine industry sector, including ports such as Southampton, where port-related activities contribute £1.3 billion a year to the local economy, and more than 10,000 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs would suffer severely.
The process of shipbuilding and repair and yacht building in the region has led to the development of several world-beating educational institutions. Southampton has its Oceanography institute and its university and other support organisations such as Marine Tech South, all of which have come from the support of the marine engineering industry cluster.
In spite of the decline in British shipbuilding, it is a growth industry worldwide, and our shipbuilders should be out there competing for a stake in a rough, tough marketplace. That is why the Government, the home market customer, should use their purchasing power to ensure that, through fair competition and the award of warship contracts, the industry develops, innovates and becomes more productive. That can be achieved only through competition.
I endorse the Government's claim that they intend to do precisely that—foster and enhance competition in the industry. They say frequently that they support competition generally and within the UK defence

259WH
market—specifically for the type 45 destroyer programme. In a Ministry of Defence memorandum dated 25 February 1998 to the Select Committees on Defence and on Trade and Industry, the Government stated:
"Competition remains fundamental to obtaining value for money… Where competition is not viable for prime contracts, competition at the sub-contract level is encouraged."
I see that I have caught the Minister's attention. On pages 38 and 39 of the joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees—HC675, Session 1997–98—it states that when considering such long-term implications of procurement decisions, the MOD includes factors such as
"the implications of the creation of a future monopoly".
The Government's introduction of smart procurement does nothing to change that, because it encourages the development of partnerships with industry. Ministers and officials therefore continue to emphasise the importance of competition. It is against that background that companies in the defence industry have to make major investment and employment decisions. The declared Government strategy for the type 45 destroyer programme is in line with their general policy.
It was with delight that we heard the announcement of the order on 11 July last year when the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"Our approach in this programme will ensure that experience in type 45 construction is spread between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. That will assist future competition for follow-on ships… Provided that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed between the prime contractor and the two shipbuilders, we intend that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. Both companies will be able to compete independently for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 701-2.]
The big question, which I hope, will feature in our debate, is what role the Government should and must play to ensure that that is achieved.
The Secretary of State and many of his colleagues have repeated those views. The Minister may recall that on 12 February 2001 he stated:
"There has been no change to date in our policy"—
so I wonder what happened on the 13th, 14th and subsequently—
"which is to conduct a procurement exercise involving both yards, under the direction of the prime contractor. That remains the policy."—[Official Report, 12 February 21101; Vol. 363, c. 17.]
However, a new factor calls into question the Government's commitment to competitive procurement of the type 45—the unsolicited bid submitted by BAE Marine to construct all 12 vessels. The Government maintain that their policy is uncharged, but at the same time they are considering a completely new strategy—giving BAE a monopoly in the design and construction of destroyers and frigates.
The Government previously expressed considerable support for competition in the type 45 procurement programme, but in another memorandum provided to the Defence Committee, the Ministry of Defence stated:
"Competing for follow-on ships in batches increases the pressure on tenderers to reduce prices. Savings of around 30 per cent. were achieved between the First of Class vessel of the Type
260WH
23 destroyer and the 14th hull of that class and we do not believe that these savings would have been as large without the pressure of competition. We anticipate achieving a similar level of savings in the Type 45 programme."
Again, I emphasise the reference to competition.
On page 56 of the Defence Committee's eighth report—Session 1998–99—the MOD went on:
"The potential savings which might be achieved if the entire class was ordered as a single batch can only be the subject of speculation, since this would be an unprecedented departure from current practice. Such an approach is unlikely to be adopted for a number of reasons. Firstly, warship design naturally evolves through the life of the particular class, for example, to take account of changing operational requirements. Formulating a contract with time, cost and performance parameters to anticipate design changes would be impracticable especially in terms of the commitment and risks involved in a programme of this complexity. Secondly, the industrial implications of such an approach could lead to a single supplier dominating warship procurement to the detriment of competition in the medium/ long term.
If that is the Government's position, why are they taking such a long time to consider the unsolicited bid? Why did they not discard it at the outset as not in keeping with their policy?
In answer to a question that I tabled, the Minister will recall that he said:
"The BAE Systems Marine unsolicited proposal is still being assessed but if it is accepted, the DFM contract would need to be re-negotiated."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 99W.]
That is shorthand for saying that the statement that Vosper Thornycroft would have a fair share of the work was to become meaningless and that Government policy for strengthening competition in the United Kingdom warship building industry was to be abandoned.
The fig leaf that the Government are using to hide their embarrassment seems to be the proviso that fair work share on the first of class for the type 45s depends on the prime contractor, BAE Systems and the two subcontractors reaching agreement. BAE Marine and Vosper Thornycroft must reach agreement on cost and risk sharing. However, by awarding the DFM contract to BAE Systems without first insisting on a back-to-back contract with BAE Marine and Vosper Thornycroft for the subcontract work, the MOD has put all the aces in the hands of BAE Systems. In that game of poker, all that BAE has to do is raise the stakes and sit tight. Vosper Thornycroft is running out of construction work and shedding 100 or so workers as every month goes by, so it is obvious that, in six months' time, it may no longer have the capacity to bid effectively for type 45 work.
Incidentally, one reason why Vosper Thornycroft is short of work is that it subcontracted the construction of two new multi-role survey warships for the Royal Navy, worth £130 million and sustaining 800 jobs for about three years, to the Appledore shipyard in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Vosper Thornycroft did that because it expected to need the capacity in its yards for the promised work on the type 45 destroyers. To use a common phrase, that is being shafted—if I may use such an expression in this context.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Propeller shafted.
Mr. Chidgey: That might do. I will move swiftly on, Mr. Cook, rather than incur your disapprobation.

261WH
We often talk in this place about low politics, which seems to come with the territory, but there is also such a thing as low commerce. There is no doubt in my mind that BAE Marine submitted its unsolicited bid for the type 45 destroyer with the benefit of knowledge of Vosper Thornycroft's expertise and intellectual development. I have been in industry long enough to know how important those aspects are in retaining one's competitive edge and that we do not give away our skills, techniques and intellectual property lightly. Surely that knowledge was revealed only when the two companies were working together under the Government's instructions to collaborate for the first of class ships for the type 45 destroyer. It is naive to believe that Vosper Thornycroft would have revealed its expertise in, for example, modular construction, without the assumed protection of the Government pledge that it was to be contracted to design and build the second type 45 destroyer and would be substantially involved in the first and third.
More times than I can remember, Ministers have replied to questions of a similar ilk by saying that that remains the Government's preferred strategy for fair work sharing on the type 45 or that it is their intention that Vosper Thornycroft should undertake a significant amount of the work. If the Government sit back and wait until September, when decisions must be taken on the construction programme for the type 45, the only game left in town will be to negotiate a contract directly with BAE Systems Marine. Shipbuilding in the south of England will have been destroyed and with it any effective competition for warship building in the United Kingdom.
I do not blame BAE, which is pursuing a sound commercial strategy in the interests of its workers and shareholders. The Government must take the blame for allowing the strategy to succeed against the interests of competition, the warship building industry and the taxpayer, who will foot the inflated final bill.
The Under-Secretary is a gentleman who shows great patience and carefully considers the questions put to him. Rather than giving us the usual Front Bench platitudes, I hope that he will give a firm commitment that the Government will discard forthwith the unsolicited bid for all 12 type 45s from BAE Systems Marine as anti-competitive, and instruct the chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency to intervene on the DFM contract and insist that negotiations with Vosper, stalled by BAE, will restart immediately. I hope, too, that the Government will instruct the chief executive to redefine reasonable cost parameters for work-sharing strategies under the DFM contract in the light of his letter dated 31 January, which stated:
"Although it could be argued that there is some additional cost for the first three ships inherent in this strategy,"—
work sharing—
"we believe this to be easily outweighed by the benefits of subsequent competition for which it provides."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 184W.]
It is time that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Ensuring a competitive strategy for the type 45 is an issue that affects the future of shipbuilding in the south of England and has serious implications for the whole of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry.
262WH
In case hon. Members are in any doubt about BAE Systems' ambitions in this regard, I shall quote from the company's briefing setting out its warship building strategy. It states:
"For some time now we have been seeking to develop a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the UK Government. A key element of the partnership concept would be the award, clearly subject to the value for money test, of all of the Type 45 platforms and a further batch of Astute submarines to our Marine business. Furthermore, we have recently submitted an unsolicited proposal to the UK MOD for the construction of two Auxiliary Oilers at Govan which could be financed either by the government or by ourselves."
A raft of proposals is set out for BAE Systems to become the sole provider for the Government in the warship building industry. Clearly, BAE makes a case that it believes to be sound for the company and for the Government, but it deliberately stifles effective competition for future generations of the warship building industry.
If Ministers continue to ignore our pleas and avoid the issue, they will be responsible for closing the most profitable and innovative shipyard in Britain. Safeguarding the future of shipbuilding on the south coast is vital; it will benefit the Royal Navy, the taxpayer and the entire British shipbuilding industry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. It has become common practice—indeed, almost an agreed protocol—in 90-minute debates that Front-Bench Members commence their winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. As so many hon. Members are rising, I appeal for brevity.
11.30 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I will not repeat the detailed comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the issues surrounding the debate. Instead, I wish to emphasise that shipbuilding on the south coast concerns not only Southampton or Portsmouth, but the whole economy of our part of the world. The issue should not be viewed as a contest between the south coast and the north of England because it concerns the future strategy on defence procurement and the building of warships in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh set out, that strategy is particularly well served by ensuring that the contract for type 45 destroyers is delivered on the basis of the existing strategy of smart procurement, which involves Vospers and BAE sharing the work.
Anyone attending a football match in Southampton—which is, these days, a particularly successful premiership club—is struck by the fact that Southampton fans usually sing songs directed not at the opposing football team but at Portsmouth football club, whichever side Southampton is playing. I am sure that the same happens at Portsmouth football club—albeit with smaller crowds. People outside the area might think that Southampton should fight for its shipyard and therefore oppose Portsmouth on that issue. However, Members representing Southampton and Portsmouth constituencies are united in their concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is unable to be present, but he has done an

263WH
enormous amount of work on the issue. A range of people of all parties in our part of the world is united in the wish to ensure a future for shipbuilding on the south coast, wherever it happens to takes place. I am sure that we all agree on that important point
The hon. Member for Eastleigh set out a number of the substantial spin-offs that arise from shipbuilding on the south coast. It is important to the local and regional economy, jobs and skills. Many of the people who worked at Vospers and have obtained jobs elsewhere have enhanced the south coast's ability to build a first-class range of ships, not just Vospers warships. Shipbuilding is also important, as I said, to our national defence procurement strategy because we need to ensure that competition is maintained in the procurement of defence vessels. That creates a problem in regard to smart procurement, however, because only two contractors in the UK can effectively undertake the work for UK warships—assuming that one wishes to keep it in UK yards. The Ministry of Defence obviously feels that that is important and I thoroughly subscribe to that. It is difficult to conceive of perfect competition when only two yards or companies are competing, because they will know about each other's strategies and activities. Indeed, one may believe that those two yards should continue to provide competition, but the idea that one puts the other out of business, thereby extinguishing competition, undermines yes that principle. A smart procurement strategy therefore needs to be developed.
I found it particularly encouraging that the Government's strategy for the delivery of type 45 destroyers took the issue into account. They decided that the first three ships should be built jointly by the two yards so that the learning curve would be jointly steepened. Competition would then proceed from the end of the building of the third of class, and the overall objective of building the best ships at the lowest price over a period of time would be achieved. That sound and sensible strategy was set out to the Defence Committee last year. It was confirmed in an Adjournment debate before Christmas and was recently underlined to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and me when, together with a number of workers from Vospers shipyard, we spoke to a Defence Minister.
The strategy depends on the simple observation that there will be two yards for the entire period of the procurement of 12 vessels. If at any stage one yard ceases to exist, the whole strategy will be undermined. The appointment of a prime contractor is important to ensure that knowledge is shared at the end of the development of the third vessel and competition can proceed. If, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh emphasised, that prime contractor owns two of the yards that are competing for the contract, a problem arises. Obviously, Chinese walls are needed, but how strong and soundproof are they in practice? An unsolicited bid has been mentioned, which suggests that they are not that strong.
I have some sympathy with the Government over receiving that unsolicited bid. Of course they must entertain it. They cannot simply throw it out of the window, as they would be accused of not taking all factors into account in the competitive procurement process. Under the overall logic that has been set out,
264WH
once that unsolicited bid has been entertained, it must be rejected because, by its success, it undermines the whole idea of competition in procurement in shipbuilding. It is important to ensure that the prime contractor does what was agreed and announced by the Government and that we have a genuine period of collaboration on those first three vessels, sharing out the work equally.
There is an important asymmetry in the process. Vospers wants the status quo to be preserved on competition and the procurement process. BAE consistently comes up with suggestions that may change that process. Indeed, The Observer of 25 February reports that BAE has yet again suggested that the Government should simply give it the contracts for two naval support ships. Vospers suggests that a competitive tendering process should be carried out and properly evaluated, with the contracts going to the successful tender.
A strategy that ensures that jobs and skills are retained on the south coast also secures the national interest. It ensures, too, that people do what they said that they would do. That is what we are asking for in this debate, and what Vospers is asking for. At the earliest stage possible, the security of that contract must be ensured so that the prime contractor does not wear down Vospers simply by procrastination. It is in the national interest that first-class ships, which Vospers—along with BAE—has a proud record of building, are secured for the British Navy. The Navy should have those vessels on the basis of a smart procurement contract, which ensures that first-class vessels are built at the lowest price achievable, with the rolling out of a contract over the full life of 12 vessels.
11.40 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I wish to express my solidarity with the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). My involvement with Vosper Thornycroft goes back some 18 years, during which time we have had a lot to celebrate: the success of the privatisation, the company's role as the lead yard for Hunt class mine sweepers, its continuing success in export markets and the diversification programme, which involved moving into aerospace. Vosper Thornycroft Aerospace is headquartered in Christchurch, in my constituency, so my interest in the firm continues, though in a different location.
Vosper Thornycroft is a strong and successful company. Throughout the years I have lobbied on behalf of the company and, as the Member for Southampton, Itchen, I worked hard at that. The yard was in those days just outside the Itchen constituency, situated in Eastleigh. However, the Government and their officials have tended to take the success of the company for granted and to allocate Ministry of Defence work to less successful and less competitive yards. We encountered that problem on the south coast under the Conservative Government, and I argued strongly with Ministers that we should have a level playing field. I told them that it was counter-productive to give work to less successful and less competitive yards, simply because they happen to be located in the north and in areas of higher unemployment.

265WH
The success of that policy, pursued vigorously by the Conservative Government, has been vindicated. One may consider what happened with the Hunt class programme. The company began by being the lead yard; it would have loved to have the contract for the whole programme, from start to finish, without any competition, but it had to compete each time against another yard. It was successful each time and each time quoted a price much lower than it had been on the previous procurement. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned that over the period of the type 23 programme overall savings were made of about 30 per cent. My recollection is that during the Hunt class programme, it amounted to about 60 per cent. less for the last one produced than for the first one. That was a result of the continual competition throughout the procurement process. It is depressing to think that the Government are even toying with the idea of giving one contract for the entire programme to a monopoly supplier. I urge them to abandon the notion immediately and have faith in competition and south coast shipbuilding.
11.44 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on having the good fortune to win the ballot and secure this debate. We have already proved that it was needed; there is widespread cross-party support for the view that shipbuilding is essential to our area's history and future. We could become emotional when talking about the past, but for those in jobs there is no future in the past. They must have something to look forward to, and I hope that today's debate will secure that for them.
At present, there is confusion. BAE Systems wants a stranglehold on military shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. It is unhelpful when its company brief states:
"For some time now we have been seeking to develop a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the UK Government. A key element of the partnership concept would be the award, clearly subject to the value for money test, of all of the Type 45 platforms and a further batch of Astute submarines to our Marine business. Furthermore, we have recently submitted an unsolicited proposal to the UK MOD for the construction of two Auxiliary Oilers (AO) at Govan which could be financed either by the government or by ourselves on the basis of a private finance initiative type arrangement."
The Government have said on several occasions in the past year that warship construction in the United Kingdom needs a fair and flat playing field on which all shipbuilders can participate. They have said that they want open competition and the ability to judge each bid on its merits. However, the company suggests that it is all but in bed with the Government and wants a completely closed shop in the construction of warships for the United Kingdom.
Those who have so far spoken in the debate were right to have retraced the history of Vosper Thornycroft and to congratulate the company on its achievements. Its record of success in selling ships overseas was built on the fact that it also constructed ships for the Royal Navy. If a company cannot sell to its own navy, why is it trying to sell overseas? If it is not competitive and good
266WH
enough for the Royal Navy, what makes it believe that it is good enough to sell ships to another country's navy? It is difficult to convince overseas purchasers to buy ships in such cases. One cornerstone of Vosper Thornycroft's success is its ability to sell abroad, which is based on its successful record with the Royal Navy.
When I was a child growing up a stone's throw from the dockyard gates in Portsmouth, 48,000 civilians were employed in the dockyard. The industry was huge. That whole area of south Hampshire relied heavily on what happened in the dockyard. We are down now to fewer than 1,000 directly employed craftsmen in ship repair and maintenance on the naval base. Many of us in Portsmouth saw the relocation of Vospers operation from the Woolston yard in Southampton to the naval base in Portsmouth as a great opportunity—not only, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, for Portsmouth, but for the population of our part of south Hampshire, which stretches from the Sussex border to the edge of Southampton Water, along the New Forest coastline.
People will travel to work in such jobs. They do now, and they will in future. The yard's move to Portsmouth gave Vospers something that it did not have in Southampton: the ability to build bigger vessels. The type 45 is a great opportunity for the south coast to come alive again. We must think about the sort of ships that have been built in the dockyard, from the first dreadnoughts to Andromeda in the 1960s, the last ship built there. Vospers has a proud history of shipbuilding and the move was an opportunity to return to it.
I do not want the Minister who makes the decision about the type 45 and offshore patrol vessel contracts to take a Nelson-style approach, and put the telescope to the blind eye. He must not see only one option. Clearly, there are two options that could and should provide an opportunity for on-going competition. If the BAE Systems option is taken, Vosper and Appledore might not be around the next time that the Royal Navy is looking at shipbuilding. We need to grasp opportunities, not squander them. We have a great opportunity to fulfil the Government's ambition, and there are three good reasons why we should.
First, it is good for the UK and good for the Royal Navy for Vosper to be given an opportunity to do what the Secretary of State described on three occasions in the House and before his original statement in the middle of last year when he spoke to the Defence Committee. He gave a commitment that ships would be built in a partnership with more than one company. It is never good to put all the eggs in one basket. If competition is to mean anything, it should be fair and the rules should not be changed because someone decides to put in another bid after the competition was supposed to have closed. I cannot understand why the Government are even considering that option. Having 12 ships built by one company for one price, which would be fixed now, cannot be in the best national interest. It would cost the nation dearly over a 10-year period. There certainly would not be any savings.
Secondly, fulfilling the Government's ambition would be good for the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton and for all the businesses in and around the area that have flourished because of Vosper's success. Thirdly, it would be great for jobs—not only existing jobs but those that will be created if part of the

267WH
contract for type 45 and offshore patrol vessels is secured by Vosper. It would provide opportunities for youngsters who want to develop skills and interest in shipbuilding, which the area would otherwise lose.
This has been an important debate, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer some questions. What justification is there for placing orders with BAE Systems Marine without competition? Does he believe that all orders should be subject to proper strenuous competition, which is open to all? Is he aware of other unsolicited bids for shipbuilding construction, about which we have not yet been told? We have been told only about the type 45.
When does the Minister expect the decision to be made? That is the critical issue. We know that the Royal Navy desperately needs such vessels and that at least two companies are desperate for the work. I thought that the Government were desperate for a decision to be made. It is important that the Under-Secretary gives a clear indication that the decision will be made in the near future. Whatever evaluation is being made of the unsolicited bid, I hope that it can be put through the wringer quickly. I hope that jobs will not be lost. The longer the process goes on, the more people will see the opportunities for them to stay in work evaporating. Vosper must be conscious that some of its employees will start to drift away without the opportunity of continuous work. They might take up opportunities to work elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will restore confidence and show that the Ministry of Defence has not written off warship building on the south coast. The people of our area have had a commitment to this country for generations. They were there when the country needed them, and now the country must repay that loyalty. We have played our role in the defence of the realm and we now want to see the Government play fair by the people of Portsmouth and Southampton. The best way to do that is by making a quick decision that brings the second type 45 and at least a share of the offshore patrol vessel contract to Vosper Thornycroft, sooner rather than later.
11.55 am
Mr. John Burnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). He made some powerful points in an excellent speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on their speeches.
Much of the discussion concerned competition and the fostering of competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh made a point that I, gently, correct. He mentioned that only two prime contractors remain for shipping contracts in the United Kingdom, but we at Appledore were prime contractors in 1995–96, when we constructed HMS Scott, the Arctic survey vessel. Had we been successful in our bid for the alternative landing ships logistics contracts—either for one or both—we would have been the prime contractor. We would have extended our covered yard by 50 yd, and we would then have been in a position to tender for larger classes of ships, which the Government knew. They would have then had exactly what they wanted—more yards in the United Kingdom to compete for work.
268WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh was right to say that we need fair competition—an ability to compete equally with other yards. After agreeing them, will the Government put the details of successful tenders in the public domain, so that competing shipyards can evaluate them to ensure that what happened was fair and that equity prevailed? The Minister will also be aware that the cost of tendering for vessels is huge. In order to encourage competition, will the Government consider underwriting part of the cost incurred by selected but unsuccessful tenderers?
Appledore has tendered for the contract to build three offshore protection vessels, which will be similar to the two that it has just completed for the Irish navy. I am told that the Irish are delighted with the vessels that we have constructed. Furthermore, I am told that Ministry of Defence officials have been on board at least one of the Irish offshore patrol vessels and were impressed by it. The officials have nothing but praise for the vessels that we have constructed.
Sadly, Appledore runs out of steel-cutting work in August this year, and lay-offs will begin. Appledore has had only one prime contract with the Ministry of Defence in the past 15 years, which was for HMS Scott. Recently, when I met the Secretary of State for Defence with Mr. Jim Wilson, the managing director of Appledore Shipyards, the Secretary of State referred to the HMS Scott contract. He said that Appledore had built a fine ship, on time to a fixed price. He said that he wished that he could say that about most other MOD contracts. All that I and the magnificent work force and management ask is for our tender to be considered on the basis of fair competition and value for money.
11.59 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: My colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), have made an elegant and detailed defence of south coast shipyards, and I do not want to duplicate what has already been adequately covered. There are two issues with which the Minister must deal in the broader realm of policy. The first issue concerns competition policy. A dominant firm is dangerous in any industry. That applies as much to computer software as to naval vessels. Dominant firms are dangerous because, ultimately, the consumer suffers a detriment. In this case the consumer is the Royal Navy and, ultimately, the taxpayer. In this industry there is a diversity of suppliers and it has already been explained in some detail why that is an important way of protecting the industry and the consumer from abuse by a dominant company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has just touched on the other important issue. There is a need for transparent, consistent, above-board processes of bidding and tendering. I was struck by a letter written by five of my colleagues to the Prime Minister a fortnight ago. My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) wrote to him about the contract. One passage says:
"There are strong concerns that the bid has been made with the benefit of privileged knowledge shared by Vosper Thornycroft in their expectation of being design partners under the government's brief, rather than as competitors."

269WH
Any suggestion of that kind would immediately rule out an unsolicited bid as completely contrary to open competitive tendering processes.
The matter does not simply exist in isolation; I have encountered the problem recently on other naval contracts, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon. A few months ago a series of bids were made for the alternative landing ships logistics contracts. A company in my constituency, along with Appledore, put in a bid for the contract, having had been encouraged to do so by the Ministry of Defence. It went through a detailed and complex process and invested heavily in design and preparation work. The company was then told, at the very last moment, that the bids were not being taken further, for reasons that seemed to have nothing to do with cost or quality. That is why my hon. Friend was so right in insisting that tenders should be published. The participants in the bidding process should be able to see clearly what the criteria are.
Mr. Burnett: I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the leader in the Financial Times on Monday 30 October 2000, entitled "Sentiment and shipbuilding". He may have noticed the point made at the start of the article to the effect that
"in spite of 'smart procurement' reforms, the old-fashioned political fix still takes precedence over value for money."
Dr. Cable: my hon. Friend has put the point more brutally, but I am sure, much more accurately than I did. We all want reassurance that the bidding procedures employed by the Ministry of Defence will be transparent so as to preserve the values of competitiveness crucial to the long-term viability of the industry. It is unfortunate that the shipbuilding industry has become so highly reliant on the Ministry of Defence. However, it is precisely for that reason that the Ministry must establish procedure that ensures competition and makes certain that any bidding procedures are transparent and commercial.
12.03 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Like other hon. Members, I do not want to take too much time as the Minister will want to have reasonable time to respond to the many detailed points that have been made.
I start by extending the usual courtesy and congratulating the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing the debate, although it should be held on the Floor of the House as this is an important matter. I congratulate, too, all those who spoke, many of whom referred to the proud history of shipbuilding on the south coast, although I do not want to talk much about that. In the past, in times of war and conflict, the United Kingdom has relied on vessels built in the shipyards on the south coast. We owe those yards a debt of gratitude, but gratitude is not enough. It is surely about what can be done and how good those who produce such equipment are in the usual competition process.
270WH
We are talking about a serious problem, which highlights the general debate about shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. To take up an earlier point, the debate is not about being against a particular yard in the United Kingdom. I have visited yards in Barrow-in-Furness. I have visited Cammell Laird in Liverpool and Vospers. At Appledore, I met a tremendously gung-ho, go-ahead team who really impressed me and made me believe that shipbuilding had a future in the United Kingdom. It is like that everywhere one goes. Those organisations understand the difficulties; they just want to ensure that there is fairness.
I want to tease out how the Government should approach such contracts. The type 45 contract was announced last July when it was clear that it was going ahead. As the Minister knows, I welcomed that announcement at the time. I wish to put it on the record again that I welcome the decision and congratulate the Government's decision to end the Horizon programme. It was a difficult decision to make, but it was justified and reasonable. The issue is not one of party politics. To go it alone to produce what is necessary for the Royal Navy was the right decision.
I take issue, however, with a previous speaker who said that the matter is about competition, similar to that in the computer industry. There is a difference. The scale of the market is not the same. Also, the fact that, by and large, the Government are making the purchase, tends to skew the process. We must accept that this is not about the clear competition that one would expect on the high street, but about competition to keep procurement across a range of shipyards and to make sure that the prices are right.
I turn now to the problems faced by Vospers. After the contract was placed, there was a period of silence. In December, the Prime Minister said that the Ministry of Defence had received an unsolicited bid from BAE Systems. Martin Jay, who even now is not that far distanced from the debate, said:
"The next few months will tell us whether the government remains committed to competition in defence procurement, or would prefer to rely on a single relationship with BAE Systems".
There are two major problems. The decision will not be taken until at least September and construction may not start until 2003. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the longer that drags on, the less likely it is that Vospers will be in a position to offer such competitive tendering and be able to provide the sort of ship that is required as part of that early batch of three. By the time a decision is reached, there may be only one way for the Government to go. Dragging heels over the matter will create a major problem.
I am also aware that Vospers has announced redundancies, which will involve up to 650 employees in the Woolston shipyard. That will have a huge knock-on effect. In the great scheme of things in the United Kingdom, the loss of 650 jobs will not cause a massive raising of eyebrows, but it will have a huge knock-on effect on the south coast in specialisations and skills and in being able to produce the quality of work of which Vospers is capable. It will also have an effect on Appledore, which wishes to continue in shipbuilding.
Securing a portion of the type 45 programme was an important feature for that shipyard and, more generally, for skills in the south coast region. I refer the

271WH
Government once again to their own comments on competition. I know that they have already been mentioned once or twice, but they bear repeating. The Ministry of Defence told the Select Committee:
"Competing for follow-on ships in batches increases the pressure on tenderers to reduce prices. Savings of around 30 per cent. were achieved between the First of Class vessel of the Type 23 destroyer and the 14th hull…We anticipate achieving a similar level of savings in the Type 45 programme."
The Ministry of Defence is now in the bizarre position of having announced an award, but having to contravene its own guidelines on competition and the placing of orders within the shipbuilding industry.
What is the real reason behind these developments? First, without any doubt, I see the hand of the Treasury at work. Part of the problem precedes the type 45 contract. The Minister will recall what happened to the contract for the roll on/roll off ferry. We warned that allowing four such ships to be constructed in shipyards outside the UK would have a serious knock-on effect on future orders. We can now see that happening.
Yards in Govan and Liverpool rightly believed that they were highly competitive and expected to achieve, within a UK bidding process, at least part of the award of those contracts for ship construction—but they did not. Having wrongly awarded the contracts overseas, the Government then scratched around to look for other vessels that could be constructed in those yards. That put pressure on the south coast: the business went to yards that might not, under usual circumstances, have been awarded the contracts. We now see the same process happening with the type 45. The pressure is on to provide work for yards in Scotland that could have been expected to have a clear programme of work—but did not. Short-term decisions taken a month ago clearly have a knock-on effect for later contracts and for skills on the south coast.
The most bizarre and worst of all reasons is the whiff of pork barrel politics surrounding the decision. Many Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are under pressure, particularly from the Scottish nationalists. They are, quite justifiably, complaining—and I supported them on the roll on/roll off ferry award—that work should have been allotted to those yards and that the effects would be devastating if it were not.
It is no coincidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Department is responsible for demanding that the Ministry of Defence carefully examines the unsolicited bid, also happens to originate from the same area and is so close to those whose primary concern is about the next general election. We are all politicians in this Room and we all understand that. It is not as though it has not been done before. The worst aspect is that it was done on the back of bad decisions by the Treasury and has resulted in the impending and serious crisis for shipbuilding on the south coast.
Will the Under-Secretary explain why he refuses to take an early decision on the unsolicited bid? Why will he not return immediately to the Ministry's own guidelines on competition? If he does not, serious problems will arise. He cannot simply gamble that Vospers will be successful enough to survive and that the impact on the south coast will be less serious than the impact in Scotland. That would be a terrible decision, which most people would view as highly political and retrograde.
272WH
I hope that the Minister will rise to declare that he will no longer accept the unsolicited bid, that we should get on with the original order, that BAE should get on with its work with Vospers, that the type 45s will be brought into service as early as possible, and that highly important and competitive shipbuilding should continue on the south coast.
12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Until the contribution of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I disagreed with little that had been said. It is unfortunate that in a debate attempting to shed light on the subject, an Opposition spokesmen for a party that in government single-handedly virtually destroyed our armed forces over a period of 18 years starts whining, complaining, and crying crocodile tears on behalf of an industry for which it did little—certainly during the latter half of its term in office.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing the debate. I particularly noted his remarks about the long history of shipbuilding on the south coast and its association with the Royal Navy. The shipbuilding industry near my constituency is in a similar position, so like him I am well aware of the long traditions involved. I welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject that is important to all involved in the shipbuilding industry. The hon. Gentleman and hon. Members of all parties have, rightly, articulated their constituents' concerns and, as I said, I disagreed with little. I will endeavour to answer as many of their questions as I can in the short time allowed, although I have to add the caveat that, because many of the matters that we are debating are at a delicate stage of evaluation, I will occasionally be limited in what I can say and so will not necessarily be able offer the complete assurances that they want.
Our commitment to the UK shipbuilding industry was clearly demonstrated in the strategic defence review. We have embarked on the largest warship building programme for decades. In the past nine months, the Government have placed orders for two survey vessels with Vospers, which the company subsequently decided to subcontract to Appledore; a prime contract for the design and build of the first three type 45 destroyers, with BAE Systems as prime contractor; and the design and build of two alternative landing ships logistics—ALSL—with Swan Hunter (Tyneside). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has also announced that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions, the BAE Systems marine yard at Govan will receive an order for an additional two ALSLs. As is well known, we intend to contract with Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd., a British-based company, for the 25-year private finance initiative strategic sealift service.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: If I take interventions, I will not get through the necessary points.
I think that all hon. Members would agree that, taken together, those orders and announcements represent good news for the Royal Navy and for our shipyards,

273WH
creating or securing several thousand jobs in yards and ancillary industries. There is more to come: during the next few years, orders will be placed for the follow-on batches of Astute class submarines and type 45 destroyers, and for the detailed design and build of future aircraft carriers. Those will be the largest surface warship projects of recent years. The UK manufacturing industry has an excellent opportunity to participate in advanced technology programmes, which we hope to place for competition across the UK, north and south, reflecting the strengths of individual companies in shipbuilding and other areas.
Our plans also include a programme known as the future surface combatant to replace the current type 22 and type 23 frigates, submarines, and a variety of other vessels. They include the potential supply and support of offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy, using money-saving procurement methods. Proposals have been received, including some from Vospers. Those are currently under evaluation and, subject to a satisfactory outcome, we expect to place a contract shortly. The backdrop is therefore healthy—indeed, it is unprecedented in recent times.
Yards with the technical capacity to build naval ships are scattered widely throughout the country, including the south coast. Many of those yards would like to be considered for the simpler type of ship, but advanced warships such as submarines, destroyers and mine countermeasure ships are always likely to require specialist skills and facilities. In the north, for instance, our nuclear-powered submarines have for many years been exclusively constructed at Barrow-in-Furness, whereas in the south, Vosper Thornycroft has established a pre-eminent position in the construction of mine countermeasure ships.
I pay tribute to Appledore shipbuilders of north Devon. With a standing work force of only 540, Appledore has proved that it can make a substantial contribution to shipbuilding in this country. Under subcontract to Vospers, it is building our new survey vessels—highly capable new ships that, thanks to improved sea-keeping, will be able to carry out survey work in the rough waters of our western approaches for about 90 per cent of the year. That work is expected to sustain around 800 jobs with Appledore and its suppliers for the next three years. I encourage the company to maintain its efforts to participate in MOD work, while continuing to seek out commercial and naval work from other customers. That broader customer base should remain a key element of all our shipyards' strategies.
The honourable Member for Eastleigh commented extensively on Vosper Thornycroft, and I shall concentrate mainly on that company. I hope that my summary will allay some of his concerns and those of his constituents about the overall picture. Hon. Members may be aware that the Ministry of Defence recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Vosper Thornycroft to explore further the possibility of the company relocating its steel warship building business from its current location in Woolston, Southampton, to land leased at Portsmouth naval base. That proposal would allow Vosper Thornycroft to expand its facilities
274WH
using surplus assets within the naval base, and increase the extent to which it can participate in the construction of larger warships.
If Vosper Thornycroft decides to proceed with the move, which remains a commercial decision for the company, it will make a major contribution to our drive to modernise and rationalise warship repair and maintenance throughout the United Kingdom. That will contribute substantial savings against the defence budget to fund the front-line improvements outlined in the strategic defence review through the warship support modernisation initiative. It should bring benefits at Portsmouth to the Ministry of Defence and to the company by reducing costs and improving efficiencies, while at the same time improving the support provided to the front line.
As hon. Members know, Vosper Thornycroft is involved in type 45 procurement because of its record as a designer and builder of innovative warships for the Royal Navy and various foreign navies. The company has been building ships at Southampton for more than 100 years, supplying 270 ships to 34 countries in the past 30 years. Its performance in exporting warships is particularly noteworthy: in the past 20 years, it has successfully built ships for the navies of Egypt, Kenya, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few. Its building of the Hunt and Sandown classes of mine countermeasures ships in glass reinforced plastic for the Royal Navy has put it at the top of the world league for building these extremely sophisticated warships.
The Vosper Thornycroft group is a fine example of diversification, having used the experience it gained in shipbuilding to expand into new markets and reduce its dependence on warship contracts. That effort has been highly successful, with 67 per cent. of the group's turnover in the last financial year unrelated to new ship contracts. I am pleased that Vosper Thornycroft still wants to continue shipbuilding and its commitment so far to the design of the type 45 destroyer is evidence of that, as is its commitment to reforming its facilities to undertake the efficient building of those vessels.
We appreciate the shipbuilding community's anxieties about the lack of short-term work, despite the orders that have been placed by the Government. Bearing in mind the inevitable fluctuations in the ordering pattern for Royal Navy warships brought about by their long service life, we review the capacity of United Kingdom shipyards to undertake our forward programme, but it is not an exact science. The change to more modern methods of modular construction, the differing mixes of skills required for particular ship types and the way in which any particular shipbuilder will undertake the work make precise projections difficult. There is sufficient capacity in current UK shipyards to undertake our requirements, but that capacity cannot be sustained solely on the order book from Her Majesty's Government. That is why we give the strongest support to naval export orders.
We shall continue to seek to adopt commercial best practice whenever possible in design, manufacture, maintenance and marketing. We hope that that will allow predominantly warship yards to take on commercial work and vice versa, to assist in smoothing out peaks and troughs. I stress that adoption of commercial practices does not mean that we will relax

275WH
any element that would compromise our ships' ability to perform their operational role. Operational effectiveness remains paramount.
The Government have a clear interest in maintaining a competitive and efficient shipbuilding industry. However, the first concern of the Ministry of Defence must be to provide our armed forces with the best possible equipment at the best value for money for the taxpayer. It is up to the yards themselves to be as efficient and productive as possible to compete for Ministry of Defence contracts and for other orders. Our order book, even on the scale now in prospect, cannot sustain the UK shipbuilding industry on its own. Ministry of Defence work provides an opportunity; companies with shipbuilding interests must reach beyond that for commercial and export work, which will in turn feed back into greater efficiency in a virtuous circle. That is, and will be, the most effective mechanism to ensure job security.
The shipbuilding situation changes frequently for many reasons, including the pressures placed on yards in a highly competitive market. That is not new. The important thing is to win the orders. Vospers won the order for the survey vessels and decided to subcontract the construction of the vessels to Appledore. Changed circumstances, however, have left it with a shortfall of steel construction work in the short term. The Government can and will provide strong support to shipbuilders in their search for other customers, but we cannot compensate for a lack of success in securing orders from them.
I said that I would talk about the unsolicited bid that we received from BAE Marine Systems for an alternative procurement strategy on the type 45 programme. For some time, the Government's policy has been to maintain a competitive base for warship building within the United Kingdom. The uncertainty that that causes for jobs is well understood and it is clearly a worrying matter for the work force both at Vospers and on the Clyde. As with any proposal that may offer better value for money for the taxpayer, we are bound to consider it, so we are doing so carefully, looking at the full range of issues that such a proposal raises in consultation with other Government Departments. The prime contractor has now passed his assessment of the proposal to the MOD.
I should like to give a clear statement about the outcome of our assessment, as hon. Members have requested, but I cannot. The assessment and evaluation of the bid is continuing and no decision has been made. We will come to a decision on that difficult issue as soon as possible, and I assure hon. Members that they will be informed of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Chidgey: I understand the Minister's problem, but can he tell us whether the Government are in
276WH
discussion with BAE Systems on developing a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the company? If so, is any other company being invited into those discussions?
Dr. Moonie: As far as I am aware, that is not part of the current discussions, which focus purely on the bid. Obviously, it is part of the company's long-term strategy and no one can blame BAE for trying. It is operating in the same commercial environment as everyone else.
Returning to the other points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), I can assure hon. Members that the prime contractor's work is closely overseen by the Defence Procurement Agency. In addition, Vospers has clear visibility of the developing design—indeed, it is leading the technical design team. That is working well. Work that Vospers is to undertake on first of class is clearly understood by the prime contractor, by Vospers and by Marine, and the contract pricing reflects that. That has not changed since it was articulated by the Chief of Defence Procurement on 21 December last year.
Vospers has agreed that it is difficult to contract while the design is immature. It has joined with the prime contractor and Marine to develop a detailed cost model for type 45 to allow a commitment to be made to it by September and enable its investment to go forward. That work is going well. It is to be reviewed in the next couple of weeks by the Defence Procurement Agency, by Vosper, Marine and the prime contractor. I can assure hon. Members that although the process might appear to have stalled, it is still progressing satisfactorily. That is of no great comfort to a yard that has a temporary shortfall of work, but there is nothing that we can do about that. The time scale for the steel construction was always fairly fixed. The hiatus is unfortunate but it is not the fault of the DPA, the Ministry of Defence, nor the company involved in the type 45 process. We are doing our best to move matters forward.
The prime contract for the first three ships was placed last December. It assumes a division of work between Vospers and BAE Systems Marine that will allow them both to gain experience and compete effectively for subsequent ships. That remains our intention. We are evaluating the bid from BAE Systems. In due course, when it has been fully evaluated, I will report on the results.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Time is up. Before I call the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I should like to say that although I do not know who the young lady was who handed a piece of paper to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, but as she was not a Member or a Doorkeeper, that was grossly out of order.

Social Services (Calderdale)
12.30 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I ask your permission, Mr. McWilliam, for my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) to speak after me. We share the local authority area of Calderdale and many of the cuts in social and other services proposed by the ruling Conservative group affect both our constituencies.
Since I asked for this debate some time ago, the Conservative group has backed down from making certain cuts and has decided to use some of the money from the housing transfer budget to save certain vital services. We must ask why the Conservatives have caused so much anxiety to many vulnerable people when, if we are to believe them, the money was there all the time.
The U-turn on the proposal to close the Scope outreach centre is very welcome, but I put on the record a warning that the Conservative council retreated from the cut only because of the wonderful campaign mounted by Janice Crabtree, the co-ordinator, her staff, the relatives and friends of the service users and, most importantly, the users—people such as Mr. Mark Pollard. He wrote to the Evening Courier in Halifax saying:
"I attend the service at the Bembridge Park Centre two days a week, on Mondays and Wednesdays. I learn about computers, literacy and numeracy, creative writing, cooking and drama.
This has allowed me to learn and develop things that I never dreamed of because I have cerebral palsy and visual impairment.
I have been able to publish poems, have a voice and opinion about things and to actually feel that I am a member of society.
If the service is closed what I have learned would be lost because I would not be able to get the same support that I get from this service as I know there are no services that can meet my needs to the same level."
That was a wonderful entreaty not to close the service. I am pleased for Mr. Pollard and the other users that there has been a retreat from the proposed cut. As hon. Members can see from that letter, the Scope outreach centre truly supports people with cerebral palsy and other physical disabilities so that they can achieve their individual potential. It is a centre of excellence and should never have been considered for closure in the first place. The Tories on Calderdale council had to listen and they have changed their mind.
Similarly, there was a proposal to close three adventure playgrounds that provide a good social service in areas in which there are many children and in deprived areas. A vigorous campaign was fought to save the playgrounds. Again, I pay tribute to the people such as Colin and Janice Jagger, who campaigned and fought so hard to save them. The Tory leader, Councillor John Ford, now says that they never intended to close that vital service for children, but I simply do not believe him. The massive campaign to save the playgrounds went on for two months, so why cause so much anxiety and fear among those communities for more than two months if they never intended to close them in the first place? The Tories could simply have said, "That is not true."
278WH
Welcome though the reprieve is for those services, many more face the axe. I am very concerned about the proposal to end free school milk. Since the Labour Government entered office, the eradication of child poverty has been a priority: 1 million children have been taken out of poverty and the Government plan to take another 2 million out of poverty in the next few years. School milk is an essential service for young children, particularly those with a low-income background. It provides vital nutrition, it is cheap and the take-up rate is almost 100 per cent. I call on councillors such as Mohamed Choudry and Shakir Saghir in St. Johns, Lorraine Stott in Mixendon and others to oppose this nasty little cut, which will save only £90,000. If they vote for the cut, they will harm children. The so-called independent councillor in Calderdale, Colin Stout, continually refers to his independence, so why is he taking the Tory whip on such a cut? It is disgraceful.
Another cut that looks small in monetary terms but would cause an enormous reduction in a vital service is the decision to axe £12,570 from the drugs and alcohol residential rehabilitation budget. That would be a disaster in the face of the increasing problem of drugs in Halifax and the Calder Valley. The mobile response team will be cut by £100,000, even though that service offers a lifeline to elderly people living in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley will go into more detail, but we have both visited the scheme and know its worth.
Cuts to such vital services will threaten the excellent work of the health and social affairs committee set up by the former Labour council. The council is one of five that have achieved beacon status for joint working with the health services. That sort of initiative is rare and is included in the 10-year national health service plan. Labour-controlled Calderdale council introduced joint working in 1994 and it would be tragic if the committee's excellent work was threatened because of cuts in the grant to the voluntary sector, which I shall now address.
The proposed cut in the grant to advice centres has encouraged the citizens advice bureau to try to outbid two other voluntary organisations—Rhodes street advice centre and the DART advice centre for the disabled. Sadly, the CAB appears to have done a deal with the Tories, although I have warned it that if it sups with the devil, it will need a very long spoon. Calderdale DART is an advice centre for people with disabilities; it offers the excellent specialist service that is needed if, as we all want, disabled people are to remain in the community. One of its users wrote to the Halifax Evening Courier stating:
"I am particularly incensed to see that the local authority has encouraged voluntary organisations to try to outbid each other in the competition for funding…
As a client of Calderdale DART I have nothing but praise for the service it provides. Advice is accurate, clients are given polite, courteous treatment and more so. DART's motto seems to be that if it can't help it knows someone who can!
I have an assigned advice worker which prevents me having to explain my circumstances every time I contact DART. They will visit me in my own home, as my disability prevents me accessing office-based advice centres.
I have on several occasions also attempted to obtain advice from the CAB. The telephone help line is continually unavailable; apparently only 26 per cent. of its calls are answered."
That shows the pressure on the citizens advice bureau. I am not criticising it for that, but it is ludicrous to suggest that it could take over two specialist services.

279WH
The other advice centre that will close if the cut in the voluntary sector goes ahead and there is an amalgamation is the Rhodes street advice centre. It is an invaluable service in the middle of the Asian community and the co-ordinator, councillor Mohamed Najib, who ran the centre as a volunteer for years, and his staff of five offer advice on social services, housing, health, immigration and a host of other subjects. They deal with 14,000 queries a year and the suggestion that the CAB could replicate that service is nonsense. To go down that road is to play into the hands of right wing extremists on Calderdale council.
Finally, I shall mention another service for retired people highlighted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Calderdale council. There is a possible cut in the budget for Matham Road bowling club and Ackroyd bowling green. Elderly people use those facilities and the council will save only £8,000. Meanwhile, it is spending £80,000 to ask the people of Calderdale for their ideas on best value—it is spending £80,000 on a public relations exercise while cutting two well-used and well-loved bowling greens.
The Tory budget contains many cuts is that would harm young, disabled or elderly people. Tory councillors who fought last May's election on promises to improve services should examine their consciences. They ought to put the interests of the electorate who voted for them first by voting against this awful budget.
12.40 pm
Ms Chris McCafferty: We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the Tories who run Calderdale council are guilty of incompetence and heartlessness in drawing up their budget proposals. I am of course delighted by the reprieve of services such as road safety education, recycling facilities, adventure playgrounds and especially the Scope outreach service but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, credit for that is due to local people who have campaigned vigorously against the cuts. There is no credit due to the Tories for withdrawing proposals that should never have been made in the first place.
The original Conservative budget proposals caused massive dismay and concern throughout Calderdale. In particular, the proposed cuts to the Scope outreach centre and the mobile response unit caused anger, outrage and fear among people who depend on those vital services. Indeed, it appears that some of the cuts were not even required. It is hard to believe that the council's financial position could have changed so much in only three weeks. The satisfaction of seeing some of those services saved should not hide the long-term damage that will be inflicted by the Tory budget, because many damaging cuts remain.
The Tories still propose to decimate the mobile response service by cutting its budget by more than half. They have failed to indicate how the same level of service can be provided. Therefore, they are putting 2,500 vulnerable elderly people at risk by their actions. They are continuing to ignore the health of young children by scrapping free school milk, they are reducing the alcohol and drug rehabilitation budget and—this is an idea from the dark ages—they are closing 22 public toilets, which will make life difficult for the elderly, diabetics and anyone with poor bladder control.
280WH
There are also serious doubts about the long-term future of services. The Tories have given social services extra funding for one year, but that could mean cuts of up to £1 million next year. They have piled further pressure on social services by failing to give them adequate funding for contracts. Perhaps they know that they will lose control of Calderdale next year, so they are happy to pile up problems for the party that takes over from them. It is an uncaring and short-sighted budget from an uncaring and short-sighted party.
I should like to give an example of the damage that the Tories' heartless proposals would cause. The mobile response team is part of the community alarm service. A team of staff are on call 24 hours a day to go out immediately to people who press their alarm button because they need help. They may have fallen or need help getting back into a chair or bed. They may be unwell and need someone to check and reassure them. They may have had an accident or have some other care need, in which case the response team will visit, assess their problem and provide appropriate help. The team makes a real difference to the quality of life of older people. Without it, there would be no choice but to call an ambulance or other emergency service, which would mean that many of the older people would quickly end up in either hospital or long-term care.
The Conservatives still want to decimate the team by cutting more than half the budget. However, they have no idea how that might be achieved or what might replace the service, and they have had no discussions with the charity that provides the service. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I met the staff. Like many who work in social care, they are totally committed to the people whom they help. They are at a loss to understand how anyone can treat their work and the service that they provide with such contempt.
It is perhaps ironic that Calderdale was recently awarded beacon status for its joint work with health. Of course, that reflects policies and initiatives that were implemented by the previous Labour administration. However, the Tory budget proposals and the way in which they were prepared must cast doubt on how long Calderdale will retain beacon status. There has been no consultation with health and voluntary sector partners, some of whose grants are being cut. No thought has been given to the impact of such actions on the priorities and agendas that have been established. Calderdale authority is not generously, or even adequately, funded. Social care staff have said that they are deeply disillusioned with the way in which the authority treats the social services department. Their belief that they are treated as second-class citizens is reflected in the fact that the authority is finding it difficult to recruit staff.
We are awaiting publication of the social services inspection of services for older people, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the report will not be published until the budget process has been completed. It is widely believed that the report will criticise the department's performance in many areas. It is unlikely that it will make a case for cutting expenditure on vital services, but actions that officers might take to address any criticisms in the report will be undermined at the outset by Tory budget proposals that will further damage morale and funding.

281WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I have made it clear that we will support council representations to the Government for further assistance, but only if it is honest about the financial situation and its proposals' impact, and if it ceases to target its proposed cuts on the most vulnerable. To date, our offer has been ignored. It seems that Calderdale Tories are more interested in political gestures than working together to benefit vulnerable people.
I ask the Minister to consider the problems that Calderdale faces. This year, Calderdale enjoyed a very generous financial settlement—the second highest secured by a metropolitan borough. However, historically, Calderdale has been underfunded because of decisions taken in the 1980s on the structure of local government finance. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the future, but is targeted help available now? Could such help be accompanied by further vigilance in seeking to protect the vulnerable in Calderdale from the impact of the budget proposals? I urge the strongest possible action to ensure that Calderdale council meets its targets and achieves the standard of services that local people have a right to expect.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on securing this important opportunity to debate social services spending plans in Calderdale. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) on her important contribution.
Both my hon. Friends will agree that social sevices provide a hugely important range of services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children and the elderly. They can also help by dealing directly with the very real issues of social exclusion and deprivation that continue adversely to affect too many of our communities and fellow citizens. Those are very important responsibilities, and I believe that it is the Government's task to ensure that those crucial services are properly resourced and operate within a framework that promotes greater independence, opportunity and choice, and which raises the quality of front-line services. However, it is the job of local authorities such as Calderdale to provide and plan for the necessary front-line services to meet the needs of local communities, and to demonstrate clear improvements in both quality and accessibility. Those are the essential criteria against which any proposals for social services expenditure must be judged.
I turn first to the issue of resources. The Government have substantially increased the resources available to local councils to ensure that they are better able to discharge their duties. I should like to say more about those new resources, highlighting how Calderdale has benefited. Through the spending review announced early last year, over the next three years the Government are increasing by an average of 3.4 per cent. in real terms the resources that are available to councils with social services responsibilities. That increase compares with an average real-terms growth in social services resources of just 0.1 per cent. per annum during the previous Parliament.
282WH
The people of Calderdale will be among those who benefit from the substantial increases in resources provided for social services. This year, the funding made available through standard spending assessments is just over £32 million—5.1 per cent. more than in the previous year. We recently announced that those resources will increase again next year by a further 4.4 per cent.—substantially above the rate of inflation. In addition, the council will gain from the significant increases in new and on-going special grants that we are making available. In December, the Secretary of State for Health announced that a further £100 million, on top of the figures that I have quoted, would be made available for social services spending in 2001–02. Calderdale council will benefit by an extra £378,000 from those additional ring-fenced resources.
We have provided significant additional resources for children's services over the past few years. Last year, we introduced, for the first time, a grant to improve the range and quality of children's social services provided by local councils. In the first year of that grant, Calderdale received £260,000. It received a further £410,000 this year, and next year the grant will rise to £1.026 million. Other services have received additional resources. For example, Calderdale's carer's grant has more than trebled over the past three years. The grant totalled £75,000 in 1999 but will rise to £259,000 next year. Similarly, the council's mental health grant over the same three-year period will have risen from £331,000 in 1999 to £597.000 next year.
I hope that both my hon. Friends accept that the Government have provided significant new and additional resources to Calderdale council. In 2001–02, adding together what has been allocated through standard spending assessments and the new ring-fenced grants, the council has been provided with more than £36 million to spend on its social services. Exactly how those substantial sums are spent is for the council to decide. Local councillors must weigh up how much should be allocated to social care services, taking into account Government targets and what local users and carers want. It is the council's responsibility to manage those resources carefully and sensibly, so that maximum benefit accrues to people who require social services in Calderdale. That is the challenge facing all councils at this time of year as they set their budgets for 2001–02.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax rightly decided to raise her concerns at a time when it seemed that Conservative councillors in Calderdale intended to impose swingeing outs on the social services budget, putting many vulnerable people at risk. Like my hon. Friend, I was worried when that prospect was brought to my attention. However, I understand that following recommendations made last night as a result of the concerns that she and others had raised about the proposals, councilors have revised their budget allocations and have stepped back from taking a number of decisions which would have caused considerable anxiety to local people. I know that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley remain concerned about some of the decisions that Conservative councillors appear to be intent on pursuing, and I fully understand that. The yardstick against which those and any other decisions are to be judged will be the extent to which they enhance community well-being and help to meet the needs of

283WH
vulnerable people in Calderdale. It will be for local people to make any such judgment and to express it through the ballot box.
The Government will continue to look carefully and closely at the performance of social services in Calderdale to ensure that progress is made in meeting the national objectives that we have set. I assure both my hon. Friends that those objectives are not optional. They were set for the clear purpose of raising the standard of social services in every part of the country, and Calderdale is no exception. We expect every council to take the necessary steps to meet those standards, because that is the right way in which to end the lottery of care that has been apparent in social services for far too long.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax recognises that Calderdale can point to progress in improving its performance in a number of important areas. On children's services, for example, the council's performance in providing stability for looked-after children has improved significantly, but only one in three children leaving care did so with any educational qualifications. That is not good enough and we shall look for significant improvements in that important indicator.
In Calderdale, few people with learning disabilities are helped to live at home, although the number is gradually increasing. The same picture emerges for people with physical disabilities or mental health problems, and residential care services are acknowledged to be poor. Some inspections of residential homes for adults were not carried out within the statutory time scale, and the number of people entering residential care in Calderdale is much higher than the national average. That needs careful attention.
Everyone accepts that it is better for people to be helped to live in their own homes Unfortunately, in Calderdale, the number of people receiving intensive care to allow them to live in their own homes fell last year against the national trend. That is a matter of concern and I shall look to the local authority to make greater efforts to bring its local performance into line with that in other parts of the country.
Calderdale is to be congratulated on achieving beacon status for partnership working in health. It will be necessary to ensure that high-quality services and strong partnership working are maintained when the reconfiguration of local health services has been completed.
In summary, Calderdale is at the start of a long journey in the development of good social care services. That will require a strategic, long-term vision of what needs to be done. That vision will have to be embraced by elected Members and the local community. It will take time, commitment and further investment, not less.
Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister look particularly at the joint working between the local authority and
284WH
Calderdale health care trust, because together they have done such good work? If the cuts jeopardise that, it would be sad for all those who have worked so hard.
Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend; I had intended briefly to mention intermediate care developments in Calderdale.
This is not the time to contemplate cutting funding for crucial, front-line social care services. Rather, it is time to review whether every pound is spent to maximum effect, whether better commissioning practices might release further savings, whether the balance between cost and quality is right, and whether current services are delivering the outcome sought by local people.
I referred earlier to the new policy framework within which we expect social services to operate. Central to that policy framework is the development of a new range of intermediate care services designed to prevent avoidable admissions to hospital, to enhance rehabilitation and faster recovery from illness, and to enable as many people as possible to live independently in their own homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is anxious to see development of the new services in Calderdale and to ensure that the budget reductions proposed by the local Conservatives do not impede developments in that important area. I share her concern. We have made significant new resources available through the national health service plan, which are filtering through to services in Calderdale. For example, the Calderdale primary care group will benefit next year from a specific allocation for intermediate care of more than £150,000.
A substantial component of the £900 million announced in the NHS plan relates to resources provided to local government. In determining funding for social services to be made available through the standard spending assessment over the next three years, we took account specifically of additional council investment in services that promote independence, particularly for older people. The local government settlement makes provision for that over the next three years. The deployment of money provided through the standard spending assessment is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax acknowledged, a decision for councils in the light of local circumstances.
There has been significant development in intermediate care services in Calderdale and all the service providers who have been involved in that deserve congratulations. A range of new services is coming on line which will enhance the care and support available to older people. It would be tragic if any of that was put at risk because of short-sighted decisions that local Conservative councillors might be tempted to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has done her constituents a substantial service, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, in raising these matters this afternoon. We shall continue to take a close interest and watch over what is happening in Calderdale to ensure that the proper national objectives that we have set for social services over the next three years are delivered for the benefit of her constituents and of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley.

Children's Health
1 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: The Minister will know that I served as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health for five years and that, in 1996–97, that Committee undertook an inquiry into children's health. I have maintained my interest in the matter and I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise matters of concern with her.
First, I seek an assurance from the Minister on the needs of children explicitly described in the booklet, "Your Guide to the NHS", which bears little resemblance to the old patients charter. It emphasises patients' responsibilities to the NHS, as well as their rights. However, the guide makes no explicit reference to the health needs of children, unlike the "Charter for Children and Young People", which was issued in 1996 during the Select Committee's inquiry into services for children and young people. I should welcome the hon. Lady's comments on whether there has been an omission and whether the Government are prepared to rectify it.
Another matter that causes concern relates to children in adult wards and intensive care units. What assurance can the Government give that the needs of children who are ill and in hospital are not being ignored? Unfortunately, basic principles of care that have been acknowledged by all Governments since 1959 and highlighted by the Select Committee's inquiries into services for children and young people, such as children on adult wards, are still being ignored.
The Government have increased finance for paediatric intensive care, but children are still being routinely admitted to adult intensive care units following elective surgery, because some surgeons still ignore Department of Health guidance and undertake specialist surgery on children in hospitals without the appropriate facilities. Careful monitoring of paediatric intensive care, as promised in the Department of Health guidance in 1997, seems to have omissions because children who are admitted following elective surgery do not seem to be identified.
The Select Committee was shocked to discover that children's community services, which have been supported by every Government since the Platt report in 1959, are still not universally available, with about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom being without a service. I welcome the Diana, Princess of Wales children's community teams for children with life-threatening or terminal conditions, but eight teams for England, although important, is a small contribution compared with what is needed. Many children with acute illness or following surgery remain in hospital because no children's community nursing service is available locally.
I shall quote from the Select Committee's third report, which states in paragraph 49:
"The overall intention must be to introduce as soon as possible a home nursing service provided by appropriately qualified staff and available to all children requiring nursing interventions and their families. For many years there has been such a nursing service for adults in their own homes. We consider that, as a matter of principle, sick children need and deserve no less."
286WH
I would welcome the Minister's response on that.
As for child and adolescent mental health, following the Select Committee's fourth report, the Government allocated money to that wholly inadequate service. However, the removal of child and adolescent mental health services from children's services, which has links with children's social services, education and children's health services, into newly-established mental health trusts, which are focused on the needs of adults and are unconnected with the range of agencies concerned with children, causes some concern. Unfortunately, the reality is that a stigma is still attached to mental health services, so some families may not wish to have the stigma of services from a mental health trust.
In addition, due to the paucity of services, children with mental health difficulties are admitted to acute paediatric wards, which are in a different trust. I ask the Minister, is this shift to services focused primarily on the needs of adults for the convenience of managerial organisation and professionals rather than the needs of children and their families?
There is a role for a children's commissioner—we now have a Children's Commissioner for Wales—although only one with a clearly defined role. The children's commissioner should be entitled to monitor the interests of children looked after by statutory services. He or she should also have a wider function in relation to the work that affects children that the Government carry out across all Departments.
Children—almost uniquely in society—are unable to participate in the democratic process. Adults make legislation and regulations that affect them, both directly in terms of provisions dealing with children and indirectly through the way in which we legislate to support the family. It is therefore right that an independent person should have the remit to examine legislative proposals across the range of Departments and to represent the interests of the children who will be affected by them. In that way, those interests will properly be taken into account in the workings of government and the legislative process.
I welcome the children's taskforce, but I have concerns about the needs of children who are sick within the NHS. The children's taskforce appears to focus on prevention and young people who cause specific difficulties, such as pregnant teenagers. Of course, I acknowledge the importance of prevention. Indeed, the Select Committee second report states:
"The rewards of good health care in childhood, especially health promotion and preventative interventions, are unique because the benefits may last a life time, and may be passed on to future generations."
There is, however, considerable concern that the needs of children who are ill are not being appropriately considered, but lumped together with adult services.
As a Member of Parliament who is interested in the issue, I must inform the Minister that I have been unable to obtain more than a photostat copy of the children's taskforce booklet and introduction. I should be grateful if I could have some copies of it in its true form, rather than having to rely upon that. I telephoned the lady whose name appears in the booklet to ask for copies, but unfortunately I received no reply. I should be most grateful if the Minister could help.
One aspect of quality health care that the Select Committee praised was integrated services for children without traditional barriers between hospital and

287WH
community services. They included acute services, such as neo-natal intensive care and hospital in-patient and out-patient care, and school nursing and community services, such as community children's nursing services and services for children with learning disabilities or mental health problems. As the staff involved include therapists, a child receiving, say, physiotherapy in the community for his cerebral palsy would, following surgery, receive treatment from the same physiotherapist while he was an in-patient in the acute hospital.
One of the themes identified was that services are too often organised for the convenience of staff and, sadly, such services are now being broken up to fit managerial convenience instead of children's needs. The emphasis on primary care trusts is resulting in community aspects of children's services going into the primary care trust, in mental health going into adult-focused adult mental health trusts, and in acute services going into adult-focused acute hospital trusts. Children therefore become a small part in adult-focused services, with staff that are educated and experienced in children's needs divided and increasingly isolated.
The Government recently announced their intention to set national standards for children's services, which is to be welcomed. I hope that early dates for the publication and implementation of those standards will be announced, as that would ensure that children's needs are not overlooked in services designed primarily for adults. A national service framework for all children would ensure that children's needs are not overlooked through services designed for adults, with children fitted in or, on a disease basis, tagged on to services that are geared primarily toward adults.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to place on record the anxieties that I and many others have about children's health. We look forward to the Minister's response and the addition of more information to that which we already have on the policies that the Department of Health, the hon. Lady and her colleagues will implement.
1.13 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on having secured the debate and choosing it to discuss an issue about which I feel especially strongly and which is extremely important for both the Government and the House. I pay tribute to the work that she has done with the Select Committee on Health and subsequently on children's health, an issue on which she has campaigned and worked for a long time.
The matter is extremely important to the Government, not simply from the point of view of children's health, but because children's health is so closely linked with other aspects of children's lives. Perhaps more tangibly than at any other stage in life, social, emotional and educational development are closely linked to health. That is especially true in the years when children are very young Health in the early years can affect health throughout life, and health problems that develop in childhood can haunt people throughout their lives. The deep-rooted health inequalities in society often stem not simply from childhood but from pregnancy. The Government therefore regard children's health as a priority.
288WH
In responding to the points raised by the hon. Lady, I shall set out some of the progress that has been made and some of the measures that are already under way. I shall also outline some of the work that is being planned for the future in relation to the children's taskforce and the standards she mentioned towards the end of her speech.
A major programme of work is being planned to draw together many of the individual strands of children's health into a single national service framework for children. The national service frameworks have been developed as major programmes across the health service. NSFs are currently in place for mental health and coronary heart disease, and although the cancer plan had a slightly different genesis than NSFs, it sets out comprehensive standards of care and treatment in a similar fashion. The full range of care, from prevention to treatment to palliative care, is covered for conditions that are the big killers in society. We are keen to apply the same comprehensive approach to children's health. I strongly believe that the national service framework should not only be about children's heath services, but that it should include prevention and health promotion and cover many of the service issues raised by the hon. Lady.
We are still at an early stage in developing and determining the scope of the national service framework. A major consultation will be needed: parents, children and young people will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the process. The children's taskforce will play a major role in that work. We are currently at the stage of determining what issues should be included. I shall outline a few of the areas in which work is already under way, which will need to be fed into the national service framework, and cover some of the other areas that the national service framework will have to address in more detail.
We have taken considerable action on prevention, which, as the hon. Lady said, is extremely important. The rolling-out of the meningitis C vaccine programme is an example: we are the first country in the world to introduce a nationwide meningitis C programme. Managing to introduce it and offer the vaccine to everyone under the age of 18 in the space of 15 months is a huge tribute to the NHS, especially school nurses and those working in primary care who implemented the programme.
Work has also been done on promoting healthy living for children, especially in relation to access to fruit and vegetables and a healthy diet. Today, we roll out the next wave of the programme to provide free fruit in infants schools. Experts recommend five portions of fruit and vegetables a day to help to prevent cancer, heart disease and asthma in children. Research shows that, on average, children only have about two portions a day and children in low-income areas have considerably fewer. The provision of free fruit in infants schools across the country will make a major contribution to increased access to fruit and vegetables and a healthy diet, and to improving children's nutrition and long-term health.
Work has been done in relation to maternity services, and the sure start programme is tackling ill health and promoting health among families and children in the early years—for those under four—ensuring proper access to immunisation programmes and health care

289WH
and, importantly, signposting to specialist services when health problems arise, ensuring diagnosis at the earliest possible moment, and proper support and provision of the expert services required in low-income areas.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to acute care and community care. She is right to say that we introduced additional funding in 1997 to improve paediatric intensive care. To date, an additional £51 million has gone into building up the strengths of centres providing the highest level of care to the most critically ill children to ensure ready access, to develop specialist retrieval teams and to ncrease funding for specialist skills, especially nursing skills. We are now considering what further improvements we need to make to the level of local hospital support for that system to meet the needs of children who require high-dependency care. We must also consider neo-natal intensive care, in which expert work is under way that we can feed into the national service framework. We have made clear our intention to expand critical care—we have made major improvements during the past few years—but we need to be especially sensitive to the issues of neo-natal and paediatric intensive care.
The hon. Lady asked whether particular areas or consultants were following best practice. We know that that is in place in many areas—there are some excellent examples—but we also know that there is wide variation in the care provided, which is unacceptable. That is what drives the national service framework. In coronary heart disease, cancer and other areas, the national service framework has set national standards that every area must follow, which can be followed up through clinical governance and inspection mechanisms and the NHS performance management framework to ensure that they are properly implemented. The national service framework for children's services will provide us with the levers to ensure that every area is able to adapt and start to follow best practice, which we know is in place in some areas. That will take some time and we should be realistic: identifying best practice and developing the right standards will take time, but it will provide us with a powerful mechanism as the work takes place.
The hon. Lady also mentioned community care for children. That is especially important because, no matter how ill children become, most families want to care for them at home and most children will always be more comfortable at home. We should provide whatever services we can in the community. Through the national service framework, we shall need to consider the developing role of health visitors and school nurses, work on which has already begun as a result of the "Saving Lives" White Paper to improve the public and family health role of such services. Again, we need to consider what further work can be done and what further role such services can play as part of the national service framework.
We also need to consider support not just for prevention but for those children who become sick or have problems, whatever they may be. The hon. Lady referred to Diana nurses—we strongly support their work and are keen to learn lessons from it when providing care across the country. We are also keen to ensure proper palliative care support for children in the tragic circumstances in which it is needed. That is being
290WH
considered as part of the current wave of consultation on the new opportunities fund to determine what additional care and support can be provided.
The hon. Lady referred to child and adolescent mental health services. A considerable amount of work has been done; national targets in health and social care for child and adolescent mental health services were introduced for the first time in 1999, under the national priorities guidance In the past two years, we have invested £50 million of additional funds in the modernisation fund and the mental health grant to help to achieve those targets. For a long time, mental health was not regarded as a serious problem for children, because it was felt that they would simply grow out of it, which is not the case. More work must be done to extend the best practice in some areas to the whole country. Capacity, reform and the provision of services must be considered.
We are committed to the growth of NHS capacity across the board as part of the NHS plan, putting extra investment and extra staffing in place to deliver services, although we must be realistic about the time it will take to deliver necessary improvements. However, we need not simply to expand capacity, but to reform the way we do things by setting national standards and focusing on children's needs. We need to focus on prevention, not simply on treating the sick, and to work in partnership with schools, families and the community. Work with children cannot be done by the NHS alone.
A theme from the NHS plan that we must consider in the context of children's services and children's health is that current professional roles may have to change and professional barriers that have been in place for a long time may have to come down. Much work is being done in that sector at present, and we are keen to ensure that it links with other action across Government. The health service should not work in isolation; we must consider social services, the obvious area of support, but also education and support for those with learning difficulties.
We must acknowledge that inequality and poverty are the root causes of children's ill health. My view is that a commitment to abolish child poverty will have more impact on children's health than any other Government measure. We have already made progress in that respect by taking 1 million children out of poverty in the course of this Parliament, which is a huge step forward, but there is an awful lot left to do. Many children still need help and support, but in the long run, action on child poverty will improve children's health. Health inequalities are partly to do with the causes of ill health, but also relate to children's and health services. Services for children in low-income areas must be as good as the best in the country, which has, too often, not been the case.
A huge programme of work is under way on the lines suggested by the hon. Lady, and we have an amazing opportunity, through the national service framework, to take matters further in the next few years. We want to ensure that there is post-natal and maternity support, as well as support for children throughout their childhood. We have an ambitious programme, which will make for an interesting time in the next few years. I welcome the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate and thank her for raising these issues. I am sure that she will continue to do so as this work carries on over the next few years.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), may I compliment him on where he has chosen to sit? It was intended that Members should not split and sit according to their party. A debate across the Floor is much more helpful than trying to talk to the back of someone's head.

Basford Group Pension Scheme
1.30 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your kind words. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House of Commons this very important issue for my constituents. For the last quarter of a century, manufacturing industry in my constituency has undergone the most radical change. Thousands of jobs have been lost in what were often considered to be lifetime occupations. No sector has suffered more than textiles, which dominated employment in the Irvine valley. Over the years, we have lost more than 400 jobs. The collapse of Basford Home Textiles, a part of the Basford Group, that went into receivership in June 1999, was a severe enough blow for the 38 workers who were made redundant, but they consoled themselves to some degree with the thought that at least their accrued pension rights in the group pension scheme would contribute to their standard of living at the time of retirement. The 99 employees retained by the successor employer also thought that their position was safe. Consequential to the receivership, the pension scheme had to be wound up. That process has revealed to the employees just how misplaced even that small amount of optimism was.
Mrs. Margaret Dawson, of Darvel, worked for many years in the industry both for Basford and their predecessors. She planned to retire at 60 and had a fair idea of what her pension would be. In 1995, the scheme was altered to equalise the normal retirement age for all members at 65. She knew and understood that the change forced on the scheme by the European Court case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange would have a detrimental effect on her benefits. However, before she retired on 2 July 1999, the Basford Group went into receivership. The immediate effect of the commencement of the winding-up of the scheme on 26 May 1999 was that the new trustees, acting on the advice of the scheme actuary and pending clarification of the funding position, took a decision not to consider any early retirement requests.
Mrs. Dawson, who is a formidable woman, persisted with her request for early retirement and eventually, on 30 March 2000, the trustees agreed to pay her the guaranteed minimum pension. That figure is significantly less than the benefits she expected from the scheme, as set out in the figures she was given when she made her initial inquiries about early retirement. Now, almost two years after the date of her retirement and three years after her 60th birthday, she has no clear idea of what her final pension will be, and will not know that until the funding position of the scheme is finally known. She survives on the basic state pension, supplemented by the guaranteed minimum pension. She is confused, feels betrayed and rightly has a burning sense of injustice.
Bobby Armour of Kilmarnock also worked for Basford, but left before the receivership. He has a deferred pension in the scheme, and is still in employment but is nearing retirement age. He is also a victim of the uncertainty, as he cannot work out what his accrued benefits are worth. Furthermore, he cannot transfer his Basford pension to another scheme, as the value of the scheme has not yet been quantified, and a true transfer value cannot be assessed. He is in an almost identical position to David Ralston, another Darvel

293WH
resident who is still working in the industry—in the firm that took over from Basfords in Darvel. Like Mrs Dawson, Bobby Armour and David Ralston also feel betrayed and have a burning sense of injustice.
Those three cases are but examples of the circumstances of many of my constituents affected by the closure of the Basford plant. Over the past two years, there have been a series of comprehensive announcements from the independent trustee, Mitre Pensions Ltd., and the members' interests have been rigorously pursued by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and in particular the regional organiser John Easdale and their shop stewards Eunice Callender, Paddy Quigley and Jim Raymond, who is now a local councillor.
Investigations by the independent trustee have uncovered a catalogue of actions in the last few months of the existence of the group that directly affected the pensions of all the employees, and which may leave some pensioners with as low as 48 per cent. of what they paid for. It appears that the trustees ignored advice from their actuary about the level of contributions necessary to maintain the funding requirement of the scheme and investment advice from their fund managers. Furthermore, the owner of Basford, Maurice Cresswell, who was also the chairman of the trustees of the pension fund, at a time when the only other trustees were directors of the company, persuaded the other trustees to buy two premises already owned by him, at a cost of some £560,000 to the fund—a figure that, not surprisingly, came in at about 5 per cent. of the fund's value.
Those actions, along with non-payment of employer contributions of at least £150,000 during 1998–99 and a delay in paying employee contributions during the same period, left the fund some 12.3 per cent. short of the value required to sustain the pensions of its members. Given that current pensioners are better protected than deferred pensioners on the winding-up, deferred pensioners will take a bigger loss, which is estimated at up to 28 per cent. by the new independent trustee, Mr. Iain Talman of Mitre.
Even those figures are still provisional, as the fund managers, Aon Consulting, have not yet been able to provide accurate figures on which to base decisions concerning the scheme. The winding-up of a pension scheme is not a simple process, but it is not helped by delays that are avoidable. The necessary actuarial valuation was promised within six months of the winding-up date. It took a full year, and even then it had to be redone. A second actuary was employed, but he resigned before he could report. A third actuary has been instructed, and his report is awaited, but the uncertainty for pensioners continues.
There has been an unexplained delay in claiming the outstanding employer contributions from the national insurance fund. Despite the fund managers having been aware of the valuation, and therefore the level of the missing funds, since last summer, it would seem that they only began the process of recovery before Christmas. That has further delayed the final valuation of the fund. Indeed, it has been difficult for anyone to find out anything from Aon Consulting. In his earlier announcements, the independent trustee encouraged
294WH
members with questions about their specific entitlement to consult the fund managers as the first point of contact. I am repeatedly told that requests for information have been fruitless. I wrote to them on 20 December last year asking a number of questions relating to the scheme. On 7 February this year, I wrote again seeking a reply. I had not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. To be fair to them, that omission was corrected by a holding letter of 13 February, but I am still awaiting answers. If the Member of Parliament cannot get answers from people who manage the pension funds when there is a clear, direct, constituency interest, it does not augur well for ordinary members of the public.
The whole process has been one of delay after delay, and all this time more and more charges are being made on the scheme, lessening its value again and again. In his latest announcement, the independent trustee said that
"any member wishing to contact … the independent trustee or the scheme administrator should feel free to do so on the understanding that both are professional organisations that receive remuneration from the scheme for their services."
The scheme will also have to bear the cost of additional investigations and expensive legal advice about whether there is a legal claim in respect of any or all of the actions that have caused the shortfall.
The buildings that were purchased from Cresswell were the subject of a series of transactions of labyrinthine complexity. There may also have been a deliberate attempt to make them not resaleable, because access to one of the buildings was retained by the owner, who is also the chairman of the trustees and the man who owned the company. To date, only one of the buildings has been sold. Until the second building is sold, no assessment can be made of the loss or, more unlikely, the gain to the scheme from the property transactions alone. At the same time, some assessment has to be made of he likely rental income that should have accrued to the scheme from the buildings, but which did not. For some inexplicable reason, the trustees allowed the company to get out of a notional leasing deal for one of the buildings, which was due to last for 10 years, without penalty after two years. Alternatively, an assessment should be made of whether other investment of the £560,000 purchase price would have been more beneficial to the scheme, and whether that is what the trustees should have done with the money in the first place.
Another cause of uncertainty is the fact that now, almost two years after the company went into receivership, no assessment is yet possible of whether legal action may help to recover part of the deficit. Mitre is properly taking legal advice on this matter, but in a letter to me of 9 February, it stated that
"this has proved to be more complex than was first anticipated. This has required substantial amounts of investigation and this continues to occur. There will be a further meeting with our solicitors shortly at which point a decision should be made as to whether any actions can be raised."
The members would rather have the certainty than the potential for litigation against someone who may turn out to be a man of straw.
None of the members of this scheme has benefited in any way from the changes implemented by the Pensions Act 1995, never mind the protections legislated for in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

295WH
Undoubtedly, had those members had the benefit of that legislation, the history of this scheme would have been different. However, that does not mean that there are not legitimate questions that the members are entitled to ask of the Government. There are lessons still to be learned from their appalling experiences.
Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a pensions safety net fund, similar to the redundancy payments fund, to protect the investment of ordinary people whose pensions have been damaged through no fault of their own? This proposal hss been put to me forcefully by the GMB, and on the face of it seems a much-needed reform. I am aware that the Government continually review the level of projection needed for vulnerable pension scheme members such as the Basford employees. I know that, as part of the consultation on security for occupational pensions, the Government are in dialogue with the industry, and that the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries have proposed that solvency insurance could have a role to play in protecting members of underfunded schemes in the event of the insolvency of the sponsoring employer. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to follow that recommendation? If they do, it may come too late for the Basford pensioners, but it would go a long way to giving some protection to others who may find themselves in a similar position in future.
The winding-up of this pension scheme has taken almost two years now, and the end of that process is not yet in sight. I am told by some of my colleagues that it is not unknown for the winding-up process to take significantly longer than that. One of my hon. Friends told me that, after seven years, a pension scheme in his constituency is no nearer being wound up. The process itself is a significant drain on the resources of the scheme. The powers given to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to direct schemes on winding up may provide a less complicated and less expensive method of getting answers than the courts presently provide. When will those powers be brought into force, and what steps can the Government take to assess the performance of pension fund managers such as Aon, who hold themselves out as independent experts, both in their stewardship of the schemes, and in their performance when things goes wrong and delays are caused?
What is happening about the reform of the minimum funding requirement? If the minimum funding requirement ensured that there were sufficient assets to meet the liabilities of a fund, it would solve many of these problems. However, evidence suggests that it does not. Are the Government any nearer to determining their priority in relation to the minimum funding requirement? Is it to be greater security for the public's occupational pensions or greater investment freedom for schemes and investment fund managers in line with the Paul Myners review?
What proposals does my right hon. Friend have for improving the level of communication to scheme members when an occupational pension scheme winds up? The Department of Social Security undertook a research project into this issue prior to the implementation of the Pensions Act 1995. In the Basford case, the frequency and comprehensive nature of the announcements of the independent trustee is admirable, but his correspondence is still remarkably
296WH
complex and difficult to understand. Yesterday, I had to read through the announcements two or three times before I could understand even the basics, and from my experience they are examples of good communication in such a situation.
Many other questions require to be asked in this particular case, but they can be posed only when the work of the administrator in winding up the scheme, and of the independent trustee in assessing culpability, is completed. In the meantime, any steps that the Government can take to ensure that other pension scheme members do not suffer the fate of my constituents, the Basford pensioners, will be warmly welcomed by them and by all other pension scheme members across the country.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I agree with your initial comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the seating position of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). I did not like the former arrangement in this Room, and greatly prefer the present one.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing his case. I am sorry to hear about what happened, and I recognise that scheme members must be beside themselves with worry. Many hundreds of people—pensioners, payers or deferred members—are involved.
It may not be parliamentary or ministerial to say so, but the case that my hon. Friend described stinks. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that because many of the issues are on-going, what I am able to say is limited. I shall do my best to explain the system currently in place to protect pension schemes. Some aspects are under review and some changes have already been made. I also want to respond to as many specific points about the Basford case as I can.
The vast majority of UK pension schemes are set up under trust law. The basic duty to run a pension scheme lies with the trustees, not the company or the Government. The trustees must ensure that the rules of the scheme are followed and comply with the law.
The framework of trust law was reinforced by the Pensions Act 1995, which resulted from the Maxwell scandal. It introduced a series of measures to protect members of pension schemes, placed extra duties on trustees and set up the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. We are actively monitoring and reviewing the Act's provisions in order to build on existing measures.
OPRA is the independent pensions regulator that investigates complaints when occupational pension schemes do not comply with the Pensions Act 1995. Anyone can report a pension scheme to OPRA if they believe that it is not being run properly. The scheme auditor and the actuary have a statutory duty to blow the whistle when they have reasonable cause to believe that the 1995 Act is not being complied with.
I have not checked the latest figure, but the last time I looked into it, there were about 120,000 pension schemes in this country. It is certainly a huge number. OPRA operates as a reactive regulator when people make complaints. We have examined and strengthened some of OPRA's operations through legislation that has not yet come fully into force.

297WH
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the actions of the trustees and the actuaries involved in the Basford Group case. When Basford Textiles became insolvent, the insolvency practitioner appointed a statutory independent trustee. The previous trustee no longer acts as a trustee in relation to the scheme. The last actuarial valuation of the Batsford Group scheme was in 1996 and the next was due on 1 May 1999. The trustees sought 25 extra days as the wind-up of the scheme was due to commence on 26 May 1999. That valuation was completed on time by 26 May 2000.
When I started to get to grips with the minimum funding requirement, I mistook it as a solvency test. It may appear that way to a lay person, but there is no doubt that it is not. Pension schemes must be adequately funded to cover their liabilities. The 1995 Act introduced the MFR, which requires defined benefit schemes—schemes based on final salary—to hold a minimum level of assets to meet their liabilities.
We recognise that matters have changed since the minimum funding requirement was introduced. It came into force in 1997. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, many of the issues that affected his constituents are not covered by the 1995 Act, which had not come fully into force at that time. The Government consulted on the future of the minimum funding requirement and are currently studying the responses.
Coupled with that was the Myner review set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Given that he is about to make a major speech in the House in the not too distant future, he may or may not have something to say about that. The report has been received, and the consultation on the minimum funding regulation concluded at the end of January. We have been considering the responses to that consultation, because we must make an early statement about whether we will do nothing or do something, so that people know what is happening.
Pension contributions should be paid promptly and at the right level. In 1996, the actuary of the Basford Group scheme recommended a rise in employer contributions from 8.7 per cent. to 10.2 per cent., to take effect from April 1997. The trustees decided not to take the actuary's advice and did not increase the employer contributions. That may seem a small rise, but it represents a 20 per cent. increase. Under the minimum funding regulations, which have come in since the 1995 Act, a schedule of contributions must be set out clearly. That schedule must be certified by an actuary. If those regulations had been in force when the Basford trustees took the decision, it is unlikely that the actuary would have been able to certify that level of contributions. The actuary would have been obliged by law to report the situation to OPRA. A real problem has arisen, which predates the change in the law, by refusing to increase employer contributions by 20 per cent.
The trustees monitor the payment of contributions on the scheme's payments schedule and must tell OPRA and scheme members when contributions have been paid late or not paid at all. There is a firm rule about that. As my hon. Friend knows, there was a failure on the part of the employer to pay the contributions in the Basford case. I understand that a notice went out from
298WH
the independent trustee to all members of the Basford Group scheme in July 2000 stating that all employee contributions had been recovered.
At present, there is no legal requirement for trustees to include members of pension schemes. Legislation went through the House last year, which will come into force later this year or early next year, whereby a minimum of a third of the trustees of a pension scheme must be members of the scheme. They may be pensioners, active members or deferred members, but they must be members of the scheme. In future, a group of trustees cannot be employer dominated.
The Pensions Act 1995 introduced restrictions on employer-related investments, such as shares in the company, land or property owned by the company. Clearly, that was the result of the Maxwell scandal. In May 1999, the independent trustee of the Basford scheme voiced doubts to OPRA about the appropriateness of several actions of the previous trustee in connection with the purchase and use of properties in 1996—a point that my hon. Friend raised in some detail. Those property dealings may have constituted a breach under the 1995 Act. Unfortunately for the scheme members, that Act did not come fully into force until 1997.
When things go wrong, it is only right that measures are in place to protect members of a scheme. I regret that many of the problems of the Basford scheme occurred before the 1995 Act came into effect. My hon. Friend realises that his constituents have a hell of a problem. Hopefully, it is being sorted out with the trustees. I note the delays that he listed, and I shall make it my business to ensure that I follow them up through OPRA and my officials. It is unacceptable if Members of Parliament do not receive replies. There is almost an implied threat that, if inquiries are made, the scheme will be charged. The only people making any money out of the situation are the professonals who are examining the problem, whereas the members of the scheme feel that their pensions are under threat, and they contributed to those pensions.
Measures are in place for redundancy payments schemes when a firm has become insolvent. If, on winding-up, the scheme is not fully funded under the minimum funding requirement, the amount outstanding becomes a debt on the employer, and the trustee must pursue that amount. Of course, the Pensions Compensation Board was also set up under the 1995 Act. It has not made many payments to date—I declare an interest, because one recent payment was in respect of a company in Birmingham that employed some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).
Members must be protected from fraud and dishonesty. Provisions for compensation were introduced in the 1995 Act. The Pensions Compensation Board pays compensation to an occupational pensions scheme if it suffers a reduction in its assets because of dishonesty when the sponsoring employer is insolvent. Improvements to the pensions compensation scheme were contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which is due to come into effect shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about consultation on the minimum funding requirement. As I said, we hope to make an

299WH
early announcement about suggestions that have been made for mutual insurance for the industry. There are pluses and minuses, but we are actively considering that option, because since the 1995 Act was passed, gaps have been clearly identified that we want to close. The time that has been taken to finalise the case is an issue, and I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that I will follow that up myself. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 introduced a package of measures for schemes in wind-up, which are intended to introduce more accountability into such schemes and to extend OPRA's powers in that regard. Again, the Act will come into force early next year—I know that these things are always later this year or early next year, but we are dealing with a huge industry. Millions of people are in pension schemes—there are about 120,000 pension schemes—so we must be careful about changes, and take time to consult even after the House has passed the main legislation.
Most pension schemes are extremely well run. The best run schemes from my experience are those in which members are involved as trustees and there is a free share of information, in which they watch with eagle eyes
300WH
what happens to investments, especially if it appears that the company concerned is using some of the funds. We cannot legislate initially for every eventuality, so sometimes we legislate as we go along, filling the gaps, which is why we constantly review the framework.
I have great sympathy with the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to put on the record some of the measures we have already taken and to signal future announcements. I understand that OPRA is at present satisfied that the independent trustee is doing everything in his power to rectify the situation by collecting as much money as possible for the scheme, which was clearly underfunded when it refused to increase employer contributions by the recommended 20 per cent. There is a major problem with underfunding, but OPRA will continue to monitor the scheme until it is fully wound up. I will ensure that if I can open a door or kick a door open, I will certainly do so in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Tyre Dumping
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he intends to introduce a scheme to help farmers with the cost of removing illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres from agricultural land; [150810]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the cost to farmers of removing illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres from agricultural land in the latest year for which figures are available. [150809]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the Environment Agency and local authorities with powers to require the removal of waste dumped in contravention of waste controls; or to remove it and recover their costs from those responsible. However, farmers of land which is the subject of fly-tipping cannot be required to remove the waste or to pay for its removal, unless they knowingly caused or permitted its dumping. We have no plans to introduce a scheme to pay the costs incurred by landowners in removing fly-tipped waste.

  However, the Fly Tipping Forum is addressing the problem of fly-tipping on farms; and has commissioned research to assess the problem's scale and associated costs. (The Environment Agency chairs the Forum and its members include the NFU and the Country Landowners Association.) It is anticipated that this research project will be completed later in the spring and the Forum will then consider its findings. The Department of Trade and Industry also chairs a joint Government/industry working group which is considering options for recycling tyres in the light of the Landfill Directive, which will ban their disposal in landfill sites.

  No data are currently held centrally on the cost to either local authorities or farmers of removing illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142229]

  Ms Quin
  As most of my Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis, but not disaggregated further. However, farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.2 billion since 646W
  2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. Farmers in the Blackpool, South constituency will also have available to them all of the schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his policy and corporate strategy unit 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. [150366]

  Ms Quin
  The MAFF Policy and Corporate Strategy Unit was established in November last year. No departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate directly in the unit's work, but one of the departmental special advisers sits, alongside senior officials and a non-executive director of the MAFF management board, on the unit's steering board. This board is chaired by the permanent secretary and is intended to determine priorities for the unit's work.

  It is intended that the Policy and Corporate Strategy Unity will provide internal advice to Ministers and the permanent secretary. Typically, resulting reports would be placed in the public domain by the Department. No such reports have yet been produced by the unit.

  The unit currently has 10 full time members of staff, including three staff on loan from other Government Departments and Agencies. During the coming months its staff complement is expected to rise to approximately 15 full time staff.

  Producers' Organisations
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what review has been carried out by his Department's officials in order that producers' organisations recognised prior to 1995 satisfy EC Regulation 1762/96; and if he will list the proportion of total production by weight, attributable to each producers' organisation for its economic area. [151536]

  Mr. Morley
  UK Fisheries Departments regularly review the status of producers' organisations in accordance with the provisions of EC Regulation 2939/94, as amended by EC Regulation 1762/96, to ensure that they still meet the recognition criteria. Under EC Regulation 2939/94 a producers' organisation must be responsible for at least 15 per cent. of the production in its area, or at least 30 per cent. of production in a major port in its area. Data from 1999, the latest date for which information is available, for the producers' organisations are set out as follows. It should be noted that the European Commission is currently reviewing the recognition criteria in respect of minimum levels of economic activity.
  647W

  Producers' organisation

  Major port for landings

  Proportion of landings at major port (percentage)

  Anglo-North Irish FPO Ltd.

  Kilkeel

  69

  Cornish FPO Ltd.

  Newlyn

  72

  South Western FPO Ltd.

  Brixham

  71

  The FPO Ltd.

  Hull

  84

  Anglo-Scottish FPO Ltd.

  North Shields

  76

  Yorkshire and Anglia FPO Ltd.

  Bridlington

  38

  Northern Ireland FPO Ltd.

  Portavogie

  71

  Grimsby FPO Ltd.

  Scarborough

  57

  Fleetwood FPO Ltd.

  Fleetwood

  54

  Lowestoft FPO Ltd.

  Lowestoft

  59

  North Sea FO Ltd.

  Harlingen

  100

  Wales and West Coast FPO Ltd.

  Corunna

  62

  Northern FPO Ltd.

  Montrose

  88

  Producers' organisation

  Proportion of landings in economic area (percentage)

  Aberdeen FPO Ltd.

  33

  Fife FPO Ltd.

  59

  North East Scotland FO Ltd.

  20

  Scottish FO Ltd.

  44

  Shetland FPO Ltd.

  36

  West of Scotland FPO Ltd.

  119

  1 The West of Scotland FPO Ltd. Is only recognized for Nephrops

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Hague Convention on Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will place in the Library the Government's response to the questionnaire concerning the practical operation of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and views on possible recommendations, drawn up by Mr. William Duncan, Deputy Secretary-General, and dated October 2000. [150890]

  Jane Kennedy
  The response to the questionnaire on behalf of the Central Authority for England and Wales has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sports Co-ordinator
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will name the remaining areas that will benefit from a new school sports co-ordinator from September 2001. [149399]

  Kate Hoey
  Twelve new areas in the second round of school sport co-ordinators were announced on 16 February. Fifty-five further appointments will be made in these new areas bringing the total number of school sport co-ordinators to 195.

  Sports Facilities (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the quality of sports facilities in primary schools. [149386]
  648W
  Kate Hoey
  There is need to improve sports facilities in many of our primary schools. Part of our plan to do this is the Space for Sport and the Arts initiative which will provide £130 million for capital projects in 65 LEAs benefiting about 300 schools. In addition, £580 million of New Opportunities Fund money will be invested in strengthening the foundation of sport across England by building and refurbishing PE and sports facilities in over 1,500 schools.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he is taking to ensure national lottery funds are distributed in a way that targets areas with the greatest social needs. [149393]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Following the 1988 reforms to the national lottery, distributors are required to take into account the need to ensure that all areas have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Since then, distributors have increasingly targeted funding on areas of need, on people and activities rather than just capital projects, and on small grants to community groups. All of this means that, more than ever, the communities with the greatest needs are experiencing the positive effects of national lottery funding.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much income for the Dome was generated through(a) merchandising aids and (b) royalties. [150937]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the Company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The Report and Statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that income from merchandising was £2 million net, and from licensing was £0.2 million.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure was on staffing the Dome from the run up period to the opening until the closure, including the costs of terminating contracts. [150925]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the Company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the Company's Annual Reports and Financial Statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The Report and Statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that staffing expenditure for the period February 1997 to 31 December 1999 was £34.5 million. Staffing expenditure for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 was £47.2 million including retention and bonus payments as provided for in staff contracts but excluding bonus payments to Directors.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what revenue was received by NMEC from the catering arrangements at the Dome. [150924]
  649W
  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the company's annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that revenue received from the catering arrangements at the Dome was £2.3 million net.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the ticket revenue received from the Dome was. [150923]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that ticket revenue received from the Dome was £58.4 million.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the expenditure on utilities was for the Dome until its closure. [150926]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the Company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The Report and Statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that expenditure on gas, electricity and water to 31 December 2000 was £4.3 million.

  Dome Sponsors
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date the £1 million sponsorship payment from the Hinduja foundation for the faith zone was received by the New Millennium Experience Company. [149220]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]I understand from the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), that the Hinduja Foundation first approached NMEC in February 1997 about the possibility of incorporating the "Concordia Project" into the Dome. This was to be an interactive visitor education centre focusing on the world's different cultures. The agreement between NMEC and the Hinduja Foundation governing its £1 million financial support for the Faith zone was signed on 16 February 1999. The first payment of £100,000 was paid on 25 February 1999; the second payment of £450,000 was paid on 18 May 1999 and the final amount of £450,000 was paid on 23 August 1999.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further and Higher Education Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the combined total of students in further and higher education in each of the past 650W
  five years was expressed as (a) total student enrolments in publicly funded institutions and (b) total full-time equivalents. [150118]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: The information requested is contained in the tables.

  Higher education student numbers have steadily increased over recent years. Further education student numbers, on the other hand, have fallen slightly. The main reason for this is the large fall in franchised provision. Previous participation figures were artificially inflated by franchising, some of which offered courses of dubious value. I remain determined to raise student numbers in FE at the same time as I raise the quality of the provision on offer.

  Table 1—headcount of student numbers in higher education

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1995–961

  1,355

  1996–971

  1,382

  1997–981

  1,414

  1998–991

  1,442

  1999–20002

  1,461

  1 Actual

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  HESA, December record

  Table 2—full-time equivalent (FTE) student numbers in higher education

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1995–961

  1,058

  1996–971

  1,077

  1997–981

  1,106

  1998–991

  1,123

  1999–20002

  1,134

  1 Actual

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  HESA, December record

  Table 3—headcount of student numbers in further education

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1995–961

  4,029

  1996–971

  4,463

  1997–981

  4,463

  1998–991

  4,335

  1999–20002

  4,274

  1Actual

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  FEFC

  Table 4—full-time equivalent (FTE) student numbers in further education

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1995–961

  1,198

  1996–971

  1,215

  1997–981

  1,160

  1998–992

  1,149

  1999–20002

  —

  1Actual

  2 Provisional

  651W
  Notes:

  1. All figures are on a whole year basis, and are for England only.

  2. In 1998–99, three colleges transferred from the FE sector to the HE sector. Student numbers in these colleges are included in Tables 3 and 4 until 1997–98, and in Tables 1 and 2 from 1998–99.

  3. In 1999–2000, one FE sector college merged with an HE institution. Student numbers in this college are included in Tables 3 and 4 until 1998–99; from 1999–2000 this college is considered part of the HE sector.

  4. While funding for HNC and HND students in FE sector colleges transferred from FEFC to HEFCE in 1999–2000, their numbers appear in Table 3 throughout (as FEFC-funded students until 1998–99, then as non FEFC-funded students), and in Table 4 until 1998–99. Their numbers do not appear in Tables 1 or 2 in any year.

  Table 1

  The data include only those students on higher education courses at publicly funded HE institutions. Includes home, EU and overseas students filling places funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England or by other sources. Includes students on Open University courses.

  Table 2

  The data include only those students on higher education courses at publicly funded HE institutions. Includes home, EU and overseas students filling places funded by the Higher Education Funding

  £

  Project

  Description

  Start date

  Completion date

  Estimated project cost

  Correspondence handling

  Enhancements to the system introduced in April 2000 for moving and tracking correspondence electronically

  April 2001

  October 2001

  350,000

  Infrastructure upgrades

  Replacement of PCs and servers

  April 2001

  March 2001

  3,000,000

  Following on from the achievements the Employment Service (ES) has made in the last 12 months the ES is committed to improving its main advisory tool, the Labour Market System, which should see major improvements by December 2001 at a cost of £9.2 million.

  The Modernising ES programme is already delivering new and exciting ways in helping customers come closer to the labour market, e.g. Jobpoints and Internet Jobbank, and the next steps are for the ES to engage with DSS colleagues on how best to take forward the IT

  Project

  Description

  End date

  Estimated cost (£)

  Teaching and learning initiatives

  UK Online Centres

  Funding for ICT learning centres in disadvantaged communities

  Ongoing

  100 million

  National Grid for Learning (Schools)

  Further development of the NGfl programme to equip and connect schools, colleges and other places of learning.

  Ongoing. All schools to be connected to the internet by 2002

  1 billion over 3 years 2001–04

  ICT in Further Education Capital Infrastructure (National Learning Network)

  The planned investment in ICT will help support colleges as the demand for ICT skills; electronic delivery of learning and access to knowledge and information continues to grow. Colleges will need to take advantage of best practice in the use of ICT, and they will need to exploit ICT to deliver new ways of learning through flexible, attractive and convenient mechanisms

  Ongoing

  74 million

  ICT in Higher Education

  Provision to support learning and effective management in HE institutions

  Ongoing

  300 million

  652W
  Council for England or by other sources. Includes students on Open University courses. The full-time equivalent factor used for part-time students is 0.35.

  Table 3

  The data include FEFC-funded and non FEFC-funded students in FE sector colleges and FEFC-funded students in External Institutions, Specialist Designated Institutions and Higher Education Institutions.

  Table 4

  In line with the normal publishing convention, Further Education FTE data include FEFC-funded and non FEFC-funded FE students in FE sector colleges, FEFC-funded FE students in External Institutions, Specialist Designated Institutions and Higher Education Institutions, and non FEFC-funded FE students in Adult Education Centres. Also included are FEFC-funded HE students in FE sector colleges. FTE figures are not yet available for 1999–2001.

  Source:

  ISR; FEFC Aggregate Record

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [151476]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The major information technology projects to be started in the next year are listed in the table.

  requirements of the new agency. This will occur over the coming months.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [151502]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The major information technology-enabled projects currently being undertaken by the Department are listed in the following table.
  653W

  Project

  Description

  End date

  Estimated cost (£)

  Connexions card project

  To deliver a multi-functional smart card to young people in further learning, which carries discounts and rewards to encourage their participation and attainment. The project includes an underpinning database driven careers and course website

  Autumn 2001

  6.5 million

  Worktrain

  To develop an internet portal to job vacancies, careers, work-related learning and training opportunities

  Comprehensive service available in 2001

  3.2 million

  Individual Learning Accounts

  This includes:

  May 2005 (end of contract)

  50 million

  The implementation of policy for individual learning accounts;

  The creation of a national framework for the administration of individual learning accounts;

  The marketing and other promotional activity to support and increase take up;

  Continued development of ILA policy within the framework of funding for adult learners and wider policy developments

  The development of a partnership between DfEE and Capita;

  Ensuring consistency between the arrangements in England and the devolved administrations

  Learning and Skills Council Information and Business System Project

  To define, build and deliver the information systems and processes necessary to support the Learning and Skills Council

  August 2002

  38 million

  Computers Within Reach

  Scheme to give subsidised recycled PCs to low income families and earners

  March 2001 (end of contract)

  15 million

  Wired up communities

  To connect homes in a number of deprived communities to the internet and email and to test the impact which this might have to education and employability

  February 2002 (end of contract)

  10 million

  Grid Club

  The creation of a fun learning site for children aged 7 to 11. It will help them learn through communicating and participating in joint activities and through improving their IT skills

  March 2004 (end of contract)

  6 million

  Learn Direct

  Telephone help line and website run by the University for industry providing information and advice to adults

  Ongoing

  10 million

  Virtual College of School Leadership

  A portal that provides the virtual arm of the National College for School Leadership. The NCSL has been launched to provide leadership and development to the School leadership group. It will deliver both face-to-face programmes, including the existing headship training programmes, as well as online development and networking opportunities

  May 2003 (end of contract)

  2 million

  Other departmental systems

  European Social Fund

  Adapting systems to deliver ESF in accordance with revised payment methodology and business process

  March 2001

  1.2 million

  Sure Start IT System

  Sure Start is a cross-departmental initiative aimed at improving local service available to families and young children in disadvantages areas

  Mid 2001

  1 million

  Overseas Labour Service

  To introduce a series of enhancements including the introduction of emailed applications for work permits

  March 2002

  650,000

  New Student Support System

  A project to allow students to access an initial application form for financial support electronically

  Database and application form available in 2001

  550,000

  654W 655W

  Project

  Description

  End date

  Estimated cost (£)

  Special Education Needs Tribunals System Re-write

  Re-write of the system to meet new tribunal regulations which will result in a fundamental change to the way that appeals are managed

  March 2001

  500,000

  Voluntary Aided Schools Information System (VASIS) Phase 2

  Enhancement to the VASIS system which will provide the capability to receive and approve grant claims electronically and provide on-line access to schools and LEAs

  September 2001

  350,000

  GTC Database (Releases 3–5)

  Further releases which will provide for the collection of key data on teachers and fee collection

  March 2001

  300,000

  Standards Fund System

  Development of the existing system to enable LEAs to make electronic claims against the Standards Fund

  March 2001

  250,000

  Publications Database (Phase 2)

  Enhancements, which will improve our ability to monitor progress against targets

  September 2001

  150,000

  Neighbourhood Support Fund Database

  System required to monitor and evaluate the performance of NSF projects and Managing Agents in delivering the Programme

  February 2001

  150,000

  DfEE Correspondence Handling System

  The development and implementation of a computerized system for managing the Department's wide ranging correspondence in order to improve on its performance targets as per the Whitehall Standards

  —

  2.5 million

  DfEE Infrastructure upgrades

  Replacement of PCs, fileservers and software

  March 2001

  4 million

  Employment Services

  The Employment Service's modernisation programme has made remarkable achievements in less than 12 months. The ES now has a modern IT infrastructure in its 1,000 Jobcentres. A national jobs database has been created with around 400,000 vacancies. That database is available to anyone with internet access through the Employment Service website.

  Job points have been installed in 12 Jobcentres. Job points are state-of-the-art touch-screen kiosks through which Jobcentre customers can search the national database. Early indications from these pilots are that job points are popular and successful and it is intended that they will be rolled out nationally to all Jobcentres from March this year.

  The Employment Service is also establishing a network of 11 customer services centres to take vacancies from employers through a single telephone number, by fax or by e-mail. They will provide employers with 24-hour electronic access to Jobcentre recruitment services. This new service is expected to come on line in the next few months.

  The Employment Service is also managing the transfer of Work Based Learning for Adults in April 2001 from the TECs and this will result in the implementation of a new contracting and funding system in April 2001 which will encourage closer working with ES' s programme providers.

  These achievements have been part of a fully integrated programme of change valued at some £816 million, which has already seen a vast improvement in the way ES conducts its business.

  New Deal (Northern Ireland)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have benefited from the New Deal, by parliamentary constituency, in Northern Ireland broken down by gender who are(a) young unemployed, (b) long term unemployed, (c) disabled and (d) lone parents. [151000]

  Ms Jowell
  This subject is a devolved matter. I refer my hon. Friend to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Fast-track Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if fast-track teachers will be distributed proportionately between specialist and non-specialist schools; and if he will make a statement. [151133]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Specialist and non-specialist schools will be able to create fast-track teaching posts. Fast-track teachers will not be distributed among schools; they will apply for these posts and be recruited in the usual way.

  Environment Agency Learning Initiatives
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what involvement he will have in the implementation of learning initiatives proposed by the Environment Agency in "The Business of Learning—Investing in a Sustainable Future". [150272]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: I recently met Sir John Harman and colleagues to hear about their consultation on "The Business of Learning". The Environment Agency is proposing a number of initiatives building on its Pathfinder project and extending

  657W
  its involvement in sustainable development education. The Government's sustainable development education panel has already made a significant contribution towards raising the profile of sustainable development education in schools, further and higher education, and among the general public. I am considering with colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the extent to which the proposals outlined in the consultation paper might complement the panel's work.

  Civil Servants (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what basis performance-related pay is awarded to those civil servants within his Department concerned with the outsourcing of LEA services. [150703]

  Mr. Wills
  DfEE staff up to and including Grade 6 have their performance assessed under the Department's Performance Management System and at the end of each year are awarded an overall performance marking. This performance marking determines the size of their pay increase. Better performance is rewarded with a higher pay increase than weaker performance. The details of these increases are negotiated annually with the unions.

  Members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) (former Grade 5 and above) in DfEE have their performance assessed under the arrangements for the SCS Performance

  Credit approvals allocated to Sefton local education authority (LEA)

  Year/school

  Project

  Credit approval awarded £000

  1997–98

  LEA-wide allocation

  Annual Capital Guideline settlement:

  Commitments arising from previous years

  170

  Details not readily available

  Special Education Needs (SEN)

  220

  1998–99

  LEA-wide allocation

  Annual Capital Guideline settlement:

  Commitments arising from previous years

  19

  Formula

  1208

  Minor Works

  160

  Greenbank High

  Enhance facilities for the teaching of languages

  100

  Green Park County Primary

  Schools Access Initiative (SAI) project

  2

  Orrell County Primary

  SAI project

  4

  Davenhill County Primary

  SAI project

  6

  Grange County Primary

  SAI project

  5

  Linaker County Primary

  SAI project

  3

  Freshfield County Primary

  SAI project

  3

  Crosby Road North County Primary

  SAI project

  5

  Northway County Primary

  SAI project

  4

  Manor High

  SAI project

  34

  1999–2000

  LEA-wide allocation

  Annual Capital Guideline settlement:

  Commitments arising from previous years

  1104

  Formula

  1327

  Basic Need

  1161

  SEN projects

  187

  Minor Works

  191

  Netherton Moss County Primary

  Surplus places removal

  76

  Redgate County Primary

  Surplus places removal

  33

  Litherland Moss County Primary

  Surplus places removal

  92

  Rowan Park Special

  Alterations

  217

  Presfield Special

  Alterations

  40

  Ronald House Special

  Alterations

  40

  Greenacre Nursery

  SAI project

  1

  Birkdale Community Primary

  SAI project

  10

  Davenhill Community Primary

  SAI project

  18

  Farnborough Road Community Infant and Junior

  SAI project

  21

  658W
  Review set centrally by the Cabinet Office. At the end of each reporting year, members of the SCS are awarded a performance mark, which is the key factor in determining their pay increase. Again, better performance at each level of management within the SCS is rewarded with a higher pay increase than weaker performance. The framework for the SCS pay award is set centrally each year by the Cabinet Office following the Government's response to the Senior Salaries Review Body's Report for that year.

  School Funding (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the credit approvals allocated to Sefton borough in each year from 1997 to 2004; and if he will specify the projects which received approvals and their associated cost. [151291]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table lists credit approvals issued to Sefton local education authority for the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02, and shows those schools for which the credit approvals were allocated, together with details of the projects supported, where this information is known. Credit approvals for local authorities for the years beyond 2001–02 have not yet been issued. Sefton local education authority will have had discretion as to the application of credit approvals to specific projects and will be able to provide more information about the individual projects which have been supported through credit approvals.
  659W

  Credit approvals allocated to Sefton local education authority (LEA)

  Year/school

  Project

  Credit approval awarded £000

  Freshfield Community Primary

  SAI project

  2

  Larkfield Community Primary

  SAI project

  42

  Linaker Community Primary

  SAI project

  1

  Thomas Gray Community Infant

  SAI project

  4

  Range High

  SAI project

  8

  Waterloo Community Primary

  SAI project

  5

  St. John's CE Primary, Crossens

  SAI project

  10

  St. Luke's CE Primary, Formby

  SAI project

  4

  Holy Spirit Catholic Primary

  SAI project

  2

  St. George's Catholic Primary

  SAI project

  3

  St. Peter's CE Primary

  SAI project

  1

  Holy Family Catholic High

  SAI project

  10

  2000–01

  LEA-wide allocation

  Annual Capital Guideline Settlement:

  Commitments arising from previous years

  1868

  Formula

  1380

  Basic Need

  1202

  Minor Works

  1139

  Chesterfield High

  Enhance facilities for the teaching of sport

  100

  Ronald House Special

  Alterations

  42

  Bedford Primary

  SAI project

  11

  Birkdale Primary

  SAI project

  10

  Larkfield Primary

  SAI project

  7

  Linaker Primary

  SAI project

  6

  Range High

  SAI project

  17

  St. John's CE Primary, Crossens

  SAI project

  3

  St. Luke's CE Primary, Formby

  SAI project

  4

  Twelve schools

  SAI project

  2147

  English Martyrs Catholic Primary

  SAI project

  2

  St. Nicholas CE Primary

  SAI project

  1

  St. Peter's CE Primary

  SAI project

  2

  2001–02

  LEA-wide allocation

  Annual Capital Guideline settlement:

  Commitments arising from previous years

  12,725

  Basic Need

  1225

  LEA co-ordinated voluntary local programme (LCVAP)

  1101

  Holy Family RC High

  LEA liabilities on project to provide 47 additional sixth form places

  23

  Our Lady of Lourdes RC Primary

  LEA liabilities in respect of project to create nursery

  2

  1 This credit approval was LEA-wide; Sefton LEA can provide details of how this funding was used.

  2 Details of which school(s) benefited from this credit approval are not readily available; Sefton LEA can provide details of which school(s) benefited from this funding.

  Explanation of terms used in table
  Commitments—funding to meet commitments that have arisen from allocations made in previous years;
  Special Educational Needs (SEN)—funding to meet costs of statutorily approved projects at SEN schools;
  Basic Need—allocation towards the cost of providing sufficient numbers of school places;
  Formula—allocation made on a per pupil basis;
  VA Minor Works—funding to meet LEA liabilities for projects costing less than £250,000 at Voluntary Aided (VA) schools;
  Surplus places removal—funding to remove surplus places;
  LEA Co-ordinated Voluntary Local Programme (LCVAP)—this has replaced the Minor Works programme, and is broadly similar.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the projects that(a) the New Deal for Schools programme and (b) Seed Challenge funding have supported in the borough of Sefton in each year since 1997; which it will support in each year up to 2004; and how much money (i) has been and (ii) will be allocated to each project. [151290]
  660W
  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows those schools in the borough of Sefton which are benefiting from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, allocated over the four years from 1997–98 to 2000–01. These allocations total £6.768 million. In the same period, Sefton local education authority has been allocated some £19.536 million of funding in total for capital investment in schools.

  A total of £196,000 of Seed Challenge funding was made available to Sefton local education authority in 2000–01. The authority will be able to provide a breakdown of individual projects and costings. 2000–01 is the first year in which Seed Challenge funding has been allocated to local education authorities.

  In January this year, we announced that the New Deal for Schools would be extended over the next three years to 2003–04. Allocations which will benefit schools in Sefton local education authority, announced in January 2001 under the New Deal for Schools, total £11.23 million over three years; of this, £1.89 million is for 2001–02, £3.69 million for 2002–03 and £5.65 million for 2003–04.

  661W
  This funding does not include the new £550 million New Deal for Schools Modernisation programme for which detailed allocations will be announced later this year.

  An increase in Seed Challenge funding was also announced in January 2001, with allocations to Sefton local education authority totalling £970,000 over the three

  New Deal for Schools Allocation for schools in Sefton local education authority

  Year/school

  Project

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Included within an LEA-wide package:

  Hillside High

  Conversion and refit of laboratory

  1836,000

  Sacred Heart RC High

  Refit of three science laboratories

  Range High

  Refit of three science laboratories

  Christ The King RC High

  Refit of two science laboratories

  St. Winefride's RC Primary

  Major structural repair due to ground subsidence

  Litherland High

  Replace felt roof

  Maghull High

  Replace felt roof

  Ramborough Road Infant

  Replace two classroom units

  Lydiate County Primary

  Demolition of reinforced concrete covered walkway

  Grange County Primary

  Wet rot repairs and external painting

  1998–99

  Litherland High

  Heating repairs

  55,850

  Holy Trinity CE Primary

  Rewiring

  55,850

  Holy Trinity CE Primary

  Heating repairs

  44,680

  Our Lady of Lourdes RC Primary

  Boiler replacement

  44,680

  Our Lady of Lourdes RC Primary

  Replacement kitchen

  112,310

  St. Andrew's CE Primary

  Rewiring

  55,850

  Ainsdale High

  Fire safety improvements

  11,549

  Linacre Primary

  Heating repairs

  61,435

  1999–2000

  Churchtown School

  Replace temporary accommodation

  1,862,285

  2000–01

  Farnborough Road Infant and Junior, Bootle High, Christ the Church High

  Boiler replacement

  2368,283

  Hillside High

  Replace temporary classrooms

  528,513

  Forefield Infant

  Replace temporary classrooms

  513,231

  Greenbank High

  Replace temporary classrooms

  424,253

  St. Luke's Formby CE

  Replace temporary classrooms

  605,594

  Melling Primary

  Replace temporary classrooms

  396,048

  Forefield Junior

  Replace temporary accommodation

  393,539

  Waterloo Primary

  Replacement dining room

  398,079

  1Local education authorities (LEAs) were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the LEA. Sefton local education authority holds project level information.

  2 The total allocation made to package projects covering more than one school. Sefton local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools which have benefited from these allocations.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that parents are notified that supply of emergency contraception will be permitted under a school's sex and relationships education policy; [151128]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that parents are properly consulted before a school adopts a policy of supplying emergency contraception; [151127]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of schools which have made emergency contraception available to pupils. [151126]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Our sex and relationship education guidance, published last July, clearly states that governing bodies and head teachers should consult parents in developing their sex and relationship education policy to ensure that they develop policies which reflect the parents' wishes and the
  662W
  years to 2003–04. This comprises £220,000 in 2001–02, £375,000 in 2002–03 and £375,000 in 2003–04. It will be for Sefton local education authority, working with local schools and within guidelines provided by the Department, to allocate this new funding to individual school projects.

  culture of the community they serve. All schools must have a policy which is made available for inspection and to parents.

  In the few cases where school nurses are dispensing contraception, this should be made clear in a school's sex and relationship policy, which has to be agreed with parents. These arrangements should not proceed until parents have been consulted.

  Ofsted is statutorily required to evaluate and comment on a school's sex and relationship policy. From January 2000, as part of its new inspection framework, Ofsted is required to evaluate and report on how well schools work in partnership with parents.

  We have made no estimates of the number of schools dispensing emergency contraception. However, Ofsted is aware of a few instances where emergency contraception has been dispensed by school nurses.
  663W
  Improving teenagers' access to contraceptive advice, including emergency contraception, is a key strand of the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142710]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member of Bath (Mr. Foster) on 15 February 2001,Official Report, columns 196–97. The information sought is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, what information is available was provided on that occasion.

  Advertising is used by the Ministry of Defence when it is judged to be the most cost-effective way of delivering the publicity necessary to support a policy or proposal.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146583]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the modernising government White Paper set out, it is important to this Government that we listen to what people have to say about new proposals and policies. Quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces and other means are now an integral and important part of departmental work. Public opinion research spending, however, is subject to the usual strict rules that spending must represent good value for money for the taxpayer and must not be used for party political purposes.

  Information on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. These standard management tools are now employed across the Department and its many agencies.

  Information on task forces, reviews and ad hoc advisory groups is updated and published every six months by the Cabinet Office.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information regarding the decommissioning of Nancekuke is contained within the remaining documents held by the Government under the 30-year rule; and if he will place it in the Public Record Office; [148908]
  664W
  (2) what documents exist regarding Nancekuke that are more than 30-years-old but are not placed in the Public Record Office; and if he will place all remaining documents regarding Nancekuke in the Public Record Office; [148905]

  (3) what type of information is contained within the remaining documents regarding Nancekuke held by the Government under the 30-year rule. [149286]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not possible to identify the complete holding of records relating to defence activities at Nancekuke in the main MOD repository at Hayes without incurring disproportionate cost. All departmental records are reviewed under well-established procedures and those selected for public preservation are released in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 and 1967.

  Following discussions between the Public Record Office (PRO) and the DERA site at Porton Down in the late 1990s, a collection of records that were over 30-years-old was identified and passed to the MOD's records authority for review in accordance with the procedures described above. The records from this collection that are selected for permanent preservation will be released to the PRO once the review process is complete. Some of these records make reference to the work at Nancekuke.

  As part of the programme of environmental surveys of RAF Portreath, which have been conducted by the RAF and an independent expert consultant, a number of records have been identified relating to the decommissioning of Nancekuke. It is envisaged that these records will be made available when the conclusions of the current environmental survey have been considered and made public. No decisions have yet to be taken on the need for possible remedial work at the site and I expect this work to reach a conclusion later this year.

  Anti-malarial Drugs
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there were sufficient supplies of Mefloquine or equivalent anti-malarial drugs for members of the Parachute Regiment and other service personnel deployed to Sierra Leone in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [149885]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: My Department had sufficient supplies of Mefloquine and other anti-malarial drugs to support deployments to Sierra Leone in 2000. There were no known problems in obtaining supplies, either at the start of Operation Palliser or on subsequent deployments. Some 200 Army personnel nevertheless deployed initially without anti-malarial tablets. An Army board of inquiry subsequently concluded that this was due to an oversight in their preparation for an unexpectedly rapid deployment. Within 24 hours of these personnel arriving in theatre, the French drug, Savarine, was procured locally and distributed. Steps were immediately taken to provide Mefloquine, the preferred anti-malarial treatment, from the UK and all personnel taking Savarine transferred to Mefloquine within four days. One other individual is known to have deployed without anti-malarials as a result of being temporarily absent from his unit on duty just prior to deploying and then fore missing the issue of Mefloquine.

  665W
  He was issued with Mefloquine as soon as the problem came to light between two to five days after his arrival in theatre.

  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.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what efforts are being made in negotiations with the preferred bidder for ro-ros to ensure that strategic sealift service vessels are crewed by UK officers and ratings; [150908]

  (2) what progress has been made in the negotiations with the preferred bidder for the ro-ro ferries. [150903]

  (3) if, in the event that negotiations with the preferred bidder for the ro-ros fails, the other short listed bidders remain available to continue the competition. [150902]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 28 February 2000:

  I am replying to your three questions to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the RoRo Strategic Sealift project. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  Negotiations continue with the preferred bidder with a view to placing a contract in the near future. In the event that it does not prove possible to place a contract with the preferred bidder, we would consider other options, one of which would be to reopen discussions with the other contractors who submitted proposals last year.

  With regard to your question about the crewing of the vessels, when on MOD business the vessels will be manned by British UK officers and ratings. When not on MOD business, the ships will be trading commercially and their manning then will be a commercial matter for the company. However, to meet their potential MOD requirements, AWSR will be required at all times to ensure availability of sufficient British seafarers to Han all six vessels.

  Office for Standards of Casework
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he established the Office for Standards of Casework; what its mission, purpose and objectives are; and if he will publish its key target; and achievement matrix. [151231]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Office for Standards of Casework (Army) (OSC(A)) will be formally established by 2 April 2001. Work is currently in progress to develop its outline mission, purpose and goals.

  Its mission is to oversee the Army's casework processes in order to achieve the armed forces overarching personnel strategy (AFOPS) goals for discipline.

  OSC(A)'s purpose and primary function is to keep the Army's disciplinary and administrative casework processes under constant review and to propose measures that will ensure that these processes are working as efficiently as possible.
  666W
  OSCA's objectives and associated tasks are:
  to eliminate inefficiency and unnecessary delay by monitoring Army disciplinary and administrative casework
  establish and monitor audit trails for casework progress
  identify sources of unnecessary delay
  analyse casework to identify trends and issues
  propose remedial measures
  analyse priorities for the resolution of issues.

  It will also seek to ensure a culture of fairness and justice by promoting consistency in resolving casework throughout the Army, enable the swift and appropriate resolution of casework at the lowest level, continually review the documentary guidelines provided for commanders to ensure they are up-to-date and effective, liaise with all agencies involved in Army casework in order to ensure that their activities are co-ordinated and complementary and confirm that appropriate priority is given to casework at all stages and that standards are maintained.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures are taken by his Department to ensure that the medical records of members of the armed forces are not lost; [150262]

  (2) what measures he takes to ensure that individual members of the armed services are not disadvantaged in the event of their medical records being lost. [150263]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: Every care is taken in my Department to ensure that service personnel medical records are securely stored and not misplaced. A receipt note is used to cover the physical transfer of medical records, which is enclosed with the documents for immediate return by the receiving unit to the sending unit. In the event of a medical record going astray, it could be partially reconstructed from secondary sources.

  Juliet McBride
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the telephone and simcard of Juliet McBride are in the possession of the Ministry of Defence Police at Aldermaston; if the text and other messages have been transcribed or recorded; if the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police has appointed(a) a Ministry of Defence Police officer or (b) an officer from another force to investigate; and if he will make a statement. [151288]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 18 January 2001, Ms McBride entered the AWE Aldermaston site without authorisation. She was approached and ejected by the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) officers. Subsequently, Ms McBride reported the loss of her mobile telephone while on the site. This was found in the MDP vehicle used when removing Ms McBride from AWE and was returned to its owner on 19 January 2001. The Deputy Chief Constable of the MDP has appointed a MDP Chief Superintendent to investigate the circumstances surrounding the recovery of Ms McBride's telephone. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment pending the results of this investigation.

HEALTH

  Halal Meat
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the amounts of surplus halal slaughtered meat being sold in non-halal retail outlets. [147449]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that information on the volumes of halal meat sold in non-halal outlets is not collected centrally. All meat, whether produced to halal requirements or not, must

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  £000

  11996–97

  11997–98

  11998–99

  11999–2000

  22000–01

  Revenue income

  Total income from activities (Health Authorities etc.)

  48,535

  52,036

  57,416

  62,804

  70,771

  Percentage increase on income from activities

  —

  7.21

  10.34

  9.38

  12.69

  Other operating income

  5,204

  4,265

  4,945

  5.609

  5,539

  Total overall income

  53,739

  56,301

  62,361

  68,413

  76,310

  Percentage increase on total income

  —

  4.77

  10.76

  9.70

  11.54

  Capital allocations

  Unconditional capital

  1,309

  1,309

  1,047

  1,117

  1,151

  Conditional capital schemes

  Replacement angiographic equipment

  560

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Breast screening

  —

  65

  65

  —

  —

  Anaesthetic equipment

  —

  254

  —

  —

  —

  Neurophysiology

  —

  —

  96

  79

  —

  Daresbury unit

  —

  —

  —

  413

  1,407

  A&E 2nd round of modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  750

  —

  ICU bed

  —

  —

  —

  69

  —

  Critical care beds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500

  Radiology

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  —

  Action on cataracts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500

  Action on other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  90

  Rapid access chest pain clinics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Capital project manager

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  Outpatient equipment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  132

  Sub-total conditional capital

  560

  319

  161

  2,311

  2,689

  Total all capital

  1,869

  1,628

  1,208

  3,428

  3,840

  1 Actual

  2 Forecast

  Notes:

  1. Information extracted from Final accounts, except for 2000–01 financial year, which is the latest forecast available.

  2. Information per Regional capital programme.

  3. The analysis represents the year in which funding was made available, the pattern of expenditure may be different.

  4. A further £160,000 conditional capital will be made available to the trust for the action on cataracts investment.

  5. Capital allocations subsequently transferred to revenue have been excluded and are reflected in the turnover of the trust in the first table.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medical Research Council funded trial to compare sub-thalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease with best medical practice will treat all patients that have an unmet need for deep brain stimulation(a) as part of the trial and (b) outside the trial; and if he will make a statement. [151454]

  Yvette Cooper
  A proposal for a large randomised long-term assessment of the relative effectiveness of
  668W
  be produced under the relevant meat hygiene or food hygiene regulations, the requirements of which ensure that the meat is fit for human consumption.

  Warrington Hospital
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the amount and (b) the purpose of each specific grant allocation made to Warrington Hospital since 1997. [149485]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The information requested is in the tables.

  surgery for Parkinson's disease patients is being considered by the Medical Research Council (MRC). The funding decision on this trial is due to be made by the MRC in March, following which the council would be happy to provide further details.

  I regret that in an Adjournment debate on Parkinson's disease on 2 February 2001, Official Report, column 641, funding of £940,000 for a study into the effectiveness of new and old drugs for Parkinson's disease was incorrectly attributed to the MRC. This specific project is in fact funded by the National Health Service Technology Assessment Programme.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) have died while on the waiting list for an operation and (b) have been removed from the waiting list as a result of death in each of the last three years. [151606]
  670W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: The Department does not collect statistics on the number of people who have died while on the waiting list for an operation or the number of people who have been removed from the waiting list as a result of death. Data are collected on how many patients are removed from the waiting list without being treated, but these are not broken down in to the reasons why.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Tankers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tankers registered in the United Kingdom have single hulls; and what percentage of the total this represents. [148401]

  Mr. Hill
  There are 26 single hulled tankers over 3,000 gross tons registered in the United Kingdom. This figure represents 86% of the total.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government decided to release commercially confidential information concerning the PPP bids for London Underground to Transport for London; and for what reason the Government did not do this previously. [150421]

  Mr. Hill
  Transport for London has had privileged access to information about the London Underground PPP from the beginning, consistent with the duties to consult and co-operate under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. My answer of 14 December 2000,Official Report, columns 201–02W, set out some of the commercially confidential information which had by that time been made available to Mr. Robert Kiley, the Commissioner of Transport for London. Since the agreement of 2 February between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Kiley, there have been intensive discussions based on full access to information.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Government's proposed PPP for the London Underground, if it is the Government's policy(a) to avoid splitting the operation of trains and the control of infrastructure as originally envisaged and (b) to ensure that London Underground management will have control over programmes for investment, renewal and maintenance of infrastructure, particularly with regard to their timing and priority. [150398]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government remain committed to securing the best option for long-term and stable investment in the Tube that combines value for money with maintaining and improving safety. We are in discussion with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, on his proposals. Building on the work already done, we aim together to work out how best to accommodate his thinking within the current framework for the public private partnership competitions.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much London Transport has spent to date on consultancy for the London Underground Public-Private Partnership. [151576]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 30 November 2000,Official Report, column 757W. The Government will continue to provide
  672W
  six-monthly updates to Parliament on the cost of the consultancy work for the PPP and restructuring of London Underground.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the consultation document on changes to the exemptions from waste management licensing. [150452]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recovery and disposal of waste are subject to control under the Framework Directive on waste; and the main method of control is a waste management licence under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, Article 11 of the Directive provides discretion for the provision of licensing exemptions, on the basis of "general rules" and subject to certain conditions. The main purpose of exemptions is to encourage waste recovery in ways which protect the environment and human health.

  We are currently reviewing several of the exemptions provided in regulation 17 of Schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The review includes two exemptions subject to allegations of abuse (Schedule 3 paragraphs 9 and 19). We propose to tighten the terms of these, exemptions to preclude their use for "sham recovery", to set minimum inspection frequencies by the Environment Agency, and to introduce charges for their registration and inspection.

  We are also reviewing the exemptions for the landspreading of waste for
  "agricultural benefit or ecological improvement"
  (paragraph 7); the storage and landspreading of sewage sludge for ecological improvement (paragraph 8); recovery operations at sewage treatment works (paragraph 10); and community composting (paragraph 12). We are considering the provision of new exemptions for the recovery and storage of waste oil, the burning of dunnage at ports and the remediation of contaminated land.

  We intend to publish a consultation paper on these proposals this spring. We also intend to consult later this year on the application of waste management controls to agricultural waste—including licensing exemptions. A separate consultation exercise on licensing exemptions for "special waste" is planned for the summer.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will review the performance of Foundations responsible for co-ordinating the work of home improvement agencies. [150848]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department keeps the performance of Foundations, the national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies, under continuous review in accordance with the procedures established under the contract.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his
  673W
  Department will be publishing figures on the performance of local home improvement agencies which are in receipt of funding from the Department. [150849]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Under the arrangements for funding home improvement agencies, local authorities are responsible for monitoring the performance of their local agency. The national co-ordinating body collects information on agencies' activities and outputs and, in respect of the current financial year, will be making it available for benchmarking purposes as soon as it has been collated.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the guidelines for the monitoring of the performance of home improvement agencies. [150850]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies, Foundations, completed the despatch of guidelines to local authorities and agencies on 20 February. I am arranging for copies to be sent to my hon. Friend and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  School Transport
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to issue guidance to local education authorities prohibiting the use of vehicles(a) specifically designed to carry standing passengers and (b) without seatbelts, for the transportation of school children. [150806]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans to issue guidance to local education authorities prohibiting the use of vehicles specifically designed to carry standing passengers or those without seat belts for the transportation of school children. As I stated in my answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 315W, it is ultimately for the schools and local education authorities to ensure the vehicles they will be using are appropriate for the type of journeys planned, and in so doing to take the safety benefits of seat belts into account.

  Tyre Dumping
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he intends to introduce measures to reduce the number of illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres; [150807]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the cost to local authorities of removing illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres for the last five years for which figures are available. [150808]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the Environment Agency and local authorities with powers to require the removal of waste dumped in contravention of waste controls; or to remove it and recover their costs from those responsible. However, farmers of land which is the subject of fly-tipping cannot be required to remove the waste or to pay for its removal, unless they knowingly 674W
  caused or permitted its dumping. We have no plans to introduce a scheme to pay the costs incurred by landowners in removing fly-tipped waste.

  However, the Fly Tipping Forum is addressing the problem of fly-tipping on farms; and has commissioned research to assess the problem's scale and associated costs. (The Environment Agency chairs the Forum and its members include the NFU and the Country Landowners Association). It is anticipated that this research project will be completed later in the Spring and the Forum will then consider its findings. The Department of Trade and Industry also chairs a joint Government/Industry working group which is considering options for recycling tyres in the light of the Landfill Directive, which will ban their disposal in landfill sites.

  No data are currently held centrally on the cost to either local authorities or farmers of removing illegally dumped motor vehicle tyres.

  Cabin Crew (Security)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure flight security for cabin crew. [150644]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 provide strong powers for dealing with passengers who threaten the safety or personal security of cabin crew or passengers. New powers were introduced in 1999 to ensure that anyone using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards cabin crew or intentionally interfering with the crew during their duties can be punished. The effectiveness of existing measures to deal with disruptive incidents is monitored by the Disruptive Passengers Working Group, which is made up of representatives from Government, the Civil Aviation Authority, the airline industry, the police and other interested parties.

  School Crossing Wardens
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the(a) contribution to road safety, (b) recruitment, remuneration and retention and (c) extension of responsibilities to include assistance to people with disabilities of school crossing wardens. [150710]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government fully recognise that school crossing patrols provide a valuable service to local communities, making it safe and easier for children, parents and other pedestrians to cross busy roads. However, questions as to where they should be provided and to the terms and conditions of employment of the patrol officers, are a matter for individual local authorities. My Department has made no centralised assessment of such matters.

  Recent amendments to previous legislation, through the Transport Act 2000, have given school crossing patrols wider powers. When in operation, they now have authority to help anyone who seeks their assistance in crossing the road, and not just children on their way to or from school.

  Road Construction (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the stated purpose of the South Coast multi-modal study and the consideration of the construction of bypasses for Hastings. [150875]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Access to Hastings study reported in November 2000 and considered how transport can contribute to regenerating the local economies in Bexhill and Hastings.

  The South Coast multi-modal study is currently out to tender, and aims to investigate congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast between Southampton and Ramsgate. The study is strategic in nature and will take into account the Access to Hastings Final Report and decisions by Ministers.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the system of business rates. [151279]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In September we published our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". It detailed a number of proposals relating to business rates including a supplementary local rate and rate relief for small businesses. The consultation period ended on 8 December. We are now considering the many responses we have received. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the meeting between the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) and leading members of the Town and Country Finance Issues Group concerning the Green Paper on local government finance will take place. [151132]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have no record of a formal request for a meeting from the leading members of Town and Country Finance Issues Group. If I receive such a request I would be happy to consider it.

  Recycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures he has established for auditing the quantities of recyclable material eligible for packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes; and if he will make a statement. [150975]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Only packaging waste handled by accredited reprocessors and exporters is eligible for packaging recovery or packaging export recovery notes. In England and Wales the accreditation is overseen by the Environment Agency, to whom those who are accredited are required to send information regularly on the
  676W
  quantities handled. Accredited reprocessors are subject to an annual inspection at the time of making their application for accreditation. Accredited reprocessors must submit quarterly returns to the Environment Agency and the Agency also makes periodic inspections, some of which are unannounced, to premises to check this information.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of packaging export recovery notes on the use of recyclate by British manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [150974]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: No assessment of this kind has been done to date. However, in the first three quarters of 2000, 93 per cent. of packaging recycled has been recycled in the UK; with the remainder being exported for recycling. Since the packaging regulations came into force, the UK has increased its packaging recovery rate from some 30 per cent. in 1997 to just under 40 per cent. at the end of 1999.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much his Department spent in the last year on raising public consciousness concerning the value of recycling; [151320]

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve public awareness of the cost of waste disposal and the importance of recycling. [151316]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Prime activity to raise public awareness of waste reuse and recycling is taken forward under my Department's "are you doing your bit?" publicity campaign, which aims to persuade people to take action to protect the environment. This campaign, which is receiving funding of £9 million in this financial year covers transport, climate change, waste and water conservation. Approximately 15 per cent. of campaign expenditure is devoted to waste issues. Examples of "are you doing your bit?" waste campaign activity are at www.useitagain.org.uk and www.doingyourbit.org.uk, which I commend to the House.

  In addition, my Department is providing core funding of £3.7 million to the environmental charity ENCAMS (incorporating Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green), who primarily focus their waste promotional activity around a waste theme month in October. Environmental Action Fund grants totalling approximately £415,000 are also being paid to 13 charities in this financial year to support various waste/recycling projects.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the level of recycling in the United Kingdom. [151353]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Waste Strategy 2000 set out targets for doubling the recycling or composting of household waste in three years and nearly tripling it in five years. These targets will be underpinned by statutory performance standards for each local authority under the Best Value regime. It also set a target of reducing the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill by 2005, to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998.
  677W
  We announced in the Spending Review 2000 major extra funding for local authorities and for the new Waste and Resources Action Programme which will operate across all waste streams to foster markets for recycled materials.

  Most recently, my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport consulted on proposals for the next round of lottery finding (the New Opportunities Fund), including a programme to expand community sector waste reuse, recycling and composting.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what incentives his Department plans to introduce to assist in the production of community recycling programmes. [151317]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in his speech of 24 October a further £50 million from the New Opportunities Fund to support community recycling initiatives for up to 700,000 households.

  We will shortly issue guidance to English local authorities on Municipal Waste Management Strategies, which will make it clear that we expect such strategies to include the authorities' plans for partnerships with local community groups.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the contracts that exist between Serco and his Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151337]

  Mr. Hill
  The following are current contracts between Serco and DETR, its executive agencies and major associated public bodies:

  Refuse Collection Service, Canterbury Driving Test Centre;

  Integrated Telesales Facility for DVLA;

  Additional Message Sign Sub-System and Maintenance of Motorway Communication Equipment;

  Midlands Network and Customer Services (West Midlands) Maintenance Contract;

  National Motorway Communications System (NMCS) Software Maintenance;

  Maintenance of Automatic Traffic Counting Equipment for London.

  The following are contracts which have been completed during the last three years:

  Drainage System for A43;

  Maintenance and Operation of Enforcement Equipment for M25;

  Maintenance of Channel Navigation Information System;

  Design, Manufacture and Testing of Computing Sub-Systems;

  Replacement of Radar Tracking Unit at Fairlight Down;

  Managing Agents for HSE Scottish Estates;

  NMCS Maintenance Contract for Dartford River Crossing.

  The information requested in respect of other associated bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Woodfold Hall and Park
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received concerning the planning application relating to Woodfold Hall and Park, Mellor near Blackburn. [151551]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has received representations from eight interested parties since he called-in the three applications relating to Woodfold Hall and Park on 15 December 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [151140]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Norwich, North constituency has benefited from a range of Government initiatives since 2 May 1997 including:

  Capital allocations for housing

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  5.39

  1998–99

  7.93

  1999–2000

  7.76

  2000–01

  9.17

  2001–02

  12.95

  By 2001–02 the resources made available to Norwich city council's housing investment programme will have more than doubled since the Government came to power. In 2001–02 £9.68 million of the allocation is in the form of the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA), paid as revenue, reflecting a shift to providing resources specifically for the cost of works to maintain council housing. It is for the local authority to determine where within its boundaries these resources are invested; it is therefore not possible to give precise amounts used within the Norwich, North constituency.

  Single Regeneration Budget SRB Round 1—Mile Cross, Norwich

  A four-year scheme on a run-down peripheral pre-war council estate aimed to improve the quality of life for tenants through investment in the physical environment and community development, including a renovated community centre and an innovative combined heat and power scheme.

  SRB total £2.245 million, £1.579 million since 1997–98.

  SRB Round 4—Norwich—A Learning City

  This seven year scheme aims to raise the education attainment levels and employability of the people in the five most deprived wards in Norwich, where unemployment is 7.4 per cent. against the Eastern Region average of 4.9 per cent. This includes the Mile Cross and Catton Grove wards in Norwich, North. The emphasis will be on young people with low educational achievement and disadvantaged groups.

  SRB total £1.188 million, £616,000 of which will be spent by March 2002.
  679W
  SRB Round 6—Catton and Fiddlewood

  £250,000 over thee years has been awarded to the Catton and Fiddlewood Partnership to build community capacity and involvement. This will help them to prepare and submit bids for more regeneration in future years.

  SRB total £250,000 for period 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  East of England Development Agency (EEDA)

  A land and property scheme to redevelop an old wartime concrete area in Mile Cross.

  EEDA funding £153,000 since 1997–98.

  Local Government Finance Settlement

  The following figures show the Government grants to Norwich city council and Norfolk county council as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement.

  The information for general grant (Revenue Support Grant, National Non-Domestic Rates and damping grants) is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Norwich city council

  Norfolk county council

  1998–99

  12.467

  341.529

  1999–2000

  12.550

  362.774

  2000–01

  12.833

  380.676

  2001–02

  13.112

  395.21

  These figures have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons possible. There are no readily available figures for 1997–98.

  It is not possible to determine the exact amounts allocated by the two councils to the Norwich, North constituency.

  Local transport plans

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  17.713

  1998–99

  15.521

  1999–2000

  17.752

  2000–01

  29.203

  2001–02

  29.247

  1 These figures are for Norfolk county council's Transport Policies and Programmes allocation

  2 This figure is from Norfolk county council's Provisional Local Transport Plan settlement

  It is not possible to determine exactly how much of these amounts has been spent on Norwich, North constituency. However, the constituency has benefited from Norfolk county council's integrated transport policies.

  HMOs (Licensing System)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement. [151554]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  As we indicated in our Housing Policy Statement, we remain committed to 680W
  introducing a compulsory licensing system for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  London Borough of Camden
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding allocations his Department has made to the London borough of Camden to support those in temporary housing in each year since May 1997. [150977]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: There has been no specific allocation of funding from this Department to support those in temporary housing in the London borough of Camden. It is for local authorities to decide how they should allocate the resources they receive from the Department.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources have been allocated by his Department to the London borough of Camden through regeneration initiatives since May 1997. [150979]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Since 1997 to date, the London borough of Camden has been allocated £58.599 million for regeneration schemes. These resources have been spread over the following five schemes, two of which have been co-ventures with the neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Islington:

  Scheme

  £ million

  Kings Cross

  37.5

  West Euston

  6.5

  All Change at Camden Central

  7.0

  New Commitment to Kilburn (Brent and Camden)

  6.599

  Young People, Drugs and Crime in Gospel Oak (Islington and Camden)

  1.0

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources have been invested by his Department in(a) local authority housing and (b) social housing in the London borough of Camden since May 1997. [150978]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Since May 1997, the London borough of Camden has been allocated a total of £124.937 million to resource local authority social housing. This is broken down into the following areas:

  £ million

  Housing Investment Programme:

  1998–99

  9.271

  1999–2000

  10.169

  2000–01

  32.394

  2001–02

  18.826

  Capital Receipts Initiatives:

  1997–98

  2.658

  1998–99

  8.612

  1999–2000

  9.262

  Capital Challenge, (Gospel Oak scheme):

  1998–99

  2.104

  1999–2000

  3.227

  681W

  £ million

  Estate Action, (Kings Cross scheme):

  1998–99

  5.200

  1999–2000

  1.030

  Major Repairs Allowance:

  2001–02

  22.184

  A259/A3 Bypasses
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the decisions of South East of England Regional Assembly relating to the(a) proposed A259 Hastings bypass and (b) proposed A3 Hindhead bypass; and if he will make a statement. [151331]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The South East of England's Regional Assembly (SEERA) considered the Final Report for the access to Hastings Study, and for the A3 Hindhead Study, at its plenary meeting of 14 February. I will consider the Assembly's formal recommendations on these studies carefully.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines are set by him concerning the minimum distance of telecommunications masts from houses. [151498]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable, their work activities—which would include the installation and operation of their equipment—do not expose people to risks to their health and safety.

  Following publication of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health in May 2000, the Government accepted that, as a precautionary measure, the emissions from mobile phone base stations should meet the more restrictive International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure (as expressed in the EU Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300GHz)). Most base stations already meet the ICNIRP guidelines and all new base stations will do so.

  The Stewart report recommended the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded, to prevent the public from exposure to radiofrequency radiation above the ICNIRP guidelines. These exclusion zones relate to an area directly in front of and at the height of the antenna. The report did not recommend the introduction of a minimum distance between mists and existing development and we have no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish revised PPG Note 8 on telecommunications 682W
  development and the Governments conclusions on proposed changes to part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order. [151293]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analyzing the responses. We intend to announce our conclusions as soon as practically possible.

  Safer Stations Initiative
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the funding, under the Safer Stations Initiative, the Government have made available for passenger safety improvements to(a) Queenstown Road Station, (b) Battersea Park Station, (c) Wandsworth Town Station, (d) Balham Station and (e) Clapham South Station. [151154]

  Mr. Hill
  The Safer Stations Initiative is led by the London borough of Wandsworth. It is aimed at improving the safety, accessibility and environmental quality of railway stations in the borough, in partnership with service providers, passenger representatives and the police. The initiative has received no direct funding from central Government.

  Departmental Policies (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the effects on Battersea constituency of his Department's transport policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151155]

  Mr. Hill
  Specific information about the effects on Battersea constituency is not available. However, since April 1997 my Department has allocated £6.48 million of resources for transport initiatives and schemes to the London borough of Wandsworth under the Local Transport Settlement.

  Responsibility for allocations for the financial year beginning April 2001 onwards now belongs to Transport for London.

  The London borough of Wandsworth has also benefited from Local Transport Settlement allocations to a number of London-wide initiatives, and to two sub-regional partnerships, SWELTRAC and Wandle Valley. Since April 1997 the following amounts have been allocated:

  £ million

  London Cycle Network

  20.5

  London Bus Priority Network

  47.0

  SWELTRAC

  3.6

  Wandle Valley

  1.0

  Green Areas Initiative

  0.6

  Bridge Strengthening

  64.9

  In addition, as part of the Red Route programme a number of road schemes have been carried out in the constituency, including junction improvements, crossings and signing. The franchises for national rail services in the area are currently being replaced with a view to providing a much improved service when the competitions are complete.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria which are to be used in deciding the award of the East Coast main line franchise and their order of priority and relative weighting. [151553]

  Mr. Hill
  In considering proposals for franchise replacement the Instructions and Guidance given to the Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority by the Deputy Prime Minister ask him to give due weight to performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency, the extent to which passengers will be given a greater voice in the level and standard of services and affordability and value for money for the taxpayer. The Authority provides the actual evaluation criteria to prequalified parties for each replacement franchise.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department expects to receive the Strategic Rail Authority's recommendations concerning the awarding of the East Coast main line rail franchise; and what are the reasons for the delay announced on 14 February. [151552]

  Mr. Hill
  On 14 February the Strategic Rail Authority announced a pause in the franchise replacement process for the Inter City East Coast replacement franchise as a result of increased cost estimates for upgrading the East Coast main line provided by Railtrack.

  Prior to that date, the Secretary of State was considering a request from the SRA for a direction, under section 26 of the Railways Act 1993, which would allow it to choose a preferred bidder for this replacement franchise. The SRA has now asked the Secretary of State to delay further consideration of whether to grant such a direction until it has discussed the issue of cost estimates with Railtrack and taken a view on any implications for the replacement process.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 21W, on water meters, if he will publish Ofwat's letter to water companies on water meters and the responses received. [150661]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I understand from the Director General of Water Services that the letters referred to were not only about metering but dealt with a wide range of issues in companies' charges schemes. Some of this information concerning companies' planning, costs and revenues was discussed in confidence and is commercially sensitive. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to publish the correspondence.

  However I have asked the Director General to write to the hon. Member to explain the action taken by Ofwat and he will do so very shortly. A copy of this letter will be placed on public deposit in the Ofwat library.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps 684W
  the Government are taking to encourage car manufacturers to make and sell cars that run on liquid petroleum gas; [151263]

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to help promote the environmental benefits of liquid petroleum gas to the public; [151265]

  (3) what steps the Government are taking to encourage more petrol stations to sell liquid petroleum gas; [151264]

  (4) what grants are available to owners of older car models to convert their cars to run on liquid petroleum gas. [151262]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to promote the wider use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The Powershift programme, funded by my Department and administered by the Energy Saving Trust, provides grants towards the additional cost of vehicles fuelled by LPG. There is a low rate of duty on LPG and other road gas fuels—around 7.5p per litre, compared to 48.82p per litre for premium unleaded petrol and 48.82p per litre for ultra low sulphur diesel. From 1 March 2001, new LPG cars will benefit from a lower rate, under the new Vehicle Excise Duty system.

  The number of LPG refuelling points is growing rapidly. There were around 100 in 1997. There are now around 660 sites in the UK and this number is expected to rise to over 1,000 by the end of this year, thanks to investment from the major fuel suppliers. Many of these new facilities will be on petrol station forecourts. The Government's revised transport planning guidance note (PPG13) will further encourage local authorities to view planning applications for refuelling facilities for cleaner fuels more favourably. This is expected to be published later this year.

  My Department's Ministers and officials have met a range of vehicle manufacturers to discuss the development of the gas vehicle market. The Energy Saving Trust is also in close touch with vehicle manufacturers, encouraging them to introduce production line gas vehicles. I am encouraged to know that several vehicle manufacturers are considering doing so.

  Grants under the Powershift programme focus on new cars (but also those of up to one year old), encouraging manufacturers to develop high quality production line gas vehicles, so as to reduce the cost and lead to the wider use of gas fuelled vehicles. Also, the older a vehicle is, the harder is it to guarantee that a gas conversion will lead to emission reductions.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Public Service Vehicles (Condition of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulation 1981 (No. 257), regulations 28(1)(d)(ii) and 28(1)(f) following the judgment made at Colchester county court on 5 February against Crusader Holidays of Clactonon-Sea (claim C0005266). [151157]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans to amend the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment. Use and Certification) Regulations 1981 as a result of the judgment made at Colchester county court of 5 February. The standards for seat spacing are the minimum
  685W
  requirements that reflect the varied types of operation of buses and coaches. There is nothing to prevent an operator from having a greater space for the seats than that which is set out in the regulations if they so wish.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to seek compensation from the contractors responsible for construction work on the Jubilee Line extension. [151301]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for London Underground Limited (LUL), who let the contracts for Jubilee Line Extension construction. I understand that the majority of Jubilee Line Extension contracts included liquidated damages clauses. There is a rigorous final accounting process during which these clauses are reviewed against the performance of individual contractors to determine whether or not damages apply. LUL manages this process, supported where necessary by high quality legal and technical advisers. If a contractor is deemed to be liable for any part of the total time and cost overrun this is taken into account in final settlement of the relevant contract. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it would not be appropriate to comment on any individual case.

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government funding has been received by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority since 1997; and what it is to be used for. [151125]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has not provided funding to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority since 1997.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to cover the above-inflation element of the teachers' pay award without having(a) to levy additional council tax and (b) reduce other services. [151170]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We took account of all pressures on local education authorities, including teachers' pay, when setting the level of provision in the spending review. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 29 January extra funding of £52 million to help certain local education authorities manage funding changes in 2001–02. Local authorities are responsible for their own decisions on budget priorities and council taxes for 2001–02.

  Secure Environment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what strategy he has for ensuring that all council and housing association tenants have a secure environment; and what funds are being allocated to it. [151533]
  686W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: An important part of the Government's regeneration and neighbourhood renewal strategy is to tackle anti-social behaviour and promote community safety at grass roots level. Neighbourhood Wardens form a key part of the Government's partnership approach to tackling crime and disorder, working with the community, police, local authorities, housing associations and other agencies to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to promote safer and more secure communities.

  My Department and the Home Office have jointly allocated £18.5 million until 2003–04 for the Neighbourhood Warden programme. Some of the wardens will perform a "supercaretaker" role on estates; others will have a patrolling function. Both roles will provide a sense of security and personal contact with residents.

  More widely, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to establish district based crime and disorder reduction partnerships, to develop and implement local strategies for reducing crime and disorder. Each strategy is informed by evidence drawn from an audit of crime and disorder in the locality in consultation with the local community. The recently appointed crime reduction directors in each of the English regions and Wales will be managing the Partnership Development Fund announced as part of the Spending Review 2000 which provides for £3 million in this financial year with a further £20 million in each of the next three financial years. The purpose of the fund is to support the partnership process and to develop improved and more effective ways of working.

  Wind-farm Developments
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many wind-farm developments have been granted permission, but are yet to be built by developers in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) the UK as a whole. [151364]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I understand from information collected by ETSU that, as at December 2000, the following number of wind-farm developments had been granted planning permission but had not commenced construction:

  (a) 4 in Wales

  (b) 11 in England

  (c) 19 in the whole of the UK (the other four being in Scotland).

  Agenda 21 Strategies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets have been set for the implementation of Agenda 21 strategies by local authorities; and how the progress of such strategies is being monitored. [151574]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Prime Minister set a challenge for local authorities to produce a Local Agenda 21 strategy by the end of 2000; over 90 per cent. of English local authorities have met this. Whether a local authority has produced a strategy in line with the Government's guidance will be tested formally via the Best Value performance indicators.
  687W
  Local authorities should now implement their Local Agenda 21 strategies in order to meet the objectives and targets they have set. With the introduction of Community Strategies, local authorities that have produced Local Agenda 21 strategies in line with the Government's guidance should have gone a long way towards developing effective partnership working, a long term vision for the area and the necessary implementation mechanisms, that they will require in preparing their Community Strategies.

  Housing Rents
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require local authorities to limit increases in housing rents during the period they are seeking convergence with registered social landlord rent levels. [151575]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Local authorities are responsible for deciding the level of their rents. We expect all social landlords to ensure that no tenant will be subject to a change in their rent as a result of the combined influence of restructuring and convergence of more than £2 a week in any year above the normal increase for inflation. We intend to use the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy system to encourage restructuring and convergence and discourage excessive rent increases.

  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many do-it-yourself shared ownership schemes have been approved since May 1997. [151183]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The total number of do-it-yourself shared ownership (DIYSO) schemes approved since May 1997 is 4,117.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) representations his Department has received and (b) meetings he and his Department have had with any of the Hinduja brothers since May 1997. [151184]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 222W. My right hon. Friend has had no other meetings with the Hinduja family.

  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions between officials and private individuals or companies.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public funds have been spent in each year since 1997 on consultancy fees in relation to the development, production and evaluation of strategies and action plans for regional development agencies. [151185]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The fees paid to consultants' by the nine Regional Development Agencies are detailed in the table. There were no costs incurred for the period 1997 to 1998 as the Regional Development Agencies were established on 1 April 1999.
  688W

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  59,414

  1999–2000

  1,226,400

  2000–01

  312,250

  Oceans Statute
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with organisations about the World Wide Fund for Nature's proposals for an oceans statute. [150983]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that the WWF, in discussions in the Working Group of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation, have put forward proposals on the need for further legislation to protect the marine environment. This Working Group was established by the Government to review the options for improving the protection available for the marine environment. An interim report is due to be presented to Ministers soon. This will set out a range of options on possible ways forward and highlight where strategic decisions may be necessary.

  Quality Mark Scheme
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made with the Quality Mark scheme; and if he will make a statement. [151886]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In January a number of measures were put in place to encourage builders to join the Quality Mark (QM) pilot scheme in Birmingham and Somerset. Among these were a time limited discount on the joining fee, joint working with several leading trade associations and commercial organisations, to develop ways of helping their members and sub-contractors achieve the QM standard and easier ways of obtaining the mandatory warranty cover. I am pleased to say these efforts are now beginning to pay off and the number of companies in the two pilot areas now wishing to join the QM has increased from around 40 to over 275. I expect more companies to apply to join the QM in the weeks and months ahead.

  Most of these companies should complete the assessment process and attain the QM in the next two-three months. As a result of this, I am able to announce today that subject to satisfactory progress with the assessment process, we shall move to the second stage of the pilot programme by opening the QM to consumers on 22 May. The launch will involve the unveiling of the QM logo and involve a major public information campaign in the pilot areas, co-ordinated with our partners, to alert the public to the QM and the benefits of using QM builders. They will be able to find the names of QM builders and tradesmen through a national call centre of via the Internet.

  Householders in the two pilot areas of Birmingham and Somerset will then be able, through this Government-backed scheme, be able to find a reputable builder to do a good job for a fair price. By using a QM builder they will have the comfort of knowing that the company has been subject to a rigorous and independent inspection, including an on-site inspection of their work, will work to a QM code of good practice and give a free six-year

  689W
  warranty on their work. The opening of the QM scheme to the public in this way is a major step forward in the fight against disreputable builders and fulfils a major commitment by this Government to introduce measures to empower consumers and promote reputable companies.

  After six months there will be a review of how well the scheme has worked to see what lessons can be learned. This will involve all aspects of the scheme, including how easy it is for the public to locate a QM builder. Following further consultation with QM builders, our partners, the industry and consumers a decision will then be made about whether any modifications need to be made to the scheme and how to extend it to the rest of the country.

  Consumers in this country have for too long been at the mercy of disreputable builders and tradesmen. But there are many reputable builders willing and able to do a good job for a fair price. The QM pilot scheme is a first step towards a national scheme to link consumers and reputable builders. I hope that more builders will recognise the benefits of the QM and apply to join now.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responses he has received to his consultation paper on rate relief for farm diversification; and if he will make a statement. [151887]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We received 68 responses to our consultation paper on rate relief for farm diversification, copies of which are available through the Library of the House.

  In the light of our consultation, we are proposing to implement a scheme to allow 50 per cent. rate relief for an initial period for five years to all now small businesses established on property that was previously subject to the agricultural exemption from rates.

  We also intend to implement the proposals in "Modernising Local Government Finance: A Green Paper", published last September, for extending the rate relief scheme for village shops to provide mandatory relief to certain food shops, pubs and petrol filling stations.

  Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. They are a significant contribution to realising the vision set out in the White Paper, "Our countryside: the future".

  Pollution
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Framework Document of his Department and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will be published. [152059]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is a non-departmental public body which gives advice on dangers to the environment and priorities for environmental policies.

  A key recommendation of the recent five-year Financial Management and Policy Review (FMPR) of the Royal Commission, which Ministers endorsed, was the preparation of a Framework Document to bring greater clarity to the Commission's relationship with
  690W
  the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and to reinforce the Commission's drive towards improved effectiveness.

  I am pleased to announce today the publication of a 'Framework Document' which sets out the respective roles and responsibilities of DETR, as sponsor Department, and the Commission, including provisions for more effective forward planning and performance review. It is available on my Department's website www.detr.gov.uk and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what matters she has recently discussed in the British-Irish Council; and if she will make a statement. [149964]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 221W.

  The Council had been due to meet in Dublin on 23 January. Many of those who would be expected to attend the Council meeting were involved in continuing political discussions on implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The meeting was therefore postponed to allow more time for these discussions, as was the successor date of 5 February. It is hoped that a summit level meeting can be held as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will announce new appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [151859]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Sir Nigel Wicks GCB CVO CBE as the new Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in succession to Lord Neill of Bladen QC with effect from 1 March 2001.

  In addition, I have appointed two new members to the Committee: Rabbi Julia Neuberger and Rita Donaghy OBE. They are appointed in succession to Sir William Utting and Sir Clifford Boulton. All three appointments are for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal. All three appointments were made fully in line with the Guidance of the Commissioner on Public Appointments.

  I am very grateful to Lord Neill, Sir William and Sir Clifford for their work on the Committee and for the significant contribution they have made to standards in public life.

  Engagements
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 February. [150004]
  691W
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

  Students
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason he has not corrected, in line with Chapter I (iii) of the Ministerial Code, the inaccurate answer, concerning the number of extra students in further and higher education since the Government came into office, recorded on 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 1178. [151171]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Lifelong Learning to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). In addition, I have written to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and have placed a copy in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Youth Activities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what strategies he is pursuing to encourage young people into activities which are considered alternatives to crime. [149950]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There has, for many years in Northern Ireland, been a wide range of initiatives at local level directed towards encouraging young people into more constructive activity. Most of these initiatives, however, now fall within the responsibility of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.

  The Community Affairs Branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in partnership with other bodies, carry out work with young people, who either have committed crime or are deemed at risk of offending, aimed at diverting them away from criminal activity.

  Security Normalisation
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to create a normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [149951]

  Dr. Reid
  Normalisation of the security environment depends on the prevailing threat.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 on the normalisation of security in Northern Ireland. [149954]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act will assist normal policing by enabling the police service to operate more effectively and in partnership with the community.

  That is what the people of Northern Ireland, including the police, want.
  692W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards the normalisation of security measures in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to border areas. [149955]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston).

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [149959]

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [149970]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave earlier to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson),Official Report, columns 892–93.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent international support for developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [149952]

  Dr. Reid
  There continues to be widespread international support for our attempts to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of a stable economy on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [149956]

  Dr. Reid
  The strength and stability of the Northern Ireland economy in recent years has been an important factor in creating the right conditions for advancing the peace process. Political progress has in turn had a positive effect on the economy, bringing tangible benefits to everyone and so helping to encourage support for further progress.

  Mr. Andy king
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [149963]

  Dr. Reid
  We are continuing to make progress on the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. We still have some way to go, but there is a desire from all quarters to move forward. The Assembly is functioning smoothly and the Programme for Government has been well received, as has the budget announced by the Finance Minister, Mark Durkan.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. [149957]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson),Official Report, columns 892–93.
  693W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) bombings, (b) shootings and (c) physical assaults relating to paramilitary activities have taken place in Northern Ireland this year. [149965]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables provide the information requested:

  Security situation statistics: Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks, 1 January 2001 to 25 February 2001

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Assaults

  20

  12

  Shootings

  13

  9

  Security situation statistics: Bombing and shooting

  Number

  Bombing incidents

  60

  Shooting incidents

  39

  Notes:

  1. The following types of shooting incident are included:

  shots fired by terrorists;

  shots fired by the security forces;

  paramilitary style attacks involving shootings;

  shots heard (and later confirmed); and

  other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robbery).

  2. An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusing. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the impact on morale of the level of recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [149958]

  Mr. Ingram
  There has been no recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary since 1 April 2000. It is therefore not possible to make any assessment on the impact this has had on morale within the force. On a wider front, however, the RUC is subject to major change resulting from the Patten Report and, like any other organisation, there is understandable concern among officers until changes are properly implemented and bedded in. Strenuous efforts are being made by force command to ensure all employees are fully informed at each stage of the process.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his timetable for implementing the reform of the RUC. [149975]

  Mr. Ingram
  A revised Implementation Plan setting out the position of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, which includes details of the considerable progress already made, will be published shortly.

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent developments have been made towards decommissioning; and if he will make a statement. [149960]
  694W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning. [149967]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decommissioning remains an essential part of securing the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The Government continue to work together with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland to achieve what we all want—the removal of the gun from Northern Ireland politics for good.

  Mr. Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [149968]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [149971]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari have reported that they have completed their second inspection of several IRA arms dumps. It represents further progress and an honouring of commitments given at the beginning of May. I am confident the inspectors will report any further progress that has been made when they deem it appropriate to do so.

  Further progress still needs to be made by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries to meet their commitments to bring a lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

  Efforts are still continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible.

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in offering proper recognition to the families of members of the police service who have been victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [149962]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 9 November the Government, in welcoming the proposals made by John Steele for a new Police Fund Trust, said that they would establish the trust by April and make lump sum payments to the widows of those killed by terrorists before 25 November 1982 by then too.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on establishing a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Robert Hamill. [149966]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Office of the Police Ombudsman is currently supervising on-going investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Hamill.

  While the Government do not rule out an inquiry in the future any decision taken now to initiate such a process would lead to a serious risk that any subsequent or contemporaneous prosecution could be compromised.

  Sectarian Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. [149969]

  Mr. Ingram
  The security forces are continuing to thwart sectarian attacks. Additional police patrols are being deployed in many areas including Larne, Belfast and Coleraine. The military are acting in support of the police where appropriate. Recent successes include the discovery this month, of what are believed to be a number of loyalist pipe bomb making facilities in Larne, Belfast and Newtownabbey. A number of people have been charged as a result of these operations and other individuals are being sought.

  I am confident that the police are doing all that they can to prevent these attacks and to bring those responsible to justice.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the RUC regarding additional policing within estates which have been subjected to gun, petrol or pipe-bomb attack in recent months. [149974]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State discusses a broad range of issues with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on a regular basis. He is confident that the Chief Constable is taking all possible measures to tackle incidents of violent crime in the Province.

  There has been an increase in the police patrolling profile in those areas subject to attacks of the nature described in the question. Both overt and covert police operations have increased. In addition, Mobile Support Units and military resources have also been deployed where this has been deemed necessary. The situation is kept under constant review.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [149972]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King),Official Report, column 692W.

  Policing Reforms
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the implementation of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. [149976]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are engaged in frequent dialogue with a range of individuals and bodies on the implementation of the Police Act as well as those changes recommended by the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland (Patten) which do not require legislation. On the Act specifically, some provisions came into force on Royal Assent, others, such as the Police Ombudsman sections, were commenced in December. We are now preparing a further Commencement Order.
  696W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on delivering reforms in policing in Northern Ireland. [149961]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government and the police have made significant progress in a number of areas. These include the enactment of the Police (NI) Act 2000; the appointment of an Oversight Commissioner; publication of an Implementation Plan, detailing the Government's response on all 175 recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Policing (Patten); establishment of the Police Ombudsman's Office; appointment of a recruitment agency; launch of recruitment advertising; and closure of two of the three holding centres.

  Drug Crime
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the criminal activity involving illegal drugs in Northern Ireland. [149977]

  Mr. Ingram
  The drugs scene in Northern Ireland is composed of a network of importers, distributors, street level dealers and users. Paramilitary organisations are involved to differing degrees both in the procurement and supply of controlled drugs. The extent to which these groups are involved is cloudy and may be on an individual member basis rather than sanctioned by the respective leadership of these groups.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary continues, with other organisations, to combat drug related crime within the resources available to it.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Information
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will(a) list the circulars, advice and guidelines that have been issued to local Benefits Agency offices in respect of each benefit since May 1997 and (b) place copies in the Library; [148493]

  (2) if he will list the adjudication and operations circulars and guidelines that have been issued to local Benefits Agency offices since May 1997 and place copies of these in the Library. [151452]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency issues guidance to its local offices on decision-making (formerly adjudication) on benefits for which it is responsible. The Agency also issues a wide range of material providing technical support to staff and guidance on operational issues affecting the day-to-day administration of benefits.

  Since May 1997, the Agency has issued 232 items of adjudication and decision-making guidance. Copies of this guidance are held in the Library.

  It is impractical to list or place copies in the Library of all items of technical support and operational guidance that have been issued because of the range and diversity of the material. However, if the hon. Member can indicate particular areas of interest, documents can be listed or obtained in line with Open Government principles.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the table, using the latest statistical information his Department has, stating sources in each case, published on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 96W. [150877]

  The estimated number of households in receipt of Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance (income related), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in 2000–01

  Thousand

  Income Support/ Jobseeker's Allowance (income related)

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Single (no children)

  2,610

  2,200

  2,640

  Couple (no children)

  450

  690

  1,080

  Lone parent (one child)

  510

  450

  450

  Lone parent (two children)

  320

  310

  310

  Lone parent (three or more children)

  230

  210

  210

  Couple (one child)

  120

  130

  140

  Couple (two children)

  150

  150

  160

  Couple (three or more children)

  170

  150

  160

  Total benefit units with at least one person receiving benefit

  4,560

  4,300

  5,160

  Total number of adults in benefit units where at least one person receiving benefit

  5,440

  5,420

  6,700

  Total number of children in benefit units where at least one person receiving benefit

  2,960

  2,800

  2,860

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and totals may not sum due to rounding. Households may be in receipt of more than one of the benefits shown. Consequently, the sum of the totals will not represent an overall estimate for adults and children on income-related benefits.

  2. The Income Support column of the original table also included Jobseeker's Allowance recipients, and has been updated accordingly.

  3. Figures are derived from the Department policy simulation model, and are based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey uprated to 2000–01 prices, benefit levels and caseloads. Actual data are not available for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit beyond May 1999.

  4. Total numbers in receipt of the above benefits are consistent with the Department's 2000 post budget forecasts.

  5. The total number of adults represents those aged 16 and over, except for those 16 to 18 year olds in full time education. The total number of children represents those aged under 16, and 16 to 18 year olds in full time education.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of single pensioners with gross weekly incomes of between (i) £78 and £134, and (ii) £122 and £134; and if he will estimate the (1) number and (2) percentage of pensioner couples with gross weekly incomes of between (A) £124 and £200 and (B) £188 and £200. [151137]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Gross income between:

  Number

  Percentage

  Single pensioners with gross income falling in selected bands—1998–99

  £78 and £134

  1,960,000

  44

  £122 and £134

  490,000

  11

  Pensioners couples with gross income falling in selected bands—1998–99

  £124 and £200

  1,080,000

  27

  £188 and £200

  170,000

  4

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 or 1 per cent. but are not necessarily accurate to that degree since they are subject to sampling error.

  2. Gross weekly income includes benefit income and is a July 1998 prices.

  3. Single pensioners are defined as anyone aged over 60.

  4. Pensioner couples are defined as married or cohabiting couples where either partner is aged over 60.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99
  698W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The table gives uprated estimates for the Social Security benefits included in the previous table. Working Families Tax Credit is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Child Poverty (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the child poverty levels in the Jarrow constituency were in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [151006]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of children's lives—their families' income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is no single measure that can capture the complex problems that need to be overcome.

  However, a number of these aspects have seen significant improvement in Jarrow since 1997. For example, the proportion of 11-year-olds achieving level four or above at Key Stage 2 has risen in both english and mathematics from around 60 per cent. to over 70 per cent. in 2000. Over the same period the number of children in families in receipt of out of work benefits has fallen from 4,900 to 4,500.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the heating allowance paid to pensioners on Income Support to those pensioners who have small private or occupational pensions. [151186]

  Mr. Rooker
  Winter Fuel Payments, this winter £200 for eligible households, are not means-tested and are paid to the majority of people from age 60. People eligible
  699W
  for a payment and who might be in receipt of a small private or occupational pension would already be included in the scheme.

  Cold Weather Payments are paid to people who are in receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and get either a disability or pensioner premium or have a child under five. A payment of £8.50 is made automatically when the average temperature at the specified weather station linked to their postcode has been recorded as, or is forecast to be, 0°C or below over seven consecutive days. There are no plans to extend this scheme.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the Benefits Agency's role is in promoting benefits take-up. [151365]

  Angela Eagle
  We are keen to ensure that people are in an informed position to make choices on whether to claim benefit and we are the first Government to encourage the active pursuit of take-up initiatives as a means of tackling pensioner poverty. The Benefits Agency was instrumental in running the national take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee. Additionally, it is involved in a wide range of national and local initiatives to ensure accurate and accessible information is available, including leaflets, information officers, liaison with local groups, and talks.

  Adjudication and Operations Circulars
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason he has released a Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Adjudication and Operations Circular numbered F00. [151450]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no record of issuing a circular numbered F00.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the general and compensation levies payable under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 by occupational and personal pension schemes. [151891]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the General Levy rates for 2001–02 will be frozen at the 2000–01 level as set out in the table. We have been able to do this as a result of good housekeeping by Opra and buoyant levy receipts. Opra's costs will increase due to new responsibilities for Stakeholder and Personal pensions but will be met from existing levy rates.

  Furthermore I am pleased to announce that it will not be necessary to raise a Compensation Levy in 2001–02.

  The General Levy covers the costs of the bodies that safeguard the rights of pension scheme members or provide them with help, advice and information. These bodies are the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra), the Pensions Ombudsman, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Pension Schemes Registry.
  700W
  The Compensation Levy covers the cost of expenditure by the Pensions Compensation Board.

  Compensation can be paid up to a limit set out in legislation to occupational schemes of insolvent employers who have suffered a reduction in their assets through dishonesty such as theft or fraud.

  Scheme rates

  Scheme size

  Basis

  2000–01 (£)

  2001–021 (£)

  Minimum payment per scheme (£)

  Occupational pensions

  2 to 11

  Scheme

  12.00

  12.00

  —

  12 to 99

  Member

  1.25

  1.25

  —

  100 to 999

  Member

  0.90

  0.90

  125

  1,000 to 4,999

  Member

  0.70

  0.70

  900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Member

  0.53

  0.53

  3,500

  10,000+

  Member

  0.37

  0.37

  5,300

  Personal pensions

  2 to 11

  Scheme

  5.20

  5.20

  —

  12 to 99

  Member

  0.50

  0.50

  —

  100 to 999

  Member

  0.35

  0.35

  50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Member

  0.30

  0.30

  350

  5,000 to 9,999

  Member

  0.20

  0.20

  1,500

  10,000+

  Member

  0.15

  0.15

  2,000

  1 No change

  Note:

  Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those in the higher bands.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montserrat
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what future levels of development assistance her Department intends to provide to Montserrat. [151895]

  Clare Short
  We have informed the Government of Montserrat (GoM) that approximate future levels of assistance will be as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  24.4

  2002–03

  17.0

  2003–04

  13.6

  2004–05

  9.5

  2005–06

  7.5

  These amounts include both budgetary aid and development assistance. The 2001–02 figure is firm, subject to parliamentary approval. Figures for subsequent years are for planning purposes and are subject to the normal processes of resource allocation and review in the light of changing circumstances.

  By the end of March 2001, DFID will have provided over £135 million to Montserrat since the onset of volcanic activity in 1995. A substantial amount of work has been completed during this period, with much of the essential economic and social infrastructure now in place in the previously under-developed north of the island.
  701W
  DFID's assistance to Montserrat in the next five years will focus on building the capacity of GoM to deliver effective and efficient public services, with a reduced requirement for significant external budgetary assistance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mercenaries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 351W, on mercenaries, what the target date is for the completion and publication of a Green Paper on options for regulation of mercenaries. [150385]

  Mr. Battle
  As I said in my written answer on 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 351W, work is continuing on the preparation of the Green Paper outlining options for the regulation of mercenaries and private military companies. This is a complex issue and it is important to work carefully through the details.

  UK Citizens (Overseas Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of(a) men and (b) women from the United Kingdom who are detained in prisons overseas. [151014]

  Mr. Wilson
  At the end of January 2001 we were aware of 2,827 British men and 423 British women detained in prisons overseas.

  Brazil
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Brazilian counterpart concerning the issue of bonded labour. [151182]

  Mr. Battle
  Bonded labour is a serious problem in some parts of Brazil, particularly remote rural areas where there are many poor and unemployed people who are easily exploited by unscrupulous employers.

  The British Embassy in Brasilia monitors closely the human rights situation in Brazil and is in regular contact with the Brazilian authorities on all aspects of human rights, including bonded labour. Officials last raised our concerns about bonded labour in Brazil at the human rights talks held between the FCO and the Brazilian Government in December 2000.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [151344]

  Mr. Wilson
  Neither the FCO, nor its executive agency or associated public bodies have existing contracts with Serco. Within the last three years, the BBC World Service has contracted with Serco for internet consultancy services at a total cost of £25,971.03 plus VAT.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the outcome of the First Stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils will be announced; and what the principal recommendations are for the future governance and organisation of CCLRC. [151890]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today able to announce the outcome of the First Stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Resarch Councils.

  Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are a key part of our programme to modernise Government. The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. Regular NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving future performance.

  The Terms of Reference for the Review required the First Stage to examine the role, composition and funding mechanisms for CCLRC, by reference to its Charter and mission, its past performance, recent CCLRC instigated studies on future vision and funding, current best practice for NDPBs and its contribution to the work of other Research Councils. The Review was further required to consider all relevant options for the future of the Council, including abolition, continued NDPB status, rationalisation, privatisation or strategic contracting out.

  The Review has been conducted in accordance with the lastest Cabinet Office guidance (published on 31 January 2000) and has included consultation with members of Council, the Executive and CCLRC's customers and key stakeholders. The Review Boad, chaired by Sir Peter Williams, met on six occasions, including visits to the Rutherford Appleton and Daresbury laboratories.

  The principal recommendation is that the relationship of the Research Councils and CCLRC as customer and supplier has proved to be sub-optimal and should be changed to a Strategic Ownership model, in which CCLRC is brought under the joint ownership of the grant awarding Research Councils. To facilite this change, CCLRC should be reconstituted, as soon as practicable, as a Limited Company, to provide a similar governance structure to existing Research Council Institutes.

  This model ensures a clear commitment by the Research Councils to meet the planned funding needs of CCLRC based on scrutiny of strategic and operating plans, and should provide efficiency savings. Within this framework, CCLRC should seek to fulfil a more strategic role in the provision of access to leading edge, large-scale facilities for UK researchers. Investment in new facilities should be based on long-term requirements agreed by all the different research communities.

  Stage Two of the Review will now examine the issues associated with the implementation of the Strategic Ownership model, addressing in particular the implications

  703W
  for the status of CCLRC and its accountability to Ministers and Parliament. Stage Two will also examine how the strategic role can be implemented, such that it is not compromised by CCLRC's role as a facilities operator.

  I warmly welcome these recommendations and offer my thanks to Sir Peter Williams and the rest of the Review Board.

  British Aerospace - GEC Marconi
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as Secretary of State for Trade Industry, and his officials had with representatives of British Aerospace and GEC Marconi to discuss(a) their joint sponsorship of the Mind Zone at the Millennium Dome and (b) their merger. [149477]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The commitment to support the Millennium Dome by British Aerospace and GEC Marconi was announced by the previous Administration in 1996. The offer by the companies jointly to sponsor the Dome's Mind Zone was announced on 26 November 1998.

  I am advised that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) nor his officials had meetings with the companies to discuss their sponsorship of the Dome.

  As the Prime Minister had made clear since his statement with the French and German Heads of Government in December 1997, there was an urgent need to restructure the aerospace and defence industries in Europe to compete in world markets. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and his officials discussed this issue at a number of meetings with representatives of British Aerospace and GEC during 1998.

  The Government's position was at all times that it was for industry itself, not the Government, to make specific proposals for restructuring. Any resulting merger would be considered on its own merits by the relevant competition authorities.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if(a) the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), (b) officials at his Department and (c) representatives of British Aerospace and GEC Marconi, informed him of the joint sponsorship by British Aerospace and GEC Marconi of the Mind Zone at the Millennium Dome before he approved the merger of the two companies. [149478]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: (a) No; (b) No; (c) No.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons he turned down the advice of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading when reaching a decision on the merger of British Aerospace and GEC Marconi. [149481]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The Boards of British Aerospace and GEC announced on 19 January 1999 that they had reached agreement on the principal terms of a proposed reconstruction under which Marconi Electronic Systems would be separated from GEC and merged with British Aerospace.
  704W
  The civil aspects of the proposed merger were cleared by the European Commission on 25 June 1999. I considered the military aspects of the proposed merger under the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. The reasons for my decision to seek and subsequently to accept from BAE Systems undertakings in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission are set out in my announcements of 9 September 1999 and 28 March 2000.

  Science Funding (North-west)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 652W, if he is in a position to report on the recommendations of the North-West Science and Daresbury Development group. [151284]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met with the North-West Science and Daresbury Development Group on 31 January to discuss their report. As a result of the meeting the Group submitted supplementary information concerning their recommendations on 16 February for his consideration. He hopes to be able to respond around the end of February.

  Credit Company Blacklists
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to investigate credit companies' power to blacklist individuals. [150852]

  Dr. Howells
  I do not have any current plans to investigate such companies. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to review and advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about developments in the UK credit market. If he makes any recommendations, I will study them carefully.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151144]

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

  My hon. Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Norfolk, will have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include the National Minimum Wage, Working Time Directive, Part Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave.

  In a ddition, the wards of Catton Grove, Coslany, Crome, Mile Cross and Mousehold are eligible for the Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  In the East of England region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 62,000 and a fall in unemployment by 45,539; reductions in youth employment (under 24) by 46 per cent. and long-term unemployment (over 26 weeks) by 65 per cent.
  705W
  In the constituency of Norwich, North there has been a drop in unemployment by 2.7 per cent. (964 people), a reduction in youth unemployment (under 24) by 46 per cent, in line with the region as a whole and a reduction in long term unemployment (over 26 weeks) by 44 per cent.

  Postal Services Act
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has laid the draft order defining turnover for the purposes of the 10 per cent. limit on financial penalties as required by section 30 of the Postal Services Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [151888]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today laid a draft order defining turnover for the purposes of section 30 of the Postal Services Act 2000. A consultation document on this draft order was published on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk on 19 December. The consultation came to an end on 31 January. The Department is grateful to those who responded. The policy behind the draft order has not altered but a number of minor changes have been made. The reference to "enforcement action" has been removed as it was deemed to be unnecessary. Some minor changes to annualisation in the first year have been made to minimise unfairness. Finally, the multi-year calculation has been simplified so that whole years are used rather than fractions of years. Subject to the approval of both Houses, the draft order will enable the Postal Services Commission to impose appropriate financial penalties in support of its enforcement of the new postal licensing regime.

  Strategic Arms Exports Bill
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the content and timetabling of the forthcoming draft bill on strategic arms exports; and what discussions he has had with non-governmental organisations. [150970]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Full details of the Government's proposals for new export control legislation will be set out when the draft Export Control Bill is published. It is not possible at this stage to give a precise date but we hope to be in a position to publish the Bill within the next few months.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of non-governmental organisations last November to discuss issues relating to the proposed Export Control Bill, including the Government's proposals for new controls on arms trafficking and brokering. Ministers and officials have also held other meetings with NGOs to discuss these issues.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if monitoring of the end-use of UK arms will be covered in the forthcoming draft legislation on strategic arms exports. [150971]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Government have already taken steps to minimise the risk of UK arms exports being diverted from the stated end-use or end-user. These include new measures to strengthen the process of risk assessment at the export
  706W
  licensing stage. We also regularly seek additional details of proposed end-use and end-users, including through our overseas posts.

  UKAEA
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Quinquennial Review of the UKAEA. [151889]

  Mr. Hain
  In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the review is being carried out in two stages. I am now in a position to make an announcement about the outcome of Stage 1 and the basis on which work will be taken forward.

  The review team recognises the progress which UKAEA has made since 1996 and commends its performance and commitment to improvement across the full range of its activities. However, it identifies a number of options for organisational change and raises fundamental issues relating to UKAEA's primary role in managing nuclear liabilities on behalf of the taxpayer and restoring the environment at the sites for which it is responsible over the next 60 years—for example about funding arrangements, the regulatory framework and the way in which it operates, waste management and the long-term availability of relevant knowledge and skills.

  The Government consider it essential that nuclear liabilities should be dealt with safely, cost effectively and in a way which inspires public confidence. Significant challenges are involved and there is an absolute requirement that the public should have confidence in the arrangements in place for dealing with them. The ideas and issues raised by the review team will therefore be explored further with a view to establishing whether there is a case for changing present management arrangements. The review team will also consider what action might be taken to attract more companies into the nuclear decommissioning market and to promote competition for decommissioning contracts let by UKAEA.

  As regards other UKAEA activities, Stage 2 of the review will focus on testing options for:
  accelerating the commercial re-development of UKAEA's Harwell and Winfrith sites through partnership arrangements with the private sector and for further improving UKAEA's performance in property management;
  the future management of the fusion programme at Culham;
  the future organisation of the UKAEA Constabulary;
  further improving administration of the UKAEA pension schemes, which will continue to be run from Thurso for the foreseeable future, and for securing additional work for the Thurso pensions office.

  This represents a considerable work programme which will take some time to complete. Given the importance of these issues, it is essential that the correct conclusions are arrived at. UKAEA staff, Trade Unions and other interested parties will have the opportunity to contribute views as the work proceeds.

  I will make a further announcement once the Stage 2 work has been completed and decisions have been taken on the review team's recommendations.

  Enterprise and Investment
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the
  707W
  Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the number of (a) business start ups and (b) amount of inward investment in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [151047]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no official discussions with the Minister for Enterprise in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Minister and officials are, however, in regular contact with colleagues in each of the devolved Administrations.

  The main source of business start up information is VAT registration data. Not all businesses are VAT registered, however, in particular, if they do not have a turnover above £52,000 per annum. Taking this into account, for 1998 and 1999 the number of such start-ups with a turnover of more than £52,000 per annum in Northern Ireland is 3,685 and 3,565 respectively. Such information is not readily available by parliamentary constituency.

  Ministerial Visits (Peterborough)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough Unitary Authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151034]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minster for Trade, visited the Peterborough constituency on 24 February 2000 when he met the local hon. Member. On 25 January 2001 he visited the North-East Cambridge constituency but did not meet the local hon. Member.

  Company Relocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to encourage major companies to locate their sites in the North West Region. [150630]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government established the Northwest Development Agency in April 1999. It has a clear objective to attract investment and encourage major companies to locate in the region.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions were attached to the grant of £250 million to Rolls-Royce. [151149]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government's investment of £250 million in Rolls-Royce is not a grant, but is a repayable investment which is expected to secure a substantial real rate of return for the taxpayer as well as securing wider economic benefits for the UK.

  The conditions of the investment are commercially confidential under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Testing (Immigration Detainees)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make to the random mandatory drug-tasting programme for immigration detainees. [151893]

  Mr. Boateng
  Immigration detainees rarely test positive for drugs. As a result from 1 April 2001 detainees held at Her Majesty's Prison Haslar and within discrete units at Her Majesty's Prisons Lindholme and Rochester will no longer be subject to the random mandatory drug-testing programme. Other security measures to prevent the smuggling and misuse of drugs will remain unchanged. These new arrangements will not apply to detainees dispersed more widely across the prison estate and who therefore have regular contact with prisoners. The policy will be reviewed at three and six-month intervals to ensure that the low level of drug abuse in these establishments continues.

  Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on the preparation of guidance on the conduct of regulatory toxicology and safety evaluation studies; and if he will make a statement. [151892]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have today published guidance on the conduct of regulatory toxicology and safety evaluation studies and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The guidance has been prepared by the Home Office working with the British Toxicology Society, the British Society of Toxicological Pathologists and the Department of Health and takes account of consultation with the scientific community and animal welfare and animal protection groups.

  Copies of the guidance will be issued shortly to all establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and it will also be available on the Home Office website.

  The guidance will not impact significantly on the numbers of animals used, but will ensure that all possible refinement strategies are considered in the design of these studies.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional terrorist organisations he intends to proscribe, following the coming into force of the Terrorism Act 2000. [151894]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid a draft Order, under section 123(4)(a) of the Terrorism Act, recommending to Parliament that the following organisations be added to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Act:

  Al-Qa'ida

  Egyptian Islamic Jihad

  Al-Gama'at al-Islamiya

  Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armé) (GIA)

  709W

  Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat) (GSPC)

  Babbar Khalsa

  International Sikh Youth Federation

  Harakat Mujahideen

  Jaish e Mohammed

  Lashkar e Tayyaba

  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

  Hizballah External Security Organisation

  Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades

  Palestinian Islamic Jihad—Shaqaqi

  Abu Nidal Organisation

  Islamic Army of Aden

  Mujaheddin e Khalq

  Kurdistan Workers' Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan) (PKK)

  Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party—Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi—Cephesi) (DHKP-C)

  Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi to Askatasuna) (ETA)

  17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)

  Under section 3(3)(a) of the Act, I may by order add an organisation to schedule 2, where I believe that it is concerned in terrorism, as defined in section 1 of the Act. I am entirely satisfied that the organisations named above are "concerned in terrorism" as set out in section 3(5) of the Act, and have, after careful consideration, decided to exercise my discretion to proscribe them. The draft Order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There will therefore be a debate in both Houses on my recommendations. If approved by Parliament, the proscriptions will take effect on the day after I sign the Order. To assist consideration by both Houses, I have placed in the Libraries, the Vote Office, and the Printed Paper Office copies of a Note setting out a brief summary in respect of each organisation named in the draft Order.

  The Act provides for an appeal process. After the Order comes into force, it will be open for any of the organisations so proscribed, or any person affected by their proscription, to make application to me for deproscription. If that application is refused, the Act provides for an appeal to a new independent tribunal, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, established by the Terrorism Act.

  Reconviction Rates
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has undertaken into the relationship between the prison where a sentence is served and the incidence of the individual concerned being convicted of a crime once he or she has served the original sentence. [151537]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest research into reconviction rates following discharge from prison was published in chapter 9 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 1999, Cm 4805, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Since a prisoner can move between a number of prisons during his or her sentence, from the data centrally held it is not possible to establish a relationship between the prison establishments where an inmate served any part of their sentence and convictions once the original sentence has been served.

  Volunteers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the numbers of paid staff needed to train and support volunteers as part of the Government's plan to increase volunteering. [151181]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government place a great deal of importance on the training and support provided to volunteers, whether this is provided by paid staff or by unpaid volunteer managers.

  A major package to encourage more people to get involved in their communities was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 January. The £300 million package almost doubles the Government's commitment to the voluntary sector and will help, among other things, to develop the infrastructure of the voluntary sector, to assist community groups in deprived areas, and to fund a new National Experience Corps making use of the talents of the over-50s.

  Some of this money will be used in support of paid staff who will be funded by Government through grant aid to volunteering and community organisations in support of volunteering objectives. However, there is no ready source of information on the number of paid staff who are currently, or who will in the future be, supported in this way.

  CM (M693939)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made in the case of CM (M693939); and for what reason there have been delays in processing the case since 26 October 2000. [150694]

  Mrs. Roche
  As HIV/AIDS cases involve careful consideration due to their compassionate nature, I am unable to give a definitive date for completion of this application.

  Due to the fact that guidelines in dealing with HIV/AIDS cases have until recently been under review, there has been a delay in the handling of such applications. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not made aware of such a likely delay in the handling of this application in the reply he received.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to change conditions of eligibility for asylum seekers to apply for maternity provision; [150967]

  (2) in which languages advice for asylum seekers making an application for maternity benefits is published; [150963]

  (3) what plans he has to change the provision afforded to asylum seekers who apply for maternity grants; [150966]

  (4) what assistance is afforded to asylum seekers wishing to make an application for maternity benefits. [150962]
  711W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: In line with the maternity grant paid from the social fund to those on low incomes, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) on 13 November 2000 introduced a maternity payment for eligible asylum seekers. The mother or father completes an application form within the time scale to qualify. The voluntary sector one-stop shops will assist asylum seekers to complete the maternity payment application form if required.

  There are no plans to change the conditions of eligibility. We consider that the NASS application time scale is reasonable. This allows asylum seekers to apply for the maternity payment between one month before the estimated date of delivery and two weeks after the birth. Additionally, a payment may be made if a child was born outside the United Kingdom to a person who, on application, qualifies for NASS support and the child is three months of age or less.

  Written advice on applications for the maternity payment is available from the NASS in English. The voluntary sector one-stop shops are funded by the Home Office to provide relevant advice in other languages to asylum seekers if required.

  There are no plans at present to change the NASS maternity provision. However, the Government are currently reviewing the operation of the NASS voucher scheme. If serious problems are found they will be properly addressed.

  Immigration Controls (Eurostar)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to his plan to introduce juxtaposed entry controls at Eurostar terminals, when the first immigration officers will be stationed in France; if the scheme requires new manpower for the Immigration Service Ports Directorate; from which areas officers will be redeployed to staff the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [151211]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: We intend to introduce juxtaposed entry controls on Eurostar trains arriving from Paris, Lille and Calais-Frethun as soon as legislation will allow. The timing of the deployment of United Kingdom immigration officers will depend upon ratification by the French Parliament of the Additional Protocol to the Sangatte Protocol governing the control of international traffic through the Channel Tunnel. We understand this will now take place in early summer 2001.

  The United Kingdom Immigration Service proposes to staff juxtaposed controls from within its agreed staffing allocations for 2001–2002. It will have 1,000 more operational staff, (Assistant Immigration Officers, Immigration Officers and Chief Immigration Officers) in post in May this year than it did in April 2000. Waterloo will provide the immigration officers to operate the juxtaposed controls at Paris and Lille. Controls at Calais-Frethun will be conducted by staff deployed at the Channel Tunnel site at Coquelles. We do not intend to use staff from other areas of the Home Office.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much families have benefited from the Working Families Tax Credit, by parliamentary constituency, in Northern Ireland, broken down by gender of claimant. [151002]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table provides estimates of the number of recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) in each constituency at the end of August 2000, based on the postcodes as captured from the application forms.

  Recipients of WFTC in each Northern Ireland constituency August 2000

  Gender of applicant

  Female

  Male

  All

  Belfast, East

  1.4

  0.2

  1.5

  Belfast, North

  2.2

  0.2

  2.4

  Belfast, South

  1.1

  0.1

  1.2

  Belfast, West

  2.6

  0.2

  2.9

  East Antrim

  1.6

  0.2

  1.8

  East Londonderry

  2.0

  0.3

  2.3

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  1.9

  0.3

  2.3

  Foyle

  2.4

  0.4

  2.8

  Lagan Valley

  1.5

  0.2

  1.7

  Mid-Ulster

  1.9

  0.3

  2.2

  Newry and Armagh

  2.2

  0.3

  2.5

  North Antrim

  2.0

  0.3

  2.4

  North Down

  1.2

  0.2

  1.4

  South Antrim

  1.9

  0.3

  2.1

  South Down

  2.0

  0.3

  2.3

  Strangford

  1.6

  0.3

  1.9

  Upper Bann

  2.2

  0.3

  2.5

  West Tyrone

  2.0

  0.3

  2.4

  Unknown

  0.8

  0.1

  0.9

  All

  34.4

  5.0

  39.4

  Note:

  Based on an analysis of all awards, using the 2000 Version 1 Postcode Directory supplied by the Office for National Statistics, which allocates postcodes to constituencies according to their definitions at January 2000. Cases with incomplete postcodes are allocated if the constituencies are nevertheless indicated with certainty.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of all Working Families Tax Credit awards to those in(a) couple families showing the gender of the recipient of the payment and (b) couple families with children aged under one, showing the gender of the recipient of the payment. [151004]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In couple families the applicants receive the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) payments in their wage packets, or into accounts nominated by them, or as order books which can be cashed by either partner. It is estimated that, in the 548,000 couples receiving WFTC at the end of August 2000, 412,000 of the applicants were female and 136,000 male.

  116,000 of these couples had at least one child aged under one year at the application dates of the awards. 85,000 of the applicants in these couples were female and 31,000 male.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion families receiving Working Families Tax Credit are also entitled to(a) Housing Benefit and (b) Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit. [150999]
  713W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Applicants for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) are not required to supply information on Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB). Claimants for HB and CTB are however required to supply information on WFTC, and I understand from the Department of Social Security that estimates of the numbers involved are expected to be available, in the coming months.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up level of the Working Families Tax Credit in(a) Glasgow, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom. [151616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families in each of these areas in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at August 2000 appear in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Family Taxation
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of families with children aged three or under pay the highest rate of income tax. [150998]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Of families with children aged three or under it is estimated that 15 per cent. pay higher-rate tax.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes to the tax system that have benefited working families since 1997. [151618]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have put in place a series of measures aimed at families with children, including: record increases in Child Benefit, with a 26 per cent. real increase in the rate for the first child since 1997; the new Children's Tax Credit, worth up to £442 a year for around 5 million families from April 2001; the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999, to make work pay for low and middle income working families with children.

  These measures, together with the new 10p income tax band, the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 22p and reforms to National Insurance Contributions, mean that by April this year the tax burden on the typical family will be at its lowest level since 1972.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what the value was of the interview expenses of applicants for a people's peerage; and how many applicants declined to be reimbursed. [151201]

  Mrs. Beckett
  All nominees invited for interview will be offered full reimbursement for expenses they incur, although overall costs are not available yet.

  I understand, however, that no nominee has stated that he or she will decline reimbursement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy for the application forms of applicants for a people's peerage in future rounds to be deposited in the Library. [151218]
  714W
  Mrs. Beckett
  No. People should be able to make an application to the Appointments Commission in confidence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if those selected as people's peers are expected to be broadly representative of the social class and educational background of the population of the United Kingdom. [151203]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government hope that the new method of selecting non-political peers will increase the extent to which the House of Lords is representative of the country as a whole.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to consider and invite for interview applicants for a people's peerage who are or were engaged in a manual occupation. [151204]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. The Appointments Commission should make its nominations on the overall criteria set out in its application process.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to request details from applicants for a people's peerage of how many domestic properties they own. [151217]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to include in its recommendations for people's peerages, in the next round of applications, individuals who live in council or social housing. [151219]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the first part of the postcodes of(a) applicants for a people's peerage and (b) those invited to interview. [151202]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Appointments Commission made it clear to applicants that their applications would be treated in confidence.

  However, the Commission's website shows the following regional breakdown of applications:

  Region

  Percentage of applicants

  Percentage of population

  South West

  9

  8

  South East

  18

  14

  East Anglia

  6

  9

  London

  27

  12

  East Midlands

  6

  7

  West Midlands

  6

  9

  Wales

  4

  5

  North West

  9

  12

  Yorkshire

  4

  8

  North East

  3

  4

  Scotland

  5

  9

  Northern Ireland

  2

  3

  Other

  1

  —

  715W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to require the House of Lords Appointments Commission to give to rejected applicants for the people's peerage the reasons for their rejection if so requested. [151200]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. As stated in the information pack, the Commission does not undertake to provide reasons as to why a nomination has been unsuccessful but it has made clear that nominations will be assessed fairly and consistently against its stated criteria.

  Ministerial Visits (Peterborough)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the Ministers in her Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough Unitary Authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151032]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The information requested is as follows.

  I have made no such visits to the Unitary Authority.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office: (a) undertook two engagements on Monday 5 February 2001 to constituencies within the Peterborough Unitary Authority. The MPs for both these constituencies were forewarned; (b) undertook one political engagement to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and one official engagement to the constituency of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss); (c) met my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton).

SCOTLAND

  Eurozone
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice she has given to the Prime Minister regarding the readiness of the Scottish economy for the entry into the eurozone. [145644]
  716W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a wide range of issues. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision is whether the economic case for the UK joining the single currency is clear and unambiguous. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has clearly set out the Five Economic Tests, which must be met before any decision to join can be taken. The Government will make another assessment of the Five Economic Tests early in the next Parliament. The Five Tests will assess the economic case for entry of the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

  Vehicle Fuel Duties
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the impact of the vehicle fuel duties on the rural economy in Scotland. [145640]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Vehicle fuel duty is only one of many factors that have an impact on Scotland's rural economy and needs to be seen in the context of overall UK fiscal policy. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report to reduce fuel duties for cleaner fuels and vehicle excise duty will benefit all Scottish motorists and bring significant financial benefits to Scotland's economy. In particular, the abolition of Vehicle Excise Duty for Tractors and agricultural vehicles will benefit up to 20,000 agricultural producers in Scotland.

  Independent research commissioned by my Department has shown that the level of taxation paid by private motorists in Scotland is lower than in other European countries such as Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and Portugal. The average Scottish driver pays £1,000 a year less than in Denmark.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Glasgow, Pollok are now receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee. [147870]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In August 2000, there were around 3,400 recipients of the Minimum Income Guarantee in Glasgow, Pollok.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life prison sentence for murder in Scotland on 1 February. [150448]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a devolved mater and is therefore the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

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.

Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to rebuild the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we recognise that some of the current buildings at the Stanmore site are not ideal. The Royal National Orthopaedic NHS Trust is developing proposals for modernising its service and estates. The London regional office of the NHS Executive is in active discussions with the trust and local health authorities to consider a way forward.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although it does not appear to be quite up to date. I understand that the London regional office has agreed that the hospital should be redeveloped on the Stanmore site. Is the Minister aware of the discussions which continued over years as regards whether the hospital should join the Royal Free or another institution? Is he further aware that, of the 6,500 operations performed at the hospital, over half are performed on patients who do not come from the London area? Does he agree that the hospital should live up to its name and become a national hospital? Given that fact, funding provided to rebuild the hospital on the site should not be borne only by the London region.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that many patients treated at the hospital come from outside the London region. However, the financial arrangements, certainly in relation to revenue, are reflected in the service agreements made between the trust and individual health authorities from where the patients are referred. As regards the capital programme, no such agreement has been made. The trust has put forward a proposal to the London regional office for a capital programme to be completed in a number of phases, totalling around £50 million. That is being considered, but no decision has yet been made.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the situation as regards capital, but can he give a little more detail on revenue for the hospital? Is it not the case that hospitals such as this, which is essentially national in nature, are now dependent on the operation of proper out-of-area treatments?That
1176
applies also to Great Ormond Street, Stoke Mandeville and other valuable institutions. Does the Minister plan to review the methods of funding out-of-area treatments and. in particular, will he consider proper national funding of these tertiary centres to ensure that they develop and thrive?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The income breakdown for the hospital is as follows: current revenue runs at around £43.5 million; £28.5 million arises from service agreements with health authorities and primary care groups; £6.6 million is the result of national specialist commissioning; and other moneys come in from income from patient care and non-patient income. Income from out-of-area patient treatments amounts to £1.9 million. I am satisfied that this funding stream is a suitable way for the hospital to be funded. It recognises both the national position it occupies through national specialist commissioning and its provision of services to residents from a large number of health authorities which hold service level agreements with the trust.
Lord Laming: My Lords, some time ago I was a patient at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital. Does the Minister agree that we should celebrate the achievements of such national centres of excellence—in this case we can celebrate an international centre of excellence? That being the case, should we not, make it a priority to give such institutions the facilities they need in order for them to carry on their pioneering work?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that we should be proud of the achievements over many years of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital. Other orthopaedic hospitals such as the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, where I was once employed, also have a proud claim 10 being international centres of excellence.
I fully accept that the buildings at the hospital are not ideal at present. That is why the trust has made its proposals and the London regional office is currently considering them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the hospital is currently housed in what might almost be described as substandard huts? People attend the hospital simply because the quality of the care is so good. In view of his remarks concerning the £50 million, can the Minister comment on the fact that I was told that a scheme of£28 million was agreed with the region? A spare part of land belonging to the hospital would be sold off for £14 million, bringing the net cost to £14 million. Can he comment on those figures?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than the comments I made in my previous response. The trust has put forward proposals which would amount to the wholesale redevelopment of the site. In total, the costs will come

1177
to £50 million. Those proposals are being considered at the moment. However, I am also aware that the trust has made an interim bid to the regional office for the refurbishment of the operating theatres and the TSSU. Those works would come to around £500,000. The proposal is also being considered by the regional office. It is hoped that the office will come forward with a speedy response.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand that the trust has an in-patient unit in Bolsover Street in London. Can the Minister say what plans there are for that unit?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is planned that the out-patient unit should move from its current site to the Homeopathic Hospital in Queen Square. The Homeopathic Hospital will decant into the Bolsover Street car park for a couple of years. A newly refurbished hospital will open in 2003 on the site of the Homeopathic Hospital. The consultant "orthopods" will, no doubt, have much to discuss with the homeopathic practitioners.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell me whether my understanding of what he said is correct. He said that £500,000 will be spent on refurbishing operating theatres which, in the near future, one hopes, will be pulled down in order to make space available for new buildings. How long will the consultations take? Is it not a waste of money?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. Even with the "speed-up" that the Government have introduced into the development of new capital programmes it will take some time to build a new hospital, if that is agreed to. It is important that we do not blight the existing use of these theatres by not giving them a lick of paint and refurbishing them in the interim period. It would be very unfortunate if no progress was made on refurbishment over a number of years. We should look at this issue with some sympathy.

Women in Parliament
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the conclusions of the Home Office study into the legislative options to increase the representation of women in Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the work is only at a preliminary stage. I am not yet in a position, sadly, to give a timetable for it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although it is rather disappointing. Does the Minister agree that if there is a need for legislative change to achieve the best opportunities for women to play their full part in
1178
public life and in elected public office, we cannot afford to let the issue drag on any longer than absolutely necessary? The study plus the legislative programme will take us well into the next Parliament, by which time people will have begun to make their selections and so on. Have terms of reference for the study been drawn up? If so, do those terms of reference include looking at the way in which other countries—in particular those of the European Union—manage to ensure that they have a much more equal representation of women?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a complex area. As a Home Office committed to reviewing election laws in order to find a way to allow political parties to act positively in favour of women, we have made it plain that if we need to change the law we will. We are in the process of designing our approach to this issue and the methodology to be adopted. We have announced that the study will be carried out and we will announce its conclusions in due course. We want to ensure that we get the best possible advice, and we have received some extremely helpful guidance from the Equal Opportunities Commission. We will bring the matter back when it is at its most appropriate developmental stage. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that, sadly, we are not in a position to do anything before the likely date of the next general election. I appreciate the need to ensure that the work is well advanced before the next round of elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; there is some urgency.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, following the example set by the Conservative Party of having the first woman Prime Minister and, indeed, the first woman Leader of this House, does not the Minister agree that women do not need to be patronised by special legislative measures but can manage very well on merit?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a member of a party which should be congratulated. Not only did her party produce the first woman Prime Minister but also, as I understand it, the first woman Leader of your Lordships' House. However, the Conservative Party's record generally in promoting women in political and public life is not good. Perhaps that is not surprising when it has spokespeople such as Roy Barnes, the deputy chairman of the Reigate Conservative Association—this is a good one—who said:
"I don't believe that women should get into parliament or be considered as parliamentary candidates until they are say in their forties and they have made their way and have established their families".
With that kind of encouragement, I do not hold out great hope for the party opposite.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, as women far outnumber men on the electoral roll and as members of the population, is there not a serious need for a co-ordinated campaign of educating women?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would be in trouble if I hazarded the suggestion that that may be the case—not only in your Lordships' House but in my own.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for encouraging the Government to inform us that work has started on this issue in the Home Office. Women in this country are well educated in the ways of government and opposition. Can my noble friend tell the House what the Government have done so far as concerns encouraging women into public office and the decision-making process during their term in office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have done a great deal, particularly in regard to public appointments. I am extremely pleased that that is the case. We set ourselves a goal of ensuring equal representation of men and women in public appointments, and at present the proportion of women is around one-third. Clearly, we need to do more, and steady progress is being made. We need to give the process active encouragement. We can do that through the education system, as we are doing. I am sure also that the Electoral Commission will wish to encourage more women to come forward into political life, and so on. The Government have a good track record. We have more women in the Cabinet than ever before. There are more women in ministerial positions than ever before, and more female MPs. That is a good base on which to work. On this matter the Government's record is second to none.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of recent A-level results, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, should be persuaded to educate young men? Secondly, does he agree that virtually every country that has proportional representation has a higher proportion of women in its legislature than either the United States or the United Kingdom?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that this is a vexed question. I look forward to receiving the noble Baroness's urgent researches on the matter. I shall study them with great care and consideration. As for educating men—yes, I am sure that we all need educating.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if we take the wording on the Order Paper seriously, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is asking for increased representation of women in Parliament. Do not male MPs say that they represent women?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that MPs. male or female, and regardless of the party from which they are drawn, would claim to represent all of their constituents.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it is regrettable that some
1180
women are not selected simply because they are women, it is equally regrettable that some women are selected simply because they are women?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate before venturing on to the territory of other political parties. Perhaps I may quote the words of Sheila Gunn, former press secretary to John Major. In reference to selection on the basis of Conservative Party approved lists, she said:
"Sometimes some of the older members have difficulty understanding how a woman can juggle family and career responsibilities and how it's actually quite commonplace these days".
That is an interesting observation—not least since the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was just 34 when she became an MP and had twins at the age of six—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think this is one of those "Sorry, I'll read that again" answers! Her twins were aged six when she was elected to Parliament.

European Security and Defence Initiative
2.53 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the discussions they have had with the United States Administration on the subject of the European Security and Defence Initiative.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): Yes, my Lords. The United States and the United Kingdom agree that NATO is the essential foundation of transatlantic security. The United States administration supports European efforts to improve military capability and to take a greater share of the security burden. The United Kingdom is committed to taking the European Security and Defence Policy forward on the basis agreed at the Nice European Council. The US supports these efforts and welcomes the progress made towards our shared goals.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she confirm that the United States administration was assured that the European security and defence identity would have no separate planning, intelligence or policy analysis or activity of its own? If that is so, what is the function of the policy, planning and intelligence divisions at the European Union military staff headquarters?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will he no duplicate command structure. However, he raises an interesting question, and one that has caused confusion in the minds of some commentators. The strategic planning capability is the facility to examine military strategic

1181
options to support political decisions by providing high-level advice to EU military committees—the Chiefs of Staff and their representatives—and to the political authorities. As previously discussed, that is an advisory function based in Brussels involving about 135 people. That is entirely different from operational planning—the detailed military planning which takes place once a decision to intervene has been made. The role of the operational planners will be carried out either through an existing NATO command structure or, where a smaller or less intensive operation is envisaged, in existing national structures such as our own PJHQ. I hope that that has cleared up what I believe has been significant confusion in some people's minds—though not, of course, in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does the President of France agree with the Prime Minister's interpretation of the role and function of the ESDI?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that there is a wide degree of agreement between the British Prime Minister and the President of France. Perhaps I may quote a remark on the NATO alliance made by the President of France on 9th February at Cahors. He said:
"European defence is being done and can only he done in complete harmony with NATO. It is a question of two tracks which are complementary and not in competition".
That is an unequivocal statement.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is important to get this right. It matters enormously in terms of practical politics and international relations. I have no doubt that we are convinced that we should be backing and reinforcing NATO, rather than setting up an organisation that could be different from NATO, autonomous, and indeed a potential rival. But that is clearly not the same understanding as exists in Paris and in other continental capitals.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Shore of Stepney: If we want to make the matter absolutely plain, surely it was very unwise to agree at Nice to the presidency conclusions which include such words as:
"The military capabilities are to be established so that the Union is in a position to intervene with or without recourse to NATO assets".
I could give many more such quotations, but I shall not. That is indeed military autonomy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord on his last point about access to NATO assets. We have been clear throughout on this matter. We are talking specifically about Petersberg tasks—about humanitarian tasks and peacekeeping tasks. In answering Questions previously in this House I have made it clear that there may be occasions when, for humanitarian tasks, we
1182
shall not need recourse either to NATO planning or to NATO assets. One such example was the rescue operations that were mounted recently in Mozambique. That has been clear throughout. The essential point that I must impress upon my noble friend, on which we are all agreed, is that it is essential to improve European military capability. I believe that the understandings on that with our French allies are very clear. Indeed, Mr Alain Richard said:
"The European defence we aspire to is not and will not be an alternative to the Atlantic Alliance".
Lord Bramall: My Lords, is there not a danger that we are getting all this out of proportion? Does the noble Baroness agree that it must be in the American interests that Europe should do more in the defence field; in our interests that Europe is capable of handling small, local situations over which the Americans may show increasingly less interest; and in everyone's interest that all this should happen within the overall umbrella of NATO and without undue and unnecessary duplication? Can the noble Baroness confirm that that is exactly what the Government are working towards?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I agree unequivocally with the noble and gallant Lord. I can agree that that is exactly the aim to which the Government are working.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, your Lordships will have listened with interest to the noble Baroness's rather convoluted reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I should like to ask the noble Baroness this question categorically: do we believe what the Prime Minister said to President Bush in Washington last week, or do we believe in the Nice treaty? These are two totally different things.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, they are not two totally different things. There has been a great deal of discussion around Annex VII to the treaty, and much discussion about what is meant. I should remind the noble Lord of the aim of that annex which states:
"The aim in relations between the EU and NATO is to ensure effective consultation, co-operation and transparency in determining the appropriate military responses to crises and to guarantee effective crisis management".
There is a whole annex devoted to it. I believe that it is very clear that the interests of the United Kingdom, of Europe and, indeed, those of the Atlantic Alliance and our friends in America are being served by the measures that we are taking forward.

Extremist Protests: Protection of Individuals
3.1 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to protect people at risk from terrorist action by animal liberationists.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is completely unacceptable that a small minority of criminals attempt to stop individuals going about their legitimate, lawful activities. The Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to help the police tackle these extremists. There are already tough laws to protect businesses and individuals. We intend to strengthen these further in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to promote better protection in such cases. Can the Minister say whether the Government will treat this form of terrorism as one of the most dangerous organised threats to law and order that exists at present? In particular, will the Government take measures to prevent intimidation of victims' homes, both by keeping private and confidential the addresses of directors of target companies and by looking again at the question of organised groups acting in concert by way of harassment outside people's homes? At present, the law is not adequate in that respect in properly protecting people.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the position he has taken. I also acknowledge his support for government measures. The measures we are putting into the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which have now been tabled as amendments, will give the police additional powers to deal with protests outside people's homes. The police will be able to direct protestors to move away or disperse; and failure to comply with the direction will be a criminal and, indeed, an imprisonable offence.
A second amendment will amend the malicious communications legislation, which currently makes available to those accused a defence of subjectively believing that their behaviour was reasonable. This will be replaced by an objective test. We are encouraged by the support that we are receiving for ensuring that company directors will be protected from necessarily having to provide their home address. Therefore, we are taking the measures suggested by the noble Lord. We take the issue extremely seriously. It is in all of our interests to give the police the utmost support in operations directed against such protestors.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not only a case of protecting people, but also one of protecting animals from these people? Can the Minister give the House any information about what has happened to the beagles that were recently stolen? Can he say whether any follow up measures have been taken by the authorities to try to find out what damage or harm has occurred to them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, it is occasionally the case that some of the activities of extremists involved in this sort of "protest"—if one can call it that—have had an adverse
1184
impact on some animals. That fact is greatly to be regretted; indeed, it is not something that should be encouraged. I cannot provide the noble Lord with the information that he requires because that is an operational matter for the police. However, I know that the police have taken seriously the attack he mentioned and that they have been vigorous in the extreme in following up and inquiring into exactly what has happened. They are to be congratulated on that work.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the courts should take into account the intention to cause fear when assessing the gravity of an offence and before sentencing an offender?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that that would be the case. Courts would take that point very carefully into consideration.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe the feeling of the House is that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should put his question. If there is time, two swift questions can be put.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although we realise and welcome the indication that the Government are considering tightening up the legislation, one of the crucial issues, as always, is one of resources? Is he also aware that the police force responsible for trying to protect Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridgeshire is one of the smaller police forces, albeit one that is extremely well led by a very vigorous chief constable? Is the noble Lord further aware that that force needs additional financial support, given the pressure on its resources? Can he tell the House what can be done in that respect?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have provided the Cambridgeshire constabulary with an additional £1 million to support their activities. In response to the noble Lord's earlier point, I should tell him that we have not just moved forward; we have physically tabled amendments so that the legislation will be changed in the way in which I carefully described. So, yes, we are giving very active support to the Cambridgeshire constabulary and, yes, we are putting in place the legislation to enable the police to act.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after today's second debate, my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Selby rail crash. I should add that I

1185
am grateful to the usual channels for agreeing to the timing of the Statement. The House may wish to know that that unusual timing is a result of the desire of the Deputy Prime Minister to visit the crash site in person before he makes a Statement to Members in another place.

Latin America and the Caribbean
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to call attention to developments in Latin America and the Caribbean; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Motion before your Lordships today is, I recognise, very widely drawn. In attempting to follow in the tradition established by my noble friend Lord Montgomery, and in my capacity as president of Canning House (the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council), I felt it timely to draw attention to developments in Latin America. However, the Minister then persuaded me to add the Caribbean to the terms of reference. I make no apology for doing so.
The United Kingdom has an ongoing role in the Caribbean, and not only with the six remaining dependent territories in the region. The countries of the Caribbean are largely English speaking, but include Cuba and the Dominican Republic, where, after all, Columbus is said to have first landed after his epic voyage. Although this is an area which may be regarded by some as "America's backyard", I believe, looking to the future, that there is every likelihood that the smaller countries of central America—from Guatemala to Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and even down to and including Panama—and the other countries in the Caribbean will want to get together to form a regional grouping for their mutual benefit and recognition, and to give balance to the large and powerful NAFTA to the north, Mercosur to the far south and the Andean Community to the south-west. Britain could, and should, exercise considerable influence in such a development. In doing so, it is possible that we might find a solution to the vexed question of bananas.
The main thrust of my intervention today is to focus on British trade and investment with the region. Sadly, this is deteriorating and we must do something about it. I start from the premise that the United Kingdom is a trading nation and that historically and culturally, as well as economically, we have as strong ties and links with Latin America and the Caribbean as with other parts of the world—if not stronger. Indeed, that was the reason for the foundation of Canning House after the last war, when our traditional markets flowing from the period of empire were changing and disappearing. It was recognised at that time that the countries of Latin America were rich in resources and potential. But it was also recognised that it would be necessary to promote and stimulate trade and commercial links. That is the task and challenge that we still carry out at Canning House.
It is only fair to say that this had been envisaged by George Canning as far back as the early 19th century. He famously said,
"I have called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the old".
Canning's foresight led to British forces and finance supporting the liberation movements which swept through the continent with Bolivar and Miranda in the north, and San Martin and O'Higgins in the south, to mention but a few leading names. That in turn led to considerable British involvement and investment in the railways, shipping and other industries, and to the establishment of sizeable British communities which exist to this day in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile in particular. However, sadly, I think that Canning's name is better known in Buenos Aires than in London.
Just as Canning in his day was influenced by war and enmities in Europe, today we still take a European point of view. The situation is now very different. We are united in Europe. When we talk bilaterally about the United Kingdom and the countries of Latin America, it is vital to remember that the UK has a leading role to play as part of the European Union, particularly in relation to the special agreements now being implemented or negotiated between the EU and Mexico, the EU and Mercosur and the EU and Chile.
A recent report by Trade Partners UK—the agency created by the newly-formed British Trade International to promote British trading activities worldwide—gives an interesting picture. To attempt to summarise the report's main conclusions is difficult. It shows that UK exports of goods to Latin America tumbled some 20 per cent in 1999 and for most of 2000; it was beginning to bottom out only by September 2000. Mexico was the bright spot with growth every year since 1995, totalling a rise of 132 per cent. The UK's performance was worse than the percentage fall of total imports to all the major markets of Latin America. The decline during 1999 was across most sectors, with pharmaceuticals an exception. Latin America now enjoys a record trade balance with the UK of £1.2 billion, perhaps the largest ever. UK market share suffered falls in key markets although it held up in Brazil.
There can be some consolation in the fact that trade in services appears to have held up reasonably well and that UK investments continued to grow although the UK's leading position in terms of investment is now being overtaken by Spain, particularly in banking, telecoms and the energy sector. As a final conclusion, the report states that the IMF is cautiously optimistic about growth but the cooling of the United States economy could have implications for the region, particularly Mexico.
What can we do about this sorry picture? I hope that the Minister will be able to come up with some initiatives to encourage us. Since the Link in to Latin America Campaign—initiated, I am proud to say, by the Conservative government in the early 1990s—which led to considerable gains in our trade

1187
performance, the past two years have seen, with the exception of Mexico some considerable setbacks for the UK in terms of traded goods.
Many individual organisations, chambers of commerce, trade missions and agencies such as the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group have made considerable efforts, as have the commercial department of individual embassies, but there is still a long way to go. There is no doubt that a concerted effort such as the Link into Latin America Campaign can and should have a major impact, particularly if it is led from the highest possible level by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I hope that whoever is in those posts after the next election will make a point of visiting the region as a priority and will, at the very least, prove less difficult as regards arranging time to see and talk with distinguished visitors when they come to this country.
I recognise that some Ministers have made successful visits to the region accompanied by high level groups of industrialists. Apart from the Minister herself, I mention the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, to Brazil; the visit by the leader of another place, Margaret Beckett, to Mexico; the visit by the Secretary of State, Clare Short, to Bolivia and other countries in the region; and the most recent visit to Brazil and Chile by Nick Raynsford in connection with the PFI. I hope that appropriate monitoring and follow-through is taking place to build on the links, contacts and good will established by those visits.
Other important and major developments need to be watched carefully. I have already referred to the need for the UK to lead in the EU and its internal debates towards a common position that will enable substantive negotiations on a free trade agreement with the Mercosur countries of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, and other individual countries involved in EU agreements. That is particularly relevant in terms of agricultural policy and modifications to the common agricultural policy.
Another issue relates to "dollarisation". The dollar is already established as the currency of Panama and, most recently, Ecuador. It is a de facto currency in Argentina. There is also the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a United States initiative which in all likelihood will be driven forward and given a push by President Bush.
In calling attention to developments in Latin America and the Caribbean, we must consider not only our trade and commercial links and investment. Other themes will be dealt with in more detail by other speakers. They will include cultural links which imply a recognition of cultural heritage and exchanges of art and artists, and full and frequent discussions on environmental issues.
The important subject of drugs touches us as a consumer country, as it does the producer and transit countries. Since the major drug summit called by Margaret Thatcher in London in 1990—attended by, among other leaders and senior Ministers from Latin
1188
America, the then President of Colombia, Vergilio Barco, and leading representatives of the United Nations and the European Union—I am unaware of any recent initiatives by the Government. However, I draw attention to the international drugs conference held in Bolivia at the end of last week at which, I understand, two MPs from the House of Commons were present. I trust that something positive will result.
On the education front., I have referred previously to the enormous increase in GAP exchanges and university exchanges. There is the potential for many young people to have more knowledge of Latin America than my generation had. The British Council plays an important role. It does terrific work. For that reason, I lament the fact that it is closing down its centre in Ecuador. It is the only closure due to take place in South America.
Democracy is important in Latin America. Twenty years ago it hardly existed—certainly not in a pluralistic form. The recent elections in Mexico have produced a change of party in government, with the presidency of Vicente Fox. The democracies of Ecuador and Peru are fragile and struggling, but they are holding out. In that context, the role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with its regular exchanges of parliamentarians, is very important. We recently received a group from Mexico. I know that several speakers in today's debate were introduced to Latin America as a result of IPU visits. Given the bridges that we must build in Chile, I hope that there will soon be an IPU visit there. The IPU international meeting in Cuba due in April is evidence of the increasing openness and transparency in that country today, which I hope presages a return to full pluralistic democracy there.
It is difficult—indeed, impossible—in the 15 minutes allowed to me as the mover of the Motion to do justice to a vast continent, full of opportunities and closely linked with Europe. It is a continent of diverse peoples, fascinating history and culture, towering mountain peaks, great lakes and forests, waterfalls, beautiful beaches and islands and, at this time of year, the musical rhythms of carnival. It will be equally difficult for the Minister to wind up. I wish her luck. I know that we are assured of her deep personal interest.
I end by pressing the Minister on three points. The first is the need for high-level contact and follow-up in our relations with the region. The second is the need to ensure the continuation of the important work of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group. Thirdly, an initiative is needed to take forward the concept of further and deeper co-operation between the Caribbean and Central American countries. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I commend the work done by Canning House and its staff, so ably led by the noble

1189
Baroness, Lady Hooper, and before her by Viscount Montgomery. It is one of the most important links between our nation and Latin America.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is 175 years since Canning made his famous speech, thought to be one of the great parliamentary speeches of recent history. It was important because he acknowledged with great foresight that the opening up of the Americas—not just north, but south as well—would mean immense trade benefit for this country and the world. In the last century, although not so much in this, Britain followed the path that Canning had in mind. At the beginning of a new century, it is appropriate that we should adopt his enthusiasm once again.
This country has three qualities that commend themselves to co-operation with Latin America. The first is our open and expansive desire for trade. Secondly, we are determined to protect democratic institutions. Thirdly, we are committed, where appropriate, to giving development help to those countries that desperately need it. Latin America needs our help on each of those points.
As well as defence of the realm, trade is the paramount function of the Government. It is significant—I am a little more optimistic than the noble Baroness—that we are now approaching £600 million of exports to Mexico. That has increased by as much as 8 per cent in the past calendar year. Mexico has a new president, a desire for change and a wish to trade beyond the Americas with the United Kingdom and Europe. We should foster trade relations with it.
The European Union has just agreed a free trade arrangement for services, intellectual property and other modern export items. That is a tremendous change of ethos by the Mexicans and by us, but it needs to be developed, not taken for granted. I commend to the Minister two firm, clear steps that will advance trade in Mexico and Brazil. First, we should encourage the holding of a forum this summer, if feasible, on trade with Mexico. It would be open to the City, all aspects of manufacturing and the world of commerce. Secondly, and very importantly for the developing nations of South America, our Prime Minister should make a visit if possible. Only when you go abroad—as the noble Baroness and I do quite regularly to South America—do you appreciate the standing not just of our country, but of our Prime Minister, not because of his party politics, but because of his ability to evidence the wish for change. A visit by the Prime Minister to South America would be of enormous practical as well as symbolic value.
I chose Mexico as an example of trade development because the number of South American countries is enormous and there are great trading differences between them. For example, in Bolivia, British Gas and British Petroleum have the opportunity to develop what is thought to be the biggest gas field in the Americas, including North America. Let us trade with Latin America with enthusiasm.
1190
My next point is democracy. I am going to put before your Lordships' House some depressing facts, but out of them has arisen a confidence in the people of the Americas to meet disaster with courage. It is amazing that from the Fujimori era in Peru there exist, as far as is known, videos of 211 leaders of the community doing deals with Mr Montecinos. I mean deals for the community. They cover business, the army, politicians, the law and the media. That state of affairs could cause a dramatic loss of confidence in public life in some societies, but that has not happened. The people of Peru have successfully fought that notorious state of affairs, with a transitional government staffed by people of such eminence as Perez de Cuellar as Prime Minister, Diego Sayan as Minister of Justice and Susana Villarim as Minister for Women's Affairs. That is a complete change of attitude. I call on our Government to continue their policy of ensuring that the elections in April in Peru are honestly carried out and thereafter to continue financial and governmental support for the judiciary, the police and the world of politics as we democrats know it so that there is no repetition of what has just happened.
I do not condemn Peru or its history by what I have just said—I commend it. It is a country that is surviving dire trouble. I ask the Government two things: first, that they continue their financial and political support; and, secondly, that they do so because, symbolically, if Peru survives this, other South American countries will take it as a fine example that they themselves can deal with such major events which strike danger into their very society.
I turn to the issue of development. Whatever our tribulations, we are a rich nation. Some countries in South America are desperately poor. Honduras, with little or no strength of economy, suffered the ravages of Hurricane Mitch. It has taken that country perhaps two, three or four years to reach the stage of thinking about recovery, not achieving it.
I call upon the Government to continue that which I know they have done; that is, vigorously to criticise the state of affairs whereby, years on, the European Union has failed to deliver the money which Honduras needed following Hurricane Mitch. A severe administrator would call it a debacle; a humanitarian would call it an outrage. It cannot go on. When countries need help, our example should be the one relied upon by others. With DfID, Sweden and the World Bank, we play a crucial part in the development of such countries as Honduras and Nicaragua which suffer serious economic troubles.
I have mentioned just a few South American countries. I want to close by referring to the Caribbean. The Anglo-Caribbean Jurists Association, financially supported by the Government and professionally supported by the lawyers of this country, is anxious to improve the training and standards of our colleagues in the Caribbean and to maintain law and order at its finest in this English-speaking part of the Americas. Through what I have said, I hope that I have demonstrated what I set out to

1191
indicate: we want trade; we protect democracy; and we give development aid where it is needed. In all those regards, Latin America needs us. Let us not fail it.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on obtaining this debate. As one might expect, in moving the Motion she speaks with great authority and enormous experience. My own contribution will be much more modest. I want to refer to only one country in Latin America—Peru.
My interest in that country was first stimulated not, as noble Lords might expect, because Peru produced, and the Irish ate, so many potatoes, but because of a rather more sombre point of common interest. As noble Lords will know, like my own part of the United Kingdom, for a long time Peru suffered from politically motivated terrorism. I believe that all of us were delighted to see come to power out of apparently free and fair elections a new government who wished to address firmly and properly the question of terrorism. Of course, in many ways that happened under President Fujimori.
I began to take an interest in that country because a number of professional colleagues were interested in understanding not only the origins of conflict there and in my own part of the world and how those might be addressed, but also how one might deal with a post-conflict situation. Sometimes, dealing with the aftereffects of conflict is a much underrated problem.
However, when I went there, I discovered that the situation was not as I had expected. Many people would not speak openly. At that time, many people were talking about the tremendous work done by President Fujimori: he dealt with the terrorist campaign and righted the economy, which had been in a disastrous position. Surely that was a fine recommendation for what he and his government had been doing.
However, I found that people were too frightened to talk. When I had spent a little time there and had begun to encourage them to speak in privacy, it became apparent to me that all was not well: the press appeared to be free but were in no way free to speak about important matters; the security forces were not seen as the protectors but as the oppressors of ordinary people; and human rights abuses were rife and widespread.
I am glad to say that those facts have been recognised by our own Government and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Resources have been made available, for example, for the British Council to work with the press. The BBC was also involved in training and assisting people. Indeed, Dennis Murray, a correspondent from Northern Ireland who had experience of working in a terrorist situation, went out to assist in developing the skills of journalists working in difficult circumstances such as those. Much work was also done with NGOs, particularly in the field of human rights. I believe that we have all begun to discover that free and fair
1192
elections are not all that is required in creating a liberal democracy. Peru is perhaps one of the most recently striking and tragic examples of that fact.
The situation began to become more clear, not only to ourselves but to the people of Peru, who, as the noble Lord indicated, began to summon up the courage to change matters and to change them strikingly and dramatically. I was in Lima during the week when the situation changed and when the Speaker of that Parliament subsequently went on to other, more striking things, such as becoming the interim President of the country.
In those circumstances, when the British Council, partly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had played a role—one should not overstate it; nevertheless, it played an important role—in developing human rights and activist skills and in encouraging the press to report on some of the dreadful things that had been and were happening, it seemed to me that a powerful case existed for increasing the resources available. It seemed to me essential to capitalise and to develop those skills at a time when the building of a democracy had become so necessary because political parties had largely disappeared. Certainly, the case for at least maintaining the input of the British Council was unanswerable.
However, it came as something of a shock to discover that at that very moment the British Council was deciding to reduce the resources available in Peru and, indeed, as the noble Baroness said, to close the office in Ecuador. At the very time when we were achieving some success and could capitalise and build upon it and have a real impact, I was particularly struck that in Peru all the resources had been cut back.
I speak as a strong supporter of the British Council. In many ways, I consider it to be one of the great unsung institutions. It is appreciated much more outside the United Kingdom than it is within it. It does tremendous work. This is not the time and the place to speak in glowing terms or, indeed, to study the changes in strategy that have taken place recently.
However, I believe that sometimes mistakes are made in carrying out rationalisation. One reduces the amount of resources available to relatively smaller places and invests them in larger places. Sometimes when resources are lost, it is better to put what money there is into the smaller places where it can have an effect rather than to take it to the larger places where the leverage will be relatively limited. Peru is a large country but, in comparison with some of the other countries in which the British Council is working, it is not so large. Removing resources when we were on the cusp of reaping the rewards for our success seemed to me misguided and a mistake.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an indication that she shares that concern by acting in an entirely well disposed and friendly way towards the British Council and by encouraging it with the continued assistance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given to various projects.

1193
Of course, it is not only projects of that kind that are important, and it is not only a matter of resources. Other things can be done. In my own part of the world, changes are taking place with regard to policing. That has freed up people with enormous experience of working in conflict situations and of dealing with relationships between the security forces and the community. Those people with skills and experience could well be of assistance in a situation such as exists in Peru, where the relationship between the security services and the community is very bad, and with very good reason.
There are other ways in which the situation could be improved. The air links between the United Kingdom and Peru have been scaled down during the past few years. Frankfurt international airport is taking over responsibility for Lima airport and seeks to use it as a hub to serve the whole of the South Pacific and the Far East. Others can see what needs to be done in terms of building democracy and improving human rights. That will help with the construction of the new Peru, which needs to benefit from trade links.
When things go well, we tend to pull out. I fear that that is something of a characteristic in our country. In academic life, our research at a basic level often demonstrates an important advance, but we leave it to others to capitalise on commercial and other advantages. I fear that we may have made a similar mistake in respect of Peru. I hope that it will be possible to ensure that we build on the excellent work that has been done there and in other countries.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Rea:My Lords, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I shall use a wide-angle lens to cover a range of topics without going into too much detail rather than the zoom lens that he used to focus on one topic. That will make the life of my noble friend the Minister more interesting.
Looking through my 28mm lens from high above the Caribbean, I see in the distance the north coasts of Colombia and Venezuela. The Colombian embassy sends me its regular bulletin, Observatorio de los derechos humanos, or the Observatory on Human Rights, for which I am very grateful. Two recent issues concentrated on laws to counteract forced displacement, disappearances, genocide and torture, and the protection of journalists, of whom 157 have been killed since 1985. Those examples are only part of a long drawn-out conflict that is going on in Colombia. President Pastrana, who was elected on a platform to seek peace, was shown on "Channel 4 News" on Sunday visiting the FARC in the rebel-controlled zone. He is a man of courage. However, more conservative opinion in Colombia is impatient and suggests that he is being too soft on the rebels, as do some in the United States, which is now mobilising the military arm of Plan Colombia. The Americans claim that the FARC are behind narco-traffic in cocaine. In the Channel 4 film, President Pastrana seemed
1194
uncomfortable at the arrival in increasing numbers of helicopter gunships. The FARC was clearly preparing to defend itself against an assault.
Many feel that the United States' war against drugs, which is now to be directed against peasant growers of cocaine, hides another agenda—that of crushing a left-wing popular uprising that threatens the status quo. That would be in the tradition of the United States' policy in Latin America, which is to destabilise any country that seems too far to the left of centre. It often does that by economic, covert or arm's-length military means. I expect the current government in Washington to tend towards continuing that policy, which would be extremely dangerous. In Colombia, American fingers might well get burnt. I urge the Government—with, of course, the greatest of tact—to use their special relationship to urge great caution in the operation of Plan Colombia.
Next door to Colombia is Venezuela, which now has a president who stands rather to the left of centre. He is carrying out significant policies such as increasing social spending on the strength of high oil prices. Those policies are long overdue but they may make the IMF and its friends in Washington a little nervous. Will my noble friend comment briefly on our relationship with the present government in Venezuela? In many ways, we share a common outlook although I am not sure whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the economic policies of President Chavez to be sufficiently prudent!
I turn briefly to the Windward Islands, on one of which—Dominica—I enjoyed a wonderful holiday in early January. The first inhabitants of that island, the Caribs, fiercely resisted and repelled many early would-be colonists. Their handsome descendants, some of whom have distinctly oriental features, still live in the north-east part of the island. I am afraid that my noble friend will not be able to give us the good news that the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific producers have won the banana war. At least there is agreement about a transition period. Will that be long enough to allow for the necessary diversification of the islands' economy to develop? What assistance, I ask my noble friend, is the United Kingdom giving to assist that process of diversification? I have to admit that I am puzzled by the detail of the "first come, first served" tariff quota system that has been agreed. However, I am sure that she will be able to describe the current position when she replies.
I turn to Cuba, the largest Caribbean island and, with its 11 million people, a major player in the Caribbean both in terms of trade and culture. That has been achieved despite the United States' embargo, which many felt would lead to the collapse of Fidel Castro's socialist experiment. Instead, it had the opposite effect, because strong leadership is better tolerated by a population when there are external threats. After reaching a very low ebb during the early 1990s, caused by the collapse of Soviet economic support, the economy is now in recovery. That is in

1195
large measure due to the successful and rapid state-sponsored growth of tourism. That recovery phase provides a big opportunity for trade, and investment in joint enterprises. British entrepreneurs have been part of that effort, considerably assisted by the Cuba Initiative launched by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the interest of the Department of Trade and Industry, especially that of Brian Wilson, a former Minister at that department.
Other EU countries were off the mark more quickly than we were with regard to Cuba, and they were more flexible in arranging credit facilities. However, a memorandum of understanding with the Export Credits Guarantee Department for limited credit for Cuba was reached in 1999. I gather that the agreement has not yet become operational. Can my noble friend report any progress in that regard and on the rescheduling of the Cuban debt to the Paris Club?
As well as increased trade, there is a welcome increase in cultural exchanges with Cuba, including the opening of a British Council office in Havana. Can my noble friend say whether that has resulted in more scholarships for Cubans to come to study in Britain, and are the figures likely to increase? With regard to the reverse situation, how many British students are going to Cuba to study as undergraduates or postgraduates? Are there any plans for regular exchanges or linkages between academic institutions?
As a doctor, I was very pleased that a seminar for 100 or more British GPs and their Cuban opposite numbers, which met in Havana last year and which was arranged by Professor Patrick Pietroni, went so well. In fact, it is being repeated this year. Although we had things to teach at the seminar, we also had things to learn. The Cuban health service is unique; it has a much lower doctor-patient ratio than anywhere else in the world. Every GP has a strong public health role, and preventive medicine and health promotion have equal priority with curative medicine. A strong primary healthcare system in Cuba is one of the main reasons why it has one of the best health profiles in the western hemisphere, despite economic adversity and sanctions.
Like Scotland, Cuba produces a surplus of doctors and it offers to supply medical personnel to other countries that have suffered disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes or floods, particularly if we—that is, the United Nations or the European Union—can provide the money to get them there. Cuba cannot afford to do so. In fact, Cuban doctors have been working in several other developing countries, especially Africa, for some years. Cuba also has a programme offering medical training to poor students from other Caribbean and Latin American countries—a rather effective way, I suspect, of gaining respect and influence.
Fidel Castro, the longest-surviving head of state in the world, is an incurable optimist. At the millennium
1196
summit of the United Nations in September last year, he said at the end of what must have been his shortest ever speech—it lasted around three minutes—
"The dream of having truly fair and sensible rules to guide human destiny seems impossible to many. However, we are convinced that the struggle for the impossible should be the motto of this institution that brings us together today".
I am sure we can all agree with those sentiments, even if we do not agree with his form of government.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it always amazes me, when one walks around the Palace of Westminster quietly in the evening, having had a drink or two, and looks around that one finds that history is there—Latin America or wherever it might be; the great men. 'When we wander around Westminster Abbey we feel the same. When we look at our colleagues today we ask, "Are they great men, or will they be great men when they die? Where is the spirit of adventure?"
I wish to begin with the Royal Gallery and the tableau of the Battle of Trafalgar. One reminds oneself that that was a battle fought on the way back from the Caribbean, or on the way to somewhere else. Why was it that people went out to those parts of the world? Why did the French and the British fight in the Mediterranean in the summer, like some of the yacht races today, and fight in the Caribbean in the winter? They got there just as quickly as the two great yachtsmen—the Frenchman and the young English girl who went round the world.
They went there because they needed commodities—agricultural, minerals and a few other things besides. But they also went there—dare I say?—for buckaneering, piracy or exploitation. We remember that the British Fleet would spend some time in Bonifacio; it would then move on to Mahon, then to Gibraltar and then to English Harbour. Then it would seize what it could from Spanish and French ships and return with plunder for Her Majesty the Queen.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, may be mistaken. I believe I am right in saying that the longest-serving head of state is Her Majesty the Queen. I may be wrong, in which case I am sure he will acknowledge my error.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord's superior knowledge.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I suffer from good advice from people on these Benches who are more important than I am.
There was then a change in that part of the world, and the buckaneers, or those with the letter of marque, suddenly decided to privatise themselves and there was piracy. It may not have been Henry Morgan, but all those historical events have a bearing upon today. I wish, if I may, to take your Lordships through some of the reasons why we went to those places and what happened. I do this because, by accident—your Lordships may have heard me declare this before—I

1197
was conceived on the beach in Jamaica, probably the equivalent of last week, in 1937. Therefore I find that I am an honorary Jamaican.
Those unconnected incidents led to a presence in the Caribbean that I could not fully understand. But the most important of all was my directorship of the oldest spa company in the world, Terme Di Poretta, of Poretta between Bologna, Pisa and Firenze. They were the ones who told me of the health-giving qualities of the countries in the Caribbean. They were the ones whose original technical team came to Bath to find Aquae Sulis. Your Lordships will remember that we have always had agricultural problems here, but the pigs that accompanied the Roman Army and which provided the food were self-foraging. They suffered from scabies near Bath and rolled in the mud where the water came out of the ground and were cured. Those were the Bath mineral springs.
Nelson had a connection with Bath. He went off and spent much of his time in what I would regard as the "Queen of the Caribbean", as it was called; the area around Nevis, where we find Pinneys Beach and Nelson Springs, and where, believe it or not, the sailors sat one day under a manganeel tree which dripped sulphur. Their skins were burnt and they rushed into the river. They were cured and that was the Bath River.
But Nelson moved on. In one area in Jamaica a runaway slave was shot and wounded, and he, fleeing through the sugar cane—there was lots of sugar cane in those days—found a river and buried himself in the waters. His wounds were cured and that was called the Bath River.
Those events go back over a long period of time. My first involvement with the Caribbean was through my banking group. We became economic advisers to countries in the Caribbean. The first was St Kitts and Nevis. We had great pleasure in helping them to achieve their independence and then sitting down to negotiate with strange men with Chinese-sounding names who said, "We gave technical assistance to Antigua when it went independent and would like to give technical assistance to you". I happened to ask what sort of technical assistance. The response was, "A certain amount of money would be convenient for major projects, if you could think of some projects". I asked what the terms and conditions would be. "Just a little bit of support in the United Nations"! As noble Lords will know, the British Government have more votes, through the Commonwealth, in the United Nations than anyone else and there are lots of countries of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean which might like to flex their muscles.
I am half-way through my speech and shall now try to be serious. Sadly, today we are no longer a manufacturing nation. We do not possess the equipment to supply to those countries that need it. We are no longer the trading nation that we were because we ourselves have changed beyond belief. Originally we would go to those countries to help them develop their products, which we would then acquire. That is no longer the case. Those areas have minerals, and we know these days that most of the big mineral
1198
operations are in the hands of large corporations and a sizeable chunk of the revenue does not go back to those countries for further development.
We then come to agriculture. Obviously there are potatoes; but we can go to a potato market in Latin America and see as many as 100 potato sellers with no customers and poverty of the lowest level. All the great agricultural products have been shifted, somehow, until we come to one specific element. It might be called "ganja" or the coca plant. One of my noble friends advised me only yesterday that the greatest single agricultural crop, in value, purchased in the United States is now ganja, or the "weed of wisdom".
In Peru, we find that most of the major income from agriculture is coca leaf which goes to Colombia for processing. I do not know what we can do about all that, but there is a need for alternative crops. After the Nevis exercise, we ended up as economic advisers to the Government of Jamaica. I went out there full of enthusiasm for the agricultural potential of Jamaica and found that it had to import practically all its food for tourism. There was a simple explanation. If one has a vegetable plot in Jamaica, because the Rastafarians believe that all the food comes from God and they therefore have a right to take it, one needs a guard for the plot. The cost of the guard makes it cheaper to import the vegetables from other parts of the world.
The High Commission in Jamaica always had a problem that when the mango was in fruit on the mango tree in the High Commission, it had to have a guard because the Jamaicans would come and steal the fruit. And they saw nothing wrong in that. But when we go to parts of the area where the ganja is grown, or the "weed of wisdom", and try to think of alternative crops, it becomes extremely difficult. We spent a great deal of time on that with Dutch technology and managed to produce carnations and roses early enough for the market in Colombia. But we found that we could not obtain a satisfactory price for them. Also, it seemed that most of the flowers were acquired by Colombia and each pack of flowers—they were distributed throughout America—would contain other certain noxious substances.
That was very difficult and we now have to deal with the drug problem. I do not know how. But I believe we have more experience than most. Part of that campaign was my simple Question to Her Majesty's Government a few weeks ago to ask whether they planned to legalise marijuana. Thank goodness they said no.
The next area of development has become financial services. But that is now called "money laundering". Again, the opportunities that exist in the Caribbean are considerable for those who wish to preserve their capital legally where all the services are set up, and somehow we must manage to create a division between those that are illegal and those that are genuine. I have been talking with the Swiss authorities about those areas. I believe that we should co-operate and concentrate upon this matter. To condemn it out of hand and remove that source of income is again of concern.

1199
Finally—noble Lords will perhaps think that I am being negative—we come to crime. I have never understood why 100 years ago we had footpads; they then became rollers, then muggers and now they are street robbers and are about to go back to being footpads. Sadly, the biggest single grouping comes from those of Caribbean origin. It was black on white for a while and now it is black on black. At the other end, from Latin America, we have the dippers. In general, the Latin Americans have been pretty good at pickpocketing. If we are not careful, the countries that have natural resources will be condemned because of drugs, crime and money laundering. They are worth more than that. This Government and this country can provide tremendous assistance to restore stability.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to speak on the subject of Latin America. I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for enabling me to do so. I fear that compared to previous speakers I am a novice on this subject. Indeed, this is the first speech I have made on Latin America for 25 years, since my days as a mature student at Essex University where I studied comparative government, taking as my comparators with the UK Government Latin American countries and in particular Chile, Argentina and Brazil. However, I have developed a great interest in Latin America over the years.
The 1970s were volatile years in Latin America—in Chile when President Allende came to power and the appalling bloody aftermath; in Argentina where, following changes of rulers, two of my lecturers had to remain in the UK because of their political allegiances in their homeland; and in Brazil where the military reigned supreme.
Today I want to concentrate on Brazil. At Essex I was extremely lucky to have an inspired Brazilian lecturer from Sao Paulo. Her love and enthusiasm for her city and her country instilled in me a desire to continue learning all I could about Brazil and to visit it one day.
It is fair to say that often when Brazil is mentioned, thoughts turn to its famous footballers, the role models of so many youngsters throughout the world, its coffee plantations which provide us with our daily satisfying brews, or its wonderful Rio carnival, which is taking place at present. But Brazil is much more than that. Brazilian society evolved from successive waves of migration from Europe, Africa and Asia whose people joined the indigenous Brazilian Indians. As a result, Brazil enjoys a rich, colourful and diverse population. Brazil is the largest of the Latin American countries and the fifth largest in the world. It covers nearly half of the South American continent.
I remember vividly one statistic given to us by our lecturers: Brazil is 27 times as large as France. For Europeans, I think that puts Brazil in perspective. The major difference between the Brazil of the 1970s and the Brazil of today is that in the seventies Brazil was under military rule. Since 1985 it has been a federal
1200
republic consisting of 26 states and the Federal District Brasilia. Its president is elected for a four-year term of office, and President Cardoso, the current president, faces the next elections in October 2002.
In comparison with Brazil, our political system is very simple. President Cardoso's party, PSDB, is gaining members fast, but there are 18 political parties represented in Congress. That means that the president has to rely on a coalition of parties which currently represent approximately 60 per cent of the votes in the lower House. President Cardoso is the first Brazilian president to serve a second term of office and is recognised as having raised Brazil's international profile. The role of the armed forces has considerably diminished since 1985, although some high-ranking military personnel retain a measure of influence.
Relationships between the UK and Brazil have developed substantially since 1985. Today, as has been mentioned, there are exchange visits between the two countries at the highest level. President Cardoso has been on four state visits to Britain and in 1997, together with Tony Blair, signed a joint action plan highlighting eight special areas of co-operation between the two countries. In those areas, two areas were regarded by both governments as particularly important. I refer to the international fight against drug trafficking, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and increased co-operation in support of peacekeeping exercises.
Brazil is Britain's most important trading partner in Latin America. Our exports trebled between 1992 and 1997, exceeding £1 billion in that year. A number of British multinationals have subsidiaries in Brazil including HSBC, Lloyds Bank, Rolls Royce, Glaxo-Wellcome and Shell.
I turn to internal issues in Brazil, which are vital to that country. In the most recent years Brazil has experienced economic difficulties with a recession and rising prices in the wake of the devaluation of the real, the Brazilian currency. However, that now appears to be halting. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in three years, standing at 6.2 per cent in December 2000 and prompting hopes of a rise in consumer confidence. However, dependence on foreign capital means that Brazil remains vulnerable, and with imports outgrowing exports its trade deficit could increase significantly.
In the 1970s there was little if any evidence of public programmes designed to assist the poorer sections of the population. Spending on programmes aimed at the poor hardly amounted to 1 per cent of the GDP even in the better years. Today there is a national policy of social welfare, with planned objectives, funding and administrative personnel. Priority target groups for help are children and adolescents and the poorer Brazilian regions, priority being given by the federal government to local authorities with the highest indexes of local poverty.
However, despite the 1993 social welfare code, the launch in 1996 of the Brazilian National Programme for Human Rights and the establishment in 1997 of the National Department for Human Rights, there

1201
remains a high degree of social inequality in Brazil. Some of the more stark aspects of that are reflected in the considerable number of children still living on the streets, the lack of facilities for those with disabilities and the shanty towns made from cardboard, plastic and any other usable material, which remain on the outskirts of Brazil's major cities.
Despite the Brazilian Government recognising the need for legal sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations, frequent and serious violations continue and it is common for those responsible to go unpunished. Extreme violence exists in Brazil's society and there is uncertain access to the institutions of justice. As a result, illegal private security guards are prevalent, especially in the poorer areas of the cities. There are still cases of torture and rape of suspects in police stations and of executions carried out by military police, sometimes with the participation of government officials.
Following years of neglect, especially in basic education, Brazilian education compares unfavourably with other Latin American countries. Illiteracy rates among seven year-olds are estimated at 11.5 per cent in urban areas but reach over 33 per cent in rural areas. Underpaid teachers, high drop-out rates and a lack of technical schools add to the difficulties. That results in a relatively small group of well-educated professionals and trained skilled workers.
The efforts of the Brazilian Government in education since 1994 appear to have had a positive effect, especially their legislation requiring increased spending on education at state and municipal level. Additionally, in 1997 the Government launched an extensive programme to combat adult illiteracy. However, with such an inherited burden from the authoritarian years and the size and geographical differences of the country, the government face an uphill battle.
So too in the field of health. The Brazilian health sector reflects the problems of poverty, poor or non-existent sanitation and little or no health education. Infant and maternal mortality are high. Malaria cases average over half a million per year, and registered cases of AIDS continue to rise.
Public spending on health was low—1.9 per cent of GDP in 1997 compared with 4.3 per cent in Argentina, for example—although it is now increasing. And there is continuing evidence of corruption and fraud in the administration of the health service, despite the government's plans to allay that.
There are many other aspects of this complex country which I could have detailed. However, in a relatively short speech I have been able to refer only briefly to the Brazil of yesteryear and give a flavour of the Brazil of today; a democratic Brazil which is now looking outwards instead of inwards.
I conclude by hoping that the relationships between the UK and Brazil will continue to strengthen. That can only be to the benefit of both countries. I urge the Government to build on these relationships and in doing so to use every way possible, in particular to
1202
work with and to assist the Brazilian Government in their mammoth task of developing and expanding social and welfare services.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on bringing forward this interesting and important topic for debate. I declare an interest as shareholder and chairman of a bank holding company in the United States which has extensive trading interests in the area.
The area is somewhat of an orphan as regards British trading. It is as though the Monroe doctrine was an economic rather than a political deterrent. I find that strange because Britain had a large part to play in the liberation of Chile, for instance, where the Anglo/Irishman, O'Higgins, was prominent and was much assisted by Admiral Cochrane of the Royal Navy.
In addition, Latin America was never an area in which Britain had large acquisitive interests or interests in territorial expansion. In the early days, we were large investors in Argentina's railways and other large projects, where Harrods is still a name to conjure with.
However, it is sad that we have forgotten the trading opportunities in Latin America. It is sad that all the way down south from Mexico there are franchises for continental motor cars—for instance, Volkswagen—but nothing for the UK industry. During my visits to South and Central America I have been impressed by their capital goods requirements but saddened by the lack of British goods in comparison with those from continental Europe and the USA.
During my travels in Latin America, I have found nothing but good will towards the British but sadness that we appear to have overlooked the market. Of course, the recent withdrawal by the British Council from Equador and possibly from Peru can only exacerbate such feelings among South American friends there.
There were problems some years ago when the payment records of some of those countries were less than encouraging. However, one should not forget that at that time nearly all Latin American countries were governed by the military and that in recent years the tendency has been for those countries to have proper elections in which proper democratic governments have taken over.
The relatively recent success of democracy in the region is clear in the memories of most of us. However, when I first visited the area a little over 20 years ago Brazil was run by the military. I remember that the general whose turn it was to be president proudly told me that the country had recently reduced inflation to almost 50 per cent. He thought that that was a good record. Inflation, although rampant in those days, has been successfully tackled in most of the larger economies.
Argentina was ruled by a consortium of senior officers from its army, navy and air force. Not only did the Falkland Islanders suffer as a result of that; the

1203
Argentine people suffered from frightful and frightening terror within the country. Even Chile, which is one of our oldest allies and was a great help to us during the Falklands War, had a history of human rights abuses which are still being sorted out. In Paraguay, General Stroesser led a police state—and a rotten and corrupt state it was, too.
One could mention nearly every Latin American country, even the smaller ones of Central America such as Nicaragua where a family ruled as a dynasty for many years. Panama was likewise ruled—or misruled—by corrupt overlords. No wonder they were all regarded in derogatory terms as "banana republics".
It would be unfair to describe them as such today because many of the goods they produce are of a high quality. I am sure that like me your Lordships are not unfamiliar with the wines of Argentina and Chile. Indeed, France and Italy have fruitfully invested in the vineyards of those countries and have traded where they have seen an opportunity to do so. We have failed to do that. While UK importers have no problems, our exporters are only slowly understanding the opportunities open to them and the financial assistance available to them from the ECGD.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, I am unclear as to why the Caribbean has been linked to Latin America in the debate. Apart from a geographical affinity, there is nothing much in common between the two areas. Most of the Caribbean islands have small populations and therefore trading opportunities are limited.
There is also a great deal of Hispanic influence in Central America. However, Cuba is an anomaly because the USA Government, despite an enormous base on the island, seem to treat Castro and Cuba in almost the same way as they treat Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That sentiment provides Canadian and European countries with great opportunities for trading and we should follow those up. However, one should remember that Florida is almost a second Cuba for the people who live there. As we saw during the recent election, they have strong voting preferences and are important in that regard.
Part of the Caribbean which is a fierce fiefdom of the UK is Haiti, where politics and corruption are to be found hand in hand. Haiti's next-door neighbour, the Dominican Republic, has managed to throw off the corruption and tyranny of General Trujillo and the heritage he left. The Caribbean is a charming and enchanting area for tourists and lovers of cricket—and again I declare an interest—and a holiday there is always worth while. There are many flights to the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean. There are delightful places to visit where good hotels, good food and good wine abound. I commend those as places to visit and enjoy, but, perhaps more importantly, as areas in which to carry on trade. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Government are aware of the importance of Latin America and will give some encouragement not only to Members of this House but also to exporters to push British goods, which they are not doing at the moment.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on introducing this very timely debate and on her outstanding expertise and ongoing work as president of Canning House which, with its invaluable cultural and educational role, links Britain and Latin America. I echo all the main points that the noble Baroness made.
Latin America is a microcosm of the world's problems and opportunities. With its variation of GDP per head, climate and people, it is in many respects more a cross-section of the world than any other area. When we look at Latin America we can tell ourselves to stop generalising about the world and simply apply our theories to this bit of it. For the whole of our lifetime the story of Latin America, and our relations with it, has been one of potential, but all too often it has been one of limited progress side by side with poverty, inequality and much injustice.
The first issue is how far any of us can see that changing, and how far we can help it to change. Some may say that it is not for outsiders, whether it be the United States, the EU, or even Che Guevara, to try to parachute in their own views, and there is some truth in that. To echo my noble friend Lord Brennan, it is clear that our role is very welcome and encouraged. I have paid three visits to Latin America. My first visit was to Mexico 20 years ago in connection with the United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations. I was pleased to be involved in the inward IPU mission from Mexico two weeks ago. In 19921 was a member of the UK delegation to the Earth Summit in Rio. My most recent visit was as part of the IPU delegation to Bolivia last September. I was the only Member of this House on that delegation. I should like to place on record our appreciation to everyone involved in that exercise, including our ambassador in La Paz, Graham Minter, and the Bolivian ambassador in London, Sr Quiroga Matos, who is in the House this afternoon.
Bolivia is now on the right track. To make a sweeping over-simplification, it recognises the immense challenge of reconciling market forces, notably in the burgeoning economy of Santa Cruz for example, with the fortunes of the indigenous people concentrated in the Andes, the campesinos and greater La Paz. One issue that Bolivia has addressed directly is cocaine. As to that, there is some disquiet in Bolivia that its Herculean efforts to eradicate the trade—its plan for national dignity—has cost its balance of payments some 500 million dollars and only some 50 million to 100 million dollars has come back from America and Europe in the form of support. At the same time, Bolivia has witnessed Plan Colombia which is largely a military-based American programme of some 3 billion dollars that runs the risk of escalating problems. I hope that I am wrong about that.
The people of Bolivia themselves pose the not totally rhetorical question: does failure to solve the problem earn more financial support than solving it'? Now is the time to respond to Bolivia's needs as much as we can. We commend the efforts of the UK in terms of DfID's

1205
agricultural and forestry projects in particular, and training, the work of the British Council, the pivotal role of the CDC in Santa Cruz, which serves as a hub for South America, and the investments in mining, not to mention the huge BP and other gas investments on the Argentine-Paraguay border, which we visited. The new pipeline will provide up to three-quarters of the growth of Brazilian electricity generation in the next 20 years.
In the context of oil and gas, perhaps I may say a word about the environment and sustainable development. I remember that in Rio in 1992 someone calculated that if every citizen of the world was given the same ration card for carbon, in broad terms the north would owe the south about 500 billion dollars. Even the Americans do not have that kind of money. Progress on Kyoto is slow but is taking place; it is part of a vast agenda of sustainable development. I say to environmentalists that, with difficulty, we have all signed up to a common hymn sheet in Rio, Agenda 21. Let us go forward together in implementing it. That is one area where the European Union has the lead role.
Other lead roles are emerging strongly in Latin America. The American time zone relationship is highlighted by efforts to assemble the free trade area of the Americas. It is reported that the US is wooing Argentina to try to overcome the reluctance of Brazil which has invested a good deal in the development of Mercosur. One is also aware of the tensions between multilateral, regional and bilateral approaches. Both the US and EU adopt bilateral approaches with Chile which include, incidentally, labour and environmental dimensions.
Latin America is now the largest per capita recipient of EU aid in the world. Moreover, in Mercosur the EU has become a more important trading partner than the US. The role of the EU in Latin America is an evolving one. For example, when Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, appears in Buenos Aires to talk about WTO matters, that visit is as significant as that of any member state, and probably much more so. As to bananas and sugar, like my noble friend Lord Rea, I ask the Minister how the Caribbean is assessing the latest arrangements.
The EU umbrella is also ideal for certain contacts in the social field. I am very pleased that, following the summit last year, this summer my former colleague Emilio Gabaglio, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, will be conducting a mission to Mercosur and Bolivia, which is an associate member.
In the cultural field, there are sensitivities with regard to the respective roles of Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Holland and the UK as former colonial powers. But the converse is that there is a rich European cultural heritage and an equally rich possibility of a European market for cultural tourism and the display of Latin American artefacts in the great European museums. A group which includes the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the chairman of the all-party Latin American group, Mr Tam Dalyell, and the Bolivian ambassador, is to meet the director of the
1206
British Museum tomorrow morning to discuss these issues. I hope that we can have contact with the EU cultural relations commissioner among others. There could be a lead EU role for the British Museum in one area and, likewise, for Madrid, Rome, Paris and so on in another. The British Museum is already contemplating a gallery of Andean civilisation following the model of the highly commended gallery of Mexican civilisation which opened recently. Two-way traffic in cultural contacts region to region is now an idea whose time has come.
Finally, I refer to the representation of EU countries in Latin American capitals. If my arithmetic is correct, assuming that 19 EU countries send missions to each of the 19 Latin American countries, that means 361 missions overall. In some fields all try to do more or less the same thing. The Americans have just 19.
No European country, including Britain, can provide wall-to-wall service on every topic in every country. It seems to me that there is now the opportunity for a medium-term plan for EU external relations which can strengthen our expertise in many smaller countries. I do not mean a merger, but some contact through lead roles in certain fields. That is an area within the scope of Sub-Committee A of the European Union Committee. I hope that we can consider the matter in the near future.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this debate to the House today. I also thank her for the great encouragement she has given me on the occasions when I have considered going to South America.
I believe that my first visit was when I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil to consider re-writing the Brazilian constitution. The outcome of the meeting was that women wished to include four pages on women's rights. When I met our consul he told us that the Indians wished to include four pages on Indian rights and the farmers wanted 10 pages on farming rights. If everyone had included everything that they wished there would have been a book about the size of the Bible. The American delegate was a very wise woman. She said that they included just two lines which covered the whole issue. My noble friend mentioned that democracy is fragile. It was fascinating to note that re-writing of the Brazilian constitution.
On more recent visits to Latin America I was surprised to discover that the norm was for any president to be elected for one term of office only. The parliamentarian groups I have accompanied have made the point that that is not a good position because there is no sanction. If a president is elected for one term only, he can do what he likes. There is no way of showing him how dissatisfied one is by failing to reelect him. There is a definite case to be made for a president having the right to two terms of office rather than one only.
I have been on parliamentary delegations to Peru in 1999 and Guatemala in 2000. They were both very interesting experiences and quite different. Before that

1207
I had been to Ecuador in my capacity as chairman of Plan International, United Kingdom branch. It is an NGO which raises money in 10 donor countries to work in 43 of the poorest countries. We work only with the poorest of the poor.
My first trip was to Ecuador to see the people in Canar where they made straw hats. They paid 60 US cents for the materials and spent four days making them. They were given two dollars for their work. The hats then went through various processes. People carried out the last processes of finishing, packaging and labelling. They were sold in Europe for between £30 and £50 each. Canar has just the right climate with the right amount of moisture for making the straw hats. They are known to us as panama hats which can be rolled up and put in the pocket.
One of the Plan representatives from Germany went to Canar and returned with a hat. She was asked by the staff of a German magazine whether she had returned with anything. She replied that she had returned with just a hat, which was considered rather nice. The hat was put on the head of a model and the picture was put on the front cover of a fashion magazine, which contained an article pointing out that the readers could also acquire such a hat. I believe that 20 dollars was the quoted price for a hat. It was not very expensive, but that was fair more than the makers received.
The magazine thought that it might receive a few hundred replies, but it received 20,000 from people wishing to buy the hats. That involved four years' work for the community and meant that Plan became redundant there and moved on to help a poorer community. The hat-making community is now totally self-sufficient. It sends trade representatives to world trade fairs. That community has now established a marvellous way of life without the necessity of middlemen. That is an example of enterprise and of having access to markets. It was a sheer stroke of luck that it gained market access, which has made all the difference to that community.
I visited another place in Ecuador where the inhabitants had chosen to live in the middle of a swamp in houses built on stilts. When we asked why they were living there they said it was because it gave them a better life. It made one think how bad life must have been before. Returning to that area recently, I discovered that it has now become quite a built up, settled and drained area. That represents a typical pattern of how people establish lives for themselves in some of these countries.
In Peru we were entertained royally in Lima. We saw the river Amazon. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and I went on to Cuzco after the parliamentary visit in order to study the history there, which was quite fascinating. I went to see the work of Plan in Peru. I visited a number of places which had health centres and so forth.
Water was available in the middle of one little town. The town had existed for 34 years and every drop of water had had to be carried nine kilometres by hand or by donkey. Now there was running water and just one tap in the middle of the village. The village headman
1208
had to turn it off pretty regularly because the children were so excited by it that they would have allowed a great deal of water to run away. Plan provided the expertise and materials, but the people themselves had built the supply.
At the instigation of my noble friend Lady Hooper, I went on to Bolivia. She said that I must. I was there before the parliamentary visit so I was pleased about that. I was invited to open a greenhouse to teach children how to grow plants in the altiplano. I would have called it almost a chicken house because I have seen buildings like it in Cornwall. We built three simple prefab school buildings one after the other as the school community enlarged. The fourth building was the greenhouse.
It had a ribbon across its front with a bow. I was told that I could either cut or pull the ribbon. Foolishly, I thought that it would be more glamorous to cut the ribbon. I had not realised that it was a primary school and that all the scissors were of the special non-cutting variety. After sawing away for quite some time I pulled the ribbon and launched the greenhouse with a bottle of beer which was given to me. I thought that that was a very appropriate equivalent to our western champagne which we break across the bow of a ship.
The local people then produced a tablecloth which was like a runner. It must have been about 100 feet long. It was stretched on the ground. Everyone had brought hundreds of different varieties of potato. We all sat on the ground and had a great celebration party after the event.
I went on to Tarija where we were working to deal with Chagas disease. It is caused by a terrible insect which drops from the ceiling at night and bites people. People die either of a heart, lung or abdominal condition very suddenly and horribly. By fixing ceilings people can be given a new life. We worked there in conjunction with another local NGO to carry out the necessary work. The experts from the United States said that to seal the ceilings in the very poor houses would cost a minimum of 35 dollars for the paint. But the local people, using a mixture of cactus juice and local soils, were able to make the repairs at three dollars a house and do it very well indeed.
Another project there was Pro Mujer, which comprised rotating credit for women. With a small amount of credit people were able to set up businesses such as stalls. We visited a soup stall. The name of the soup served was "muy fuerte", which means very strong. It was made from the penis and testicles of the bullock. Apparently, that soup was a great success in Tarija. People were constantly arriving at the stall to sup the soup in order to pass on those strong qualities. I can understand why the soup was so successful.
In Guatemala there was no tax base, which was a great cause of concern to us. Much as the government wished to help their people, the rich paid off the tax inspector, which was much cheaper than paying tax. The very poor did not have money with which to pay tax. So without some form of revenue and tax base the government found it very difficult to carry out their plans. But they were doing good and we wish them continued success.

1209
There are so many marvellous places that I have seen, but nothing can compare with the excitement of a visit to South America and the great new world that it has opened up for me.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating the debate. I know of her great interest in the region. She has often regaled me with stories of the Caribbean and Latin America. I apologise for not being present during some part of the debate. However, I look forward to reading in Hansard what has been said by noble Lords. I trust I will not repeat inadvertently anything that has already been said.
My special area of interest is the Caribbean. I crave the indulgence of the House to spend a moment in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, to the Caribbean family. Here in London we very much appreciate the noble Lord and the work he did there. I probably will share some rum with the noble Lord later if he has the time.
The Caribbean region faces enormous challenges at this time. Those challenges reflect the vulnerability of the region. The Caribbean is a small region with a large number of countries whose population is less than one-sixth of that of the UK. Nevertheless, we must recognise its importance to us here.
During the early 1950s the Caribbean responded magnificently to the need in Britain for manpower. The people left their homes. They manned the buses and the trains. Some of them had never seen a train before. They worked in the factories. They contributed in a real way. It was unstinting. I read today that sometimes it is said that they came here for economic reasons. Although I was very much in the Caribbean at the time, I can tell noble Lords that their wish to come here was to support the mother country that had been ravaged by war and had lost most of her manpower. I say that so that we put in context why the Caribbean is important. Our links are historical and, in times gone by, the Caribbean has been a great source of wealth to the United Kingdom.
We must recognise that the Caribbean region faces enormous challenges between now and the year 2010. These challenges reflect the vulnerability of the region. Globalisation is not going away. It offers many benefits, but there are many risks for everyone, including the UK and the Caribbean. I trust that this increases the United Kingdom's interest in helping the Caribbean during what will be a momentous period of change for us.
I do not want to give noble Lords the impression that we should only be concerned with problems in the Caribbean; I want to stress that the Caribbean has some very big assets—a good deal of human talent of a high order, excellent levels of education and a highly developed sense of civil society. Those are assets that we in this country can envy. In a globalised world human capital will be crucial.
1210
As I said, the UK and the Caribbean have strong historical ties and family links. Over half a million citizens in the UK are of Caribbean origin. That is over four times larger than the relationship between Cuba and America. But it is much more than a matter of size. The Caribbean community in Britain is part of what we are as a nation. One has only to see how many gold medals we won in the Olympic Games to realise that the contribution of the Caribbean still goes on. We consciously celebrated this time the fact that we have a multi-cultural and a multi-ethnic society. I believe that we should spend some time thinking about that contribution.
With those strong ties and family links, as in any relationship, there are also some shared problems. The Caribbean is no longer far away. We know—I have heard it said today—that there is a major and growing drugs threat to the UK and to the region as a whole. One-third of the drugs on UK streets transit the Caribbean.
We also have direct responsibility for five overseas territories in the Caribbean with which we are forging a new relationship of partnership. These territories face many of the same pressures as the independent countries in the region. The Caribbean has strong two-way trade relations with the UK. Nearly £1 billion is exported to the Caribbean from the UK market. We have a significant interest in oil and gas in Trinidad. There are direct UK interests in promoting the economic growth and political stability of the region. Many of the UK's key international interests—for example, good governance, human rights, sustainable development and the environment—are very high on the Caribbean agenda.
There are some challenges. In global terms the Caribbean appears relatively stable. But it is a region whose problems are firmly on the international agenda and deserve real attention from British Ministers. It is vulnerable because of the large number of small island states with few natural resources and no easy prospects of economic diversification. But while the Caribbean area has problems, it certainly does not have to become a problem area. That could only happen if, by default, the international community allowed it to become so. The challenges will become increasingly acute over the next decade.
If one looks at the Caribbean's trading position, one sees that the 1994 NAFTA deal swung the terms of trade with the US back in favour of Mexico. Subsequent US aid and access programmes, building on the original 1980s Caribbean Basin Initiative, while helping to some extent, failed fully to compensate for what was lost.
The Caribbean is now facing huge threats to its traditional markets—bananas and so on. The preferential EU market access arrangements have been under challenge by the US and others in the WTO for some time and are probably unsustainable beyond this decade. Behind the walls of the EU/ACP Lom¹ agreement and preferential contracts, the production costs of the main local staples—bananas, sugar and rum—have soared relative to potential competitors in Latin America and elsewhere.

1211
Perhaps I may say a little about bananas since it is always topical. The UK has only two objectives on bananas: first, to resolve the dispute rapidly in a WTO-acceptable way; and, secondly, to address the needs of vulnerable Caribbean banana producers. We have remained open to various approaches. We were disappointed by the failure of negotiations on the basis of the Caribbean proposal. But we are pleased that the Commission has been focusing on the need for an early solution, which is WTO acceptable.
Against the Caribbean's criteria, the Commission's approach of "first come, first served" for quotas, which should allow for specific arrangements for the Caribbean, is a valid basis for a solution, and we are content for it to be pursued. But the Secretary of State made it clear to EU Ministers at the GAC meeting on 9th October that the needs of the Caribbean must be safeguarded. He said that we will not abandon Caribbean interests. We were grateful for that.
As usual, when I am on my favourite subject, the time passes quickly. I should like to end by asking one question of the Minister. On Monday, the General Affairs Council of the European Union agreed a proposal to extend duty free access to products from least developed countries—the so-called Everything But Arms proposal. Does the noble Baroness share my welcome for that proposal, and will she make a statement about its impact on the Caribbean?
4.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has given us the first opportunity since June 1999 to debate the affairs of Latin America and has wisely added the Caribbean to the title of the debate. Although, as has been said by one noble Lord, the two regions are quite separate, they do interact with one another. Noble Lords will appreciate that Guyana is on the mainland of Latin America and several of the countries of the Caribbean are Hispanic, so there is not that total separation between them that exists in some people's minds.
The subject of drugs has been much aired during the course of the debate. As we know, the menace of drugs begins in Latin America, it travels through the Caribbean and finishes up on the streets of the United States and of Europe. Therefore, I think it is wise for us to consider the affairs of the whole region together even though, during this debate, inevitably, noble Lords have concentrated on the particular countries that are of most interest and concern to them.
As has been remarked, there has been a total transformation of the region in the past 25 years. My noble friend Lord Sandberg enumerated some of the countries of the southern cone that had made the transition from military dictatorship to democracy over that period. The only one he left out was Uruguay, which was under military control in the middle 1970s. As this has been a debate for reminiscences, perhaps I may tell the House that I was in Argentina in 1976 as a delegate of Amnesty International, together with then Congressman Drinan. We were described in the newspapers as the
1212
"mad monk" and the "red Lord", which was a reference to my socks. I still maintain the same colour. I was also in Bolivia, to pick up the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in 1978 when Mr Banzer, who has made a remarkable comeback, was removed from the presidency. There was a democratic election but, unfortunately, there was a great deal of fraud. At the end of it I had to describe the process, if your Lordships will forgive me, as a sinverguenza fraude.
I have been concerned with the affairs of Latin America for the past 25 years and I am very glad to have the opportunity to revisit them today. I wish to take up the second of the three legs of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and concentrate on what we might do to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in whatever way is open to us. I begin with a reference to the Caricom states, which, two weeks ago, formally signed an agreement which brings into existence the Caribbean Court of Justice, which will replace the Privy Council as the final court of appeal in criminal cases throughout the region. The full implementation of the agreement may take two or three years, because it requires amendments to the constitutions and national legislation of the countries involved.
We cannot have any objection to the ending of the Privy Council's jurisdiction. It is an anachronism and a link with the colonial era that is resented by many people in those countries. But at the same time we must hope that the new court will be totally independent of the executives in the member states, and at least as robust in its defence of human rights as the Privy Council has been. Our former colleague, Lord Gifford, who practises law in Jamaica, supports the new court, but recommends a sequence of procedures to ensure that it does meet the required standards of independence and competence, to the satisfaction of the people as confirmed in a referendum. One would expect, for instance, that the Pratt and Morgan judgment of the Privy Council, in which it was held that a death sentence carried out more than five years after sentence would be inhuman or degrading punishment, would continue to apply under a new dispensation.
There are causes for concern when there is a trend towards withdrawal at the same time from the jurisdiction of the UN Human Rights Committee and of the Inter American Commission and Court of Human Rights. Trinidad has withdrawn from both jurisdictions and Jamaica from the Inter American Commission on the misapprehension voiced by regional Attorneys General that delays imposed by those procedures would make it impossible for them ever to execute anyone in capital cases. The commission has dealt with recent cases from Jamaica in an average of 7.6 months, while cases from Trinidad are taking 10 months. We ought really to encourage all Caricom states to accept the jurisdiction of the Inter American Court. I should like to ask the Minister what assistance we could give, technical or financial. to states such as Barbados which do take on that

1213
obligation and which therefore ought to be rewarded for signing up to international instruments that defend the human rights of their people.
More generally, law enforcement is not well resourced in Caribbean states, and the quality of justice is not high. We could help by offering advice based on our own experience—for example, with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—and by supporting indigenous non-governmental organisations such as the Guyana Human Rights Association, which has been operating so effectively on minimal resources since it was founded in 1979.
Colombia was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, as being the world's largest producer of cocaine, exporting 90 per cent of its annual production to the US, and the rest to Europe. We have strongly supported the efforts that have been made by President Pastrana to negotiate a political settlement with the two groups of armed rebels and at the same time to urge that the paramilitary groups, which are also involved in the drugs business, should be dealt with vigorously. The Americans, on the other hand, place greater emphasis on a military solution to the question of the armed groups. As part of Plan Colombia, they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Colombian armed forces.
The new Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, says that he supports Plan Colombia, but he believes that there is no military solution to the problem. At the same time President Pastrana said that, during his visit which began yesterday, he would ask the Americans for another 500 million dollars a year on top of the two-year 1.6 billion dollar package already agreed with the Clinton Administration, mostly to encourage farmers to grow crops other than coca. I warmly endorse what has been said about the importance of crop substitution as a strategy in dealing with the drug menace in Latin America.
One possibility would be to divert some of the money earmarked for military aid into crop substitution. The military already has the manpower and weaponry to deal with the drugs business, as it demonstrated in the Black Cat operation against a network that exchanges drugs for arms on the borders with Brazil and Venezuela, and also in a separate operation against the FARC and paramilitaries in the mountainous zone between Antioquia and Cordoba provinces.
The problem is that a few laboratories may be destroyed, a few traffickers arrested and hundreds of hectares of drug cultivation eradicated, but the attraction of the crops for peasants in remote areas is so great that very soon the trade revives. The only permanent solution is to ensure that rural Colombia and, similarly, rural Bolivia, which has been mentioned in the course of the debate, have other means of earning a decent living. Some of the money needed for this purpose may well come from donors, but if the strategy works, then both the state and the armed opposition in Colombia would be able to reduce their military spending, freeing resources for rural development.
1214
I was glad to see the announcement of peace talks between the Colombian Government and the FARC which Mr Battle welcomed in a recent statement. That has lead to substantive talks which are due to begin on 8th March. A group of friendly nations is to be invited from the Americas, Asia and Europe to help in the process. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether Britain is among those countries which have been invited to the talks. If not, will the EU be represented collectively by the Swedish presidency? The EU was active in pressing for these negotiations and could play a useful role. I know that President Pastrana visited Sweden at the end of last month and it was during that visit that he unveiled the six-point plan to deal with the paramilitaries, which has been urged on him by the armed opposition.
The EU has a budget of 105 million euros for aid to Colombia over the period 2000–06, quite separate from Plan Colombia and concentrating on human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence. If further help is needed to buttress the peace process, I hope that we would support a special grant for that purpose.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Hooper, who is so very knowledgeable and such a good friend of Latin America, for initiating this debate. It has been extremely interesting, with many well-informed contributions, including a thoughtful and witty speech by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, as well as an important speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, on the Caribbean. Contributions from noble Lords today have reflected exactly the high quality of debate frequently heard in your Lordships' House, but so rarely found elsewhere.
In the short time available, it is difficult to do justice to such a large and varied area, so I shall concentrate on only one country, Mexico. Over many years, I have had the good fortune to visit Mexico frequently, the last occasion being only a month ago. This is a good time to take stock of Mexico because, over the past six years, it has experienced an extraordinary political transformation, culminating in a new president, elected at the end of last year. That signalled the end of 71 years—not 18 years—of what was in effect one-party rule. It leaves no room for doubt, for example, about the consolidation of Mexico's transition to democracy.
This peaceful transition marks the first change of government since the 1910–17 revolution. It heralds substantial political changes in the composition of the PRI, the old establishment party. Furthermore, it has elected an extraordinary individual in President Vincente Fox. He has a private sector background and an anti-bureaucratic bias. One of his principal objectives is to expand economic ties, as well as to forge closer relations and further co-operation with Mexico's northern neighbour, the United States.
Even though the United States took 88 per cent of Mexico's exports in 1999 and provided 74 per cent of its imports, Mexico has developed free trade

1215
agreements with other Latin American countries and the Caribbean. It will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that President Bush's first state visit was not the usual one to Canada or to Europe, but to Mexico. The "Guanajuato proposal", made only recently when President Bush visited President Fox at his ranch, clearly established a close working relationship. That relationship is grounded in their respect for democracy and human rights, not only for themselves, but also for all people in every nation. They come from similar backgrounds.
During President Fox's administration, we are likely to see even more important developments with the dynamism achieved through NAFTA. With 40 million Mexicans working in the US, this fact alone must have a massive effect on Mexico's working relationship with the United States and is vital for the growth prospects of Mexico's economy. The close relationship should also have a major and positive effect on improving economic and social development along the US-Mexican border: fighting drug trafficking, about which we have heard a great deal today; money laundering, drug abuse, organised crime; and, of course, corruption.
Mexico is the only country on the American continent to have signed, last November, a European free trade agreement with the European Union.
The UK has a substantial stake in the Mexican economy, as we heard in the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The UK was the second largest direct investor in Mexico after the US, but has now sadly slipped to third place behind the Netherlands. In 1999, we exported some £939 million-worth of products and imported £664 million-worth. First and second quarter figures for 2000, the latest figures I have, show £588 million-worth of export, up by £156 million on the same period in 1999. If we neglect this most valuable market, it will be our loss.
Despite these encouraging trade figures, the present Government continue to show a remarkable lack of interest in the transition that I have described. They have demonstrated, too, a reluctance to engage in this part of the continent that could even be described as verging on neglect. In November last year, the Prime Minister did not go to Mexico—that was the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—but sent instead his special envoy, the noble Lord, Lord Levy, bearing a message saying that he was unable to visit Mexico during his term of office, but hoped to visit next year. Is this really how our foreign policy announcements should be made? Not even our Foreign Secretary could find time to visit.
It is a shame, too, that we did not have an opportunity to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Levy, in today's debate after his extensive tour of Latin America on behalf of the Prime Minister. I am sure that all noble Lords would like to hear a report of his Latin American odyssey.
At President Fox's inauguration, heads of state and high-level diplomatic delegations representing governments attended. This was a celebration of the re-establishment of democracy. More important, our
1216
competitors from Latin America, Spain. France, Germany and the United States sent top representatives and delegations from their political, economic and cultural elites. Who did the British Government send? None other than the Minister of State for Scotland. I fear that we may have some bridge building to do in the future.
The recent changes that I have referred to are highly significant in global terms, both politically and economically. Mexico is re-emerging as a truly democratic nation, a force for good in a region of the world that is still in the political balance, as we have been told by several noble Lords in the course of our debate.
In winding up the debate, I should like to ask the Minister why our policy towards Mexico has been so—dare I say?—offhand. Before 1997, we received two presidential visits as well as several other senior visits. Mr Michael Heseltine took an extremely successful delegation from the British Overseas Trade Board when he was its president.
As Proust said:
"The mind can be influenced like a plant, like a cell, like a chemical element; the only requirement is a set of new circumstances or a new environment".
I believe that Proust was right; President Fox is bravely creating the new circumstances and the new environment. We can all look forward to exciting changes.
We on this side of the House hope that the Government will in future take Mexico more seriously. Perhaps in her reply the Minister will tell the House what future constructive plans the Government have towards Mexico.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing the debate. She has shown a notable commitment to the region, in this House and outside, particularly in her role as president of Canning House. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating her on her valuable work and on inspiring the debate on this topic today.
I have been greatly impressed—as, indeed, I often am when listening to your Lordships' debates—by the number and variety of the interventions we have had today. It is heartening to know that, as on so many subjects, noble Lords have such a wealth of experience and expertise.
"Developments in Latin America and the Caribbean" is an enormous subject, as a number of noble Lords have said. To answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Rea alone would keep us here for many hours as opposed to minutes. How can I touch on the historical and entertaining narrative given by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon? How can I reply with proper weight to the graphic, glowing and colourful experiences outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which so delighted us? There has been reference to Peru, Chile, Honduras, Colombia,

1217
Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala, to name but a few of the countries in Latin America, and to the Caribbean.
I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, encompassed the Caribbean in the debate and thank her for that. We, too, believe that it is important to have a regional perspective. The EU/LAC summit process, which began in Rio in 1999, was enriched by Caribbean participation. I am pleased that we encouraged that. The countries of the region have a lot to contribute to one another, and we and other members of the EU are keen to promote closer links within the region in pursuit of common goals.
I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, did not appear to understand the importance of the connection with Latin America and the Caribbean, although he rightly gave warm praise to the delights of the Caribbean as a region to visit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, made some trenchant comments to indicate almost that Her Majesty's Government are not interested in this area. I was somewhat surprised by that. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government's interest in the region is very real and that we wish to have an invigorated relationship. Mexico is an important area and the warmth of affection that we have always enjoyed with that country remains.
We are playing a more active role in the Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes both Latin America and the Caribbean countries as members. Last year we appointed our first permanent representative, the Director of the Americas in the FCO, to the OAS and we stepped up our contribution to OAS projects, particularly in the fields of human rights and electoral observation. The most recent projects with UK support include the OAS electoral monitoring mission to Peru and a seminar on human rights systems in the Caribbean which was organised earlier this month by the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
We shall continue to give a high priority to regional action. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and other noble Lords, about this issue. In the context of the follow up to the EU/LAC summit, we are working with our EU partners to add real meat to the declaration made in Rio. We want to make the "priorities for action" a reality. The European side wishes to concentrate on three areas: the promotion and protection of human rights, which I hope will give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; the support of the most vulnerable members of society; and the promotion of the information society.
We have indicated that we are keen to promote an initiative on sharing information on e-government and e-commerce as a contribution to bridging the global digital divide. We are in the process of discussing how to take this forward. The next EU/LAC summit will take place in Madrid in 2002 and we intend to play our part in ensuring that it is a success.
1218
The theme of regional integration is, of course, particularly relevant in the context of the priorities of the new Administration in the United States and their renewed focus on the hemisphere. We are following with interest the debate on the proposed free trade area of the Americas and the agenda for the summit of the Americas in Quebec in April, a matter to which a number of noble Lords referred.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, further: Latin America is not a forgotten market. For our part, we are very keen to expand trade between Europe and the Latin American/Caribbean region. We strongly supported a free trade agreement between Mexico and the EU. The final parts of that agreement, on services and other matters, will enter into force this week. The agreement is already proving its worth in promoting a strong growth in the United Kingdom's trade in goods with Mexico. That demonstrates—if we needed clearer demonstration—that perhaps the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was not quite right in relation to our efforts with Mexico.
We also welcome the EU's close relationship with Mercosur and fully support the current negotiations with Mercosur and Chile. The United Kingdom will be at the forefront of efforts to conclude the most liberal agreements possible. This should bring substantial benefits to the economies of both regions.
Before I deal with other trade issues, I should like to make a few comments on specific areas. First, on the region that I know best—the Caribbean. I should say to my noble friend Lady Howells, that I totally agree with what she said. I could not have expressed it better.
The region is one of importance. It has given much to our British way of life—its contribution has been very broad indeed—and it is now, thankfully, very visible in your Lordships' House. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, to the fraternity.
We have a direct interest in promoting economic growth and stability in the region. We have strong trade relations with the Caribbean. The United Kingdom exports an impressive £1 billion-worth of trade to the Caribbean market each year. It is a market that we would like to see grow.
Our reinvigorated policy towards the Caribbean has seen an increase in the number of high level visits to the region. For example, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales paid an extremely successful visit to Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago and Guyana in February of last year. During that visit, His Royal Highness was able to take forward, in conjunction with the respective host governments, projects related to business and youth development and to the environment in the Caribbean. I understand that his chocolate—Guyanese chocolate—will now do very well.
A number of noble Lords may be aware that we hosted the second United Kingdom/Caribbean forum at Lancaster House in May of last year. At that meeting we established a framework for the relationship and identified various initiatives to pursue together. These include, more police training, joint action on illegal weapons and drug search, assistance

1219
to create a Caribbean inward investment office and the development of closer legal and judicial links, including the formation of a British/Caribbean jurists association, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred in his extraordinary and powerful speech.
Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica have withdrawn from the first optional protocol to the ICCPR, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated. The protocol provides a further avenue for individuals to appeal against sentence once they have exhausted all available domestic appeals. We know that this is an area of acute concern to a number of states. The establishment of the Caribbean court of justice is a matter for the Caribbean countries themselves to decide. It would be quite improper for us to seek to influence that decision one way or another. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will remain available to all countries that use the system for as long as they wish.
I should also like to acknowledge the work of the Caribbean Advisory Group, which advises the Government on how we can improve co-operation and our relationship in fields such as education, culture and sports, and business links and trade. They, too, contribute to our ability to enhance our relations with the region.
At the Rio summit, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary described Cuba as the motor for the future economic development of the region, and held a landmark meeting with the Cuban Foreign Minister, Perez Roque. It is right, therefore, that in this debate we have touched on the importance of Cuba. We have based our relations with Cuba on a policy of constructive engagement and frank dialogue, and the bilateral relationship has developed positively. Our cooperation in many areas, including in the fight against illicit drugs, is good. Our trade relations are improving, with a regular flow of inward and outward missions. The British pavilion at the Havana international trade fair in November was a great success, to cite just one example.
Caribbean governments face collectively—as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Howells—a bumpy road ahead. None of us can wave a magic wand, but what we can do is work together to try to ensure that the Caribbean survives the journey. We have taken, and shall continue to take, active steps to increase the attention, the amount of listening and the co-operation and support that we are giving to the region.
A number of noble Lords have seen over the past 20 years dramatic political and economic changes in the Latin American region, together with the Caribbean. Democracy has triumphed throughout Latin America and people throughout the region now enjoy democratic government. Every country except Cuba and Haiti is now an established democracy. But we should not underestimate the difficulties. In some countries democracy is new and has fragile roots. Problems of social justice, poverty, crime, human rights, violence and the drugs trade present formidable challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner,
1220
eloquently drew attention to some of those problems and highlighted some of the excellent work being done by NGOs.
Many speakers drew attention to human rights issues in several countries. Noble Lords will know that the Government are determined to keep human rights at the heart of their foreign policy. This means, in part, making resources available to plan and implement projects. We estimate that since the Rio summit we have undertaken over 50 projects specifically focused on human rights issues in the region, at a cost of about £1.3 million. Current projects include, for example: broadcasting in Spanish throughout Latin America on human rights topics in co-operation with the BBC World Service; training police and prison officers in Brazil, in Venezuela and in the Caribbean; legal advocacy training in Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago; and aiding the national co-ordinator for human rights in Peru to link 61 human rights NGOs by building an electronic information service.
In addition to funding projects, our policy involves more active listening to NGOs, and being more aware of the needs and concerns of civil society. We have worked hard to ensure that we take advice from quarters in the search for the most efficient way to help. All of this will help to deliver greater democracy and, in so doing, will help our ability to trade, and trade effectively.
The problems are, of course, different in each country. The issue of human rights is one of the key considerations, for example, which drives our policy in Colombia. We have been at the forefront of international efforts to support the peace process in order to help protect human rights and democracy there. The Government are very concerned about the increase in violence, and particularly the threat to human rights workers, trade unionists and those involved in administering justice. We have been playing a leading role, both bilaterally and within the European Union. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Dr Mowlam, will be paying her third visit to the country next week with the aim of offering further advice and assistance. So, contrary to the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, we have been very active in that area. Dr Mowlam has given us great support.
We have strongly urged the Colombian authorities to implement practical measures to address the social and economic problems which lie at the heart of the internal conflict, and we shall continue to encourage them to find ways to achieve actual improvements on the ground. The EU aid package of 105 million euros for Colombia over the period 2000–2006 will be focused on achieving that objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, with his usual charm, drew proper attention to the situation in Peru. We have played a leading role in Peru over the past year and we will maintain a close interest in the Peruvian elections, which will take place on 8th April. We shall take part in the 50-strong EU election monitoring team that will observe the election. I agree that electoral assistance

1221
should be given at grass roots level too. That will be important. That is why the Department for International Development is now implementing a £775,000 programme, mainly through civil society organisations, to support greater engagement by the rural poor in the political and electoral process.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the British Council in Peru. I am pleased to report that, although the budget for English language teaching and cultural events is being reduced, the British Council governance programme is being retained in its entirety. It will continue to contribute to the democratisation process in Peru. So I can assuage the noble Lord's concerns in that regard. The British Council does a huge amount of good work and the structure of the offices is under frequent review. Offices may have closed in Ecuador, but they have opened in Cuba. The British Council will keep up with the programme regime and will examine it again if the present structure proves inappropriate.
Many speakers touched on the question of drugs. I should like to reassure all that we are actively involved throughout the region in the international effort to stop the drugs trade, including providing direct counter-drugs assistance to many Latin American and Caribbean countries. This is a global problem and we all share a responsibility. Only by working together can we hope to make progress in limiting the damage that the illicit trade causes to families, to society and to the environment.
Reference was made to Honduras. We should not forget the tragic and dramatic problems that have been caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes in El Salvador and Honduras. We have been impressed by the fortitude of those who have suffered in these countries and, with the international community, we have responded quickly to calls for assistance. We have given about £1.5 million to El Salvador since the first earthquake in January, and we intend to contribute to a rebuilding project in the coming weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made specific mention of Honduras. We played a major role in reconstruction after the ravages of hurricane Mitch. Much of the work has been in remote areas which other donors have not reached. We are now playing a full part with other major donors in promoting changes in Honduras and Nicaragua for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, rightly drew attention to our trading and investment relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. I am well aware of—and I pay tribute to—the energy that many noble Lords who have spoken have put into forging stronger business links with the region. In 2000, bilateral trade in goods with Latin America was worth some £6.2 billion; and with the Caribbean some £1.8 billion. We also have strong investment links; the UK has always been a major foreign investor in the region.
1222
The opportunities remain great. But we could do better and we are still trailing behind our European partners. The Government are working to ensure an improvement in our trading position in the region. That is why in the past year the Deputy Prime Minister visited Brazil, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry visited Brazil and Argentina and the Minister for Trade visited Venezuela and Chile. There were also other trade-related ministerial visits and 30 government-supported trade missions to the region.
I am glad that my noble friend Lady Gibson rightly concentrated on Brazil and the challenges that it faces. We are delighted that President Cardoso of Brazil will be visiting the United Kingdom again at the end of March. One of the main objectives of his visit will be publicise the plans for the new cross-border infrastructure projects in South America, which will provide British business with considerable opportunities in transport, energy and telecommunications. The visit will also provide an excellent opportunity to carry forward bilateral dialogue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, also mentioned LATAG and CARITAG. Perhaps I may say shortly that they remain extremely important and are working well. They have unrivalled expertise and commitment. I am sure that they will continue to thrive. I should have liked to touch with greater concentration on Mexico. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not doing so more fully. I can reassure her that it is a vibrant relationship and one that will not be undermined or diminished.
In conclusion, the opportunity just to touch on these key issues has been a very important one. We have many key interests at stake, as well as many opportunities before us. We shall continue to work hard to share the benefits that continued friendship and co-operation will bring. If there are any areas that I have not covered in my response, I shall write to noble Lords in due course.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have contributed to this afternoon's debate. I regret that some of our veteran contributors, like my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, were not able to participate as they had wished; and, indeed, that one or two other speakers had to scratch their names from the list at the last moment. However, we have had a really good debate. Of course, it had to be wide ranging, but we have also benefited from a great deal of personal experience, knowledge and reminiscence. The latter ranged from balmy beaches in Jamaica to buccaneers and then bananas, as well as to the very special brews experienced by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I believe that the Hansard record will make very good reading.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to all the questions raised within a time limit that was almost impossible to follow. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness for the reference to the natural

1223
disasters that have so afflicted the region—from El Ni ño to Hurricane Mitch and, indeed, through to the recent El Salvador situation. I look forward to improving further on our record of activities and communications with Latin America and the Caribbean. I also look forward to attending the forum proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in the summer. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Communications White Paper
5.33 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane rose to call attention to the White Paper.A New Future for Communications (Cm 5010); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that my good fortune in the ballot affords us an opportunity to debate the recent White Paper on communications. When legislation is introduced, it will clearly affect every individual in the land and it is good to know that perhaps points may be raised in this afternoon's debate that the Government will wish to take into account before framing the Bill, which I look forward to seeing later in the year.
The main proposal of the White Paper is, of course, the creation of OFCOM, replacing the current functions and duties of various regulators. I confess that I am an agnostic as to whether the creation of a single regulatory body is the best solution, or whether much the same result could have been achieved by ensuring better co-operation between the existing regulators. However, I am quite happy to go along with the Government's view that OFCOM is the best option, provided that the distinct regulatory roles regarding broadcasting are preserved, including separate regulation of radio and television. In this connection, I should declare that I am Chairman of Scottish Radio Holdings.
It is obvious that technology and broadcasting interact very closely, affecting not only the transmission but also the content of programmes. The advent of colour, for example, greatly increased the popularity of sport on television. Satellite communications have clearly made us a global village on the one hand, while, one the other, they have perhaps made it more difficult to cram news from all over the world into a half-hour bulletin that was designed for a time when we could only get such pictures from the United Kingdom. In radio, the advent of the transistor radio transformed radio from a large set sitting in the corner of a room when listening decisions were essentially a family matter to one where it was a matter of individual choice, with a dramatic impact on the sort of programme that teenagers, for example, were then able to demand.
In one important respect technology impacts very closely on one of the fundamental tenets of public service broadcasting, which is universal access. In this context, I must say that. I believe the White Paper has got it wrong. It is, I think, a serious mistake to impose a
1224
"must offer" obligation on public service broadcasters without a corresponding "must carry" obligation on satellite owners. Otherwise the negotiating position of the platform owner is unfairly strengthened, and there could be a huge transfer of resources from terrestrial public service broadcasters to the satellite owner. I should remind noble Lords that, in the past, transmitters were owned in the independent sector not by the broadcasters but by the regulator, the IBA. The transmission systems of both ITV and BBC have now, of course, been privatised, but with considerable safeguards.
I ask your Lordships to look ahead to the time when we have analogue switch-off and all our transmissions are digital. At the moment, we have two platforms: digital terrestrial television and satellite. Unless something is done to improve the coverage of digital terrestrial, I believe that satellite will undoubtedly have the upper hand. I freely concede that satellite is highly effective; indeed, only a month ago when I decided that it was time our family moved into the digital age, we opted for satellite simply because there was not an On Digital signal available in our area.
But it is surely clear that we cannot allow our entire broadcasting system to be dependent on a platform that the Government cannot effectively regulate, both as to access and as to the terms on which access is granted. If the Government feel that they are unable to do this, there is really no alternative but to increase our reliance on digital terrestrial television so that we do not find ourselves beholden in the future to the platform owner of a satellite who may not always wish to act, or be willing to act, in the way in which the government of the day would wish.
If, however, the Government can adequately control the terms of access to the satellite platform, then I must confess that, if cable operators are required to carry public service broadcasting free of charge, I can see no reason why satellite platform operators should be allowed to charge—except perhaps the minimal cost of encryption where that is required. Are they seriously suggesting that television even in a digital age could attract an audience without the current terrestrial public service broadcasters, which still account for well over three-quarters of all viewing? They need the output of BBC, ITV and Channel 4.
That brings me to another minor criticism of the White Paper; namely, that I do not believe that it does enough to encourage the take-up of digital. I was a member of the committee that recently looked at the funding of the BBC. One of the reasons that I disagreed with my colleagues on the imposition of a digital licence fee, which was one of the options under consideration, was precisely that it would discourage a take-up of digital television. The Government fortunately shared that view. But if they really want the nation to move towards a digital system they must do more to encourage the take-up. In this connection, it is distressing to note that the vast majority of television sets being sold are still analogue sets. Once the date for analogue switch-off has been decided, it might be worth the Government considering mandating the inclusion of digital receivers in all sets

1225
sold over, say, the prior three years. However, in the meantime, it might be appropriate to ensure that the term "digital", which is currently used far too widely and misleadingly, should only apply to sets that can actually accept digital signals.
I was glad to see that the White Paper came out strongly in favour of regulation of content and public service broadcasting. I think it should go further in that the public service regulations should be identical for BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—as indeed they were in the case of BBC and ITV in the last Labour government when the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, was Home Secretary. He produced a White Paper on broadcasting in 1978. For similar reasons, I would have the BBC fully under OFCOM, just like ITV, as regards programme content, and its usage of spectrum under the same control as, for example, is the Radio Authority under the new radio division of OFCOM.
Public service broadcasting is essentially about trying to elevate public taste by persuasion rather than coercion. The Reithian view that broadcasters have an obligation not only to give the public what they want but a tolerable leavening of what a civilised consensus would indicate they should have, offends both libertarians—they do not believe that there is better and best—and extreme free marketeers who think that that should be left safely to the market.
Yet the chief merit of public service broadcasting is its respect for the audience. It believes that if we are to elevate public taste as well as to entertain, we must win the loyalty as well as the respect of our audience. We must be in contact with them in much the same way as a magnet must be close to metal before it can move it in any direction. It is only elitist in the sense that it believes that the best in human thought and achievement as well as entertainment should be made available to all; and the triumph of British broadcasting, both BBC and independent, has been to demonstrate that the best can attract huge audiences as well as critical acclaim.
But there is a third and dangerous siren voice: technology. I should like to see the Bill put a duty on OFCOM to have regard to the overall health of the system in considering the licensing of new services. We must resist the technological imperative whereby invention has become the mother of necessity. Technology dramatically increases the range of options open to us but it does not, and must not, determine how they should be used. Decisions on the number of services we have must be based not on technical considerations like the spectrum efficiency of digital broadcasting but on listener and viewer demand and the availability of resources, both human and financial, to provide the programming they wish. Few people would want to admit publicly that as human beings we are powerless to control the technology we have created. Somehow technology seems to mesmerise and freeze our critical faculties and
1226
produce a sense of inevitability about the nature and direction of change that comes pretty close to an abdication of responsibility. Of course, there is a role for the market place and the BBC paid a heavy price in the early 1960s for failing to recognise that the growth of cheap radio receivers and the increased spending power of teenagers had transformed dramatically the nature and tastes of its audience. Arguably, the introduction of Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 10 years too late.
I certainly do not suggest that we now freeze the number of services at the present level. I do suggest, however, that the criterion for the introduction of new services should not be simply the availability of frequencies and aspirant groups wanting to run them—those are prerequisites but not determinants—but rather some evidence, and research can help us, that there is an adequate listener demand for such a service and the funds to fund it. In this, I counsel OFCOM and the Government to pay even less attention to the clamour of those who want to provide new services than they do perhaps to the protectionist fears of incumbents who do not want them.
Similar thoughts govern my thinking on ownership rules. The White Paper disappointed many by not being more specific. The Government have indicated that they are content to have one company for ITV, yet seem to be pussy-footing around with radio. In radio, there is already the BBC and three separately owned independent national services and it is difficult to see the need for any further constraint on the consolidation of independent local radio. I would also suggest that it could well be in the public interest.
I recognise that deliberation on changes to cross-media ownership rules may have been required because many of the perceived synergies also raise delicate public interest considerations. But the case for liberalisation of ownership rules within radio itself is much more clear cut and should be proceeded with separately and quickly.
In broad terms from the point of view of the listener, I suggest that plurality of ownership, far from producing diversity of output, may in fact reduce it for reasons of both motivation and availability of resources. It is perhaps obvious that if a single owner has several radio stations in the one market place, it is in his own self-interest that different services will be provided and listener choice enhanced. Happily, this also coincides with the public interest. Separate owners, however, although promising different services, may tend to use similar programming to reach the same target audience which is most attractive to advertisers.
Pressure on resources and a consequential reduction in the amount of money available to be spent on programming will also be very much greater if they are under separate ownership. A common owner can obviously amortise administrative overheads over a number of services thus leaving more resources available for the attainment of quality and diversity in

1227
programme making. Historically,' when independent local radio stations were required to cease simulcasting on FM and AM and instead produce separate programming streams, it was the biggest leap in listener choice we have had in the independent sector. Unfortunately, ownership regulations prevented the AM service being broadcast on FM, thus making it more acceptable to listeners. It is perhaps no coincidence that since independent radio tends to cater for an older age group on AM, it is the one segment of the population in which the BBC still enjoys the highest market share because Radio 2 is available on FM and is now the BBC's flagship service.
Advertisers are always looking for more choice but they sometimes forget that more choice tends to diminish individual market share for each participant. You cannot have mathematically BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and another service all with 50 per cent market share. It does not work. That is why I think that, in licensing new services, OFCOM should have regard to the overall viability of the broadcasting market place as a whole; otherwise there is a very real danger that even the most successful services will gradually have their audiences and consequently revenue whittled away and that, as a result, overall quality will suffer. I feel sure that this is something the Government would wish to prevent. I commend the suggestion to them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on securing this important debate. Time is short and I therefore confine myself to a single aspect of the White Paper: higher bandwidth services.
We are all aware of the Government's stated ambition to make the UK the best and safest place in the world for e-commerce. At its best this offers reassurance that Ministers are aware of the crucial importance of the knowledge economy to the future competitiveness of the UK. Indeed, the White Paper is peppered with a plethora of lofty pledges articulating the Government's commitments.
In this context, broadband matters. The difference between current narrowband connection rates of 56 kilobits per second and those of broadband of 2 or more megabits per second—perhaps as much as 1 gigabit if "optical wireless" technology comes on stream—is not only a matter of degree. Greater connectivity also enhances the user's online experience as well as paving the way for the delivery of new and improved services.
It is all the more regrettable therefore that there is a whiff of incompetence about the way the roll out of broadband has been managed. The White Paper states that,
"We … wish to move quickly on developing our proposals".
It also states:
"We want the UK to have levels of access to the communications infrastructures of the new economy that match or exceed the best in the world".
1228
Three months on, far from moving quickly and far from,
"levels of access … that match or exceed the best in the world",
we have instead a further publication from the Government: UK online: the broadband future. This replaces the wishful thinking of the White Paper with a more tentative approach. It sets a new goal for the UK; namely,
"to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005".
However, it also concedes:
"Some areas of the country may remain unserved at the least for many years, and some segments of the population may be unable to afford services".
In effect, the Government are content to institutionalise digital divides.
That admission contrasts starkly with the honeyed words of the White Paper, which says:
"We must avoid the creation of communications ghettos, areas of the country or groups in society without access to new net works and services".
It also says:
"All our citizens should have access to the advantages and opportunities provided by the next generation of communications technologies".
I highlight only two other issues, which I hope that the Minister will address. First, local loop unbundling, if not an unmitigated disaster, has been somewhat of a mess to date. Quite apart from the threat of legal action against BT by AOL and Freeserve, I understand that the European Commission is contemplating an investigation into Oftel's failure to move the process forward. What assurances can the Government give that the muddle of recent months is being replaced with a more coherent and effective strategy?
Secondly, unmetered access is crucial for the affordability of the new technology, but, inexplicably, I find no reference to it in the White Paper or the UK Online publication. Can the Minister explain why not?
In conclusion, I make the obvious point that actions speak louder than words. For all the soothing rhetoric in the White Paper about promoting the knowledge economy, the Government's approach to broadband is timid at best. Worse, they have introduced a burgeoning list of constraints and disincentives on the industry. There are the delights of the infamous IR35 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Even in the current Session, the Tobacco Advertising Bill raises the ugly prospect of ISPs being statutorily defined as publishers. Those are bad enough individually, but their cumulative effect will undermine rather than promote the knowledge economy in the UK. Surely that is not what the Government want.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for introducing this debate on a matter on which he speaks with unique experience, particularly in relation to radio. I declare two interests. First, I am

1229
a former chairman of the IBA—the predecessor of the ITC, which is itself about to be abolished. Secondly, my daughter is a member of the staff of the BBC.
In many ways, the White Paper is as significant and mould-breaking as the White Paper of 1952, which ended the BBC's monopoly and created ITV. Then, setting up one new broadcasting body produced a storm of controversy. Today, the abolition of five worthy regulatory bodies and their replacement with a super-regulator, OFCOM, commands an agnostic acquiescence—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, got the word right—if not a positive enthusiasm, but there is not uncritical agreement. The British Board of Film Classification, which is an independent non-governmental body with no public funds, tells me that it is about to be handed over in one way or another to OFCOM with no formal consultation. The Government might look into that. OFCOM is regarded by many with some resignation as the necessary consequence of the removal of the traditional frontiers between telecommunications and broadcasting.
I welcome the White Paper's robust reassertion of the importance of public service broadcasting as an essential contributor to the quality of life in our society. I particularly welcome the unequivocal statement that there should be no privatisation of Channel 4. If the Secretary of State's aspirations in paragraph 5.2.6 are to be fulfilled, it will be vital to avoid OFCOM being unduly monolithic and having too narrow a focus. The thrust of technology, the pressures of competition and the Treasury's appetite for cashing in on selling the spectrum must be balanced by the presence of senior people in OFCOM who understand the importance of, for example, original programming or the regional dimension of public service television and its other values. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, there will be a need to create a radio division of OFCOM capable of ensuring that the development of digital radio is not overshadowed by the warring giants of ITV.
The proposal to preserve the BBC's special position is criticised understandably by its competitors in ITV and less understandably by the Consumers' Association. Admittedly, it is an untidy and not entirely logical proposal, but tidiness is not everything. The BBC, warts and all, has always been the benchmark by which the best of commercial broadcasting judges itself. Living with, and in some ways within, OFCOM will place a heavy responsibility on the BBC governors. They should welcome OFCOM's overview of the BBC's more commercial practices, because it will give them the benefit of an independent transparent judgment and free them to be the single-minded guardians of the values and duties of public service broadcasting in a way that is not possible for OFCOM.
Under the new White Paper regime, the BBC, and above all its governors, will stand to be judged by how far they fulfil the famous dictum of the distinguished
1230
BBC broadcaster Huw Weldon that the BBC's role is to make good programmes popular and popular programmes good.
5.56 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on introducing the debate. I warmly welcome the White Paper. I have been particularly impressed by the extent to which the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have worked so effectively together on the consultation.
I shall devote my few minutes to chapter 3 of the White Paper, and specifically the proposal to provide universal access to the Internet by 2005. Fortunately, much of what I had intended to say has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk.
I declare an interest as the managing director of a NASDAQ-listed Internet service provider. My principal concern is the extent to which Internet access will be provided to every home. The Government need to explain precisely what is intended by universal access to the Internet by 2005. Does it mean access at home or broadband access by schools, libraries, colleges and universities? Progress on increasing the levels of home Internet penetration has unfortunately been very slow. Broadband rollout and even access to ADSL is pitifully slow. I noted the admission of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, in the Financial Times on 12th February, where he was quoted as saying:
"We want Internet access for all by 2005 but that won't necessarily, even in a perfect world, mean broadband access for all".
Those who have access from home are far more likely to use online services more. I commend the work of Citizens Online, which is committed to promoting universal access to the Internet from homes. Its first report aptly addressed the problem, saying:
"Children are often unable to leave home in the evening to access public terminals or access points and people in rural areas face much longer journeys than do city dwellers in an attempt to get access to public terminals.
The Government rely heavily on the platform of digital television as a significant point of access to the Internet. It is essential that the digital TV service providers allow unfettered access to the whole web, not just to commercial walled gardens.
Another major challenge is the need to educate and to change the mindset of many people towards using the Internet. I believe that in that respect the Government should be commended for their achievement of already setting up more than 600 online service centres across the United Kingdom. I understand that they are committed to opening a total of 6,000 on-line centres by next year. I do not know how they will achieve that; nevertheless, that is one of their targets.
Finally, can the Minister tell the House how much, if any, of the £21 billion that they received from the 3G licence auctions last year has been reinvested

1231
into high-speed, broad-band infrastructure? I would countenance a guess that if that sum had been invested in broad-band infrastructure across the United Kingdom, effectively it would have connected every home to broad-band access. Have the Government considered setting up a universal Internet access service fund to prime-pump new initiatives and to offer incentives to the commercial service providers to provide access to homes where it is not commercially viable?
My time is up. I look forward to the Bill being introduced into your Lordships' House.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane on introducing this debate. I have an interest to declare. I am employed by Granada Television. I am also employed as a freelancer by BBC Radio. Perhaps the two cancel each other out.
No one in this country can avoid the BBC in a debate of this kind. Not only does it control 40 per cent of television viewing and 50 per cent of radio listening, it still dominates the culture which it used to monopolise. At the moment, it seems to me to be in a mood to enter another golden age. The five national radio channels are flying; the World Service is still deeply effective; and its television twins, BBC1 and BBC2, are being primed with new money and enthused with new ambitions by the new director-general, Greg Dyke, whose first year has seen a BBC turnaround on a scale few would have predicted.
However, the BBC casts a very long shadow. It could be argued that its publicly funded power, size and competitiveness both make and mar—even distort—our mass communications systems, making it extremely difficult for ITV companies to grow in any way that is comparable to fellow commercial outfits in Europe and the US. Yet, without the BBC, our country's broadcasting is unthinkable. It is a serious dilemma.
ITV attracts an up-market audience of 48 million viewers a week, invests more in UK home-made productions than any other channel in Europe, including BBC1, and has 27 regional news services across the UK—twice the number of those on the BBC's two main channels combined. We have a massively-watched public service commercial channel, the like of which exists nowhere else on the planet. Therefore, why is it so neglected in this White Paper?
Big organisations can be neglected, too. And have not we seen the consequences of that over the past few years? There persists in radio and television the belief that what is good is not commercial and, therefore, what is commercial cannot be really good. We would consider that to be nonsense if it were applied to David Hockney, Pavarotti or Mercedes-Benz. However, here the commercial is still a taint, even though the work that it sustains, and, for that matter, some of the commercials themselves, can be a triumph.
This Government have tackled many broadcasting issues here and elsewhere with skill and sympathy but not, alas, with enough of either in the case of ITV. For
1232
example, in the case of the digital switch, firm and immediate guidance is needed now. That would encourage manufacturers to promote digital equipment and would hasten the day when the analogue channels become available for an Exchequer set to benefit from both. Again, ITV agrees that it should be available on all delivery platforms—terrestrial, cable and satellite. But if ITV must offer that, surely those systems, including satellite, must carry. Why ever not? Without such fair dealing, the satellites will be in the driving seat in all negotiations, as my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane pointed out.
Moreover, surely it is time to repeal the rules which prevent any one company owning more than 20 per cent of ITN's news service. No other substantial broadcaster in the world is denied the opportunity to own its own news supplier. And what of the absurd rules governing independents? Once again, while ITV must take 25 per cent of independents, the restriction on its own classification as independent and its own investment in independents is subject to unfair discrimination.
Finally, why is OFCOM responsible for regulating content on all channels, save the giant BBC? It is as if Oftel were not to regulate BT. That w ill only exacerbate unfairness and archaic favouritism. There is no suggestion that the BBC's board of governors be disbanded, but surely those governors, too, can see that their future best lies within rather than without, especially as an over-privileged BBC will cause unnecessary friction and, worst of all, I believe, backfire on the BBC itself.
In my view, ITV's needs have been ignored for far too long, its ambitions discounted and its potential marginalised. Surely now is the time to give ITV, which is a valuable national and regional asset, the means that it needs to add fully to the wealth of the nation.
6.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for introducing this debate. First, across the range of exciting developments in communications, I understand that technological convergence is an important happening. Whether the context is telephony, the Internet or broadcasting, technological convergence is taking place.
Secondly, I understand that convergence is clearly accelerating the pace of change. In that context, time seems to be of the essence. However, I want to concentrate particularly on a matter of importance in relation to where I live—the issue of access. Who will have access to these new opportunities? My own Midlands diocese embraces such places as Walsall, Wolverhampton, the Black Country and Stoke-on-Trent, but also Shrewsbury, Oswestry and remote places on the Welsh Border.
At this time of the foot-and-mouth crisis, what are those remote Border farmers in need of? They need information. They need information which gives help

1233
and hope and they need it quickly. I am encouraged by the Government's help to urban areas in my own diocese—the Walsalls, the Blakenhalls and the Tiptons. However, if those places, particularly on the educational front, also miss out on access to communication, the consequences could be serious.
As a previous speaker has already said, this White Paper sets the goal of universal access to the Internet by 2005. I note that it has also promised 100,000 computers at low rent. Clearly, the task is great. However, the Government speak of promoting that access rather than trying to ensure it. Should not work be done to monitor the effect of non-provision on people and communities or on sectors of society which are at risk?
I submit that access is a vital issue, whether in relation to the Internet, to telephony or to digital broadcasting. Therefore, I submit—I believe that here I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon—that a strong regulatory presence may be required to ensure that communications deliver their potential to all members of our community.
I end with a punch-line. I have heard it said that sophisticated communications networks can shrink the globe. What a pity if, through the gravitational pull of profitability or the lack of political will, they succeed only in shrinking the inside of the M25.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane for introducing this debate. It provides a timely opportunity to consider how the proposed new framework can deliver full and equal access to the communications revolution for the UK's 2 million visually-impaired people.
The White Paper acknowledges that access to communications services often poses particular difficulties for disabled people, even though such services may be more important to them than to the population at large. It states:
"We will want to ensure that as many as possible are able to benefit".
However, current plans for reform simply do not spell out how that is to be achieved. There is apparently no provision for ensuring universal access for disabled people through primary legislation or strong licensing conditions. The duties of the new regulator in relation to disabled people appear weak. A consumer panel is proposed without any reference to how disabled people's interests are to be represented within it, and the willingness and ability of new media industries to self-regulate is grossly overestimated.
As matters stand, neither digital TV, digital radio, mobile phones or websites are accessible to blind and partially-sighted people. They are excluded from those proliferating technologies because of poor design, the extra cost or technical difficulty of access, the absence of suitable equipment and the lack of training. Yet all
1234
of those services could be available for use if they included basic inclusive design features that magnify text or provide an audio alternative.
The industry has shown itself to be unwilling to make a small but fundamental investment in inclusive design and it is showing no signs whatsoever of developing the universal access standards that the White Paper calls for. Every time a new generation of equipment is produced that is not accessible, the longer it takes and the more expensive it is to rectify the situation. There is nothing in the White Paper to suggest that the Government plan to enforce universal access through licence conditions or that the back-stop powers of OFCOM will be deployed swiftly or strongly enough to make a difference.
One of the most critical issues for blind or partially sighted people today is, of course, access to digital TV. For more than a decade, the RNIB and others have campaigned for audio description on TV. That is an additional narration that fits "between" dialogue and describes action, body language, facial expressions and anything else that helps people to follow what is happening. While broadcasters on digital terrestrial TV are currently required by law to have 10 per cent of programmes with audio description within the first 10 years of their licence, there is currently no way for visually impaired people to access those programmes because they lack the necessary equipment.
Broadcasters and the voluntary sector have invested in developing a prototype of the necessary technology to show that audio description can work, but no broadcaster or manufacturer is willing to fund production of the equipment for public use. Why, then, are the Government refusing to ensure that a statutory right to have public broadcast programmes televised with audio description is matched by a statutory right to have equipment that can receive audio-description? The RNIB and the digital network have requested governmental intervention to underwrite the costs. Without such support, the whole project will founder. However, the Government have thus far said no. Moreover, they say that they will not countenance raising the audio-description targets on broadcasters until the RNIB and broadcasters sort out the production of the module between themselves. It cannot be right to leave access to such core services either to the market or a charity. If the Government are truly to honour their commitment in the White Paper to,
"extend and improve provision for … audio description'",
they must take action.
In the brave new communications future it appears that sighted people will have the opportunity to, for example, vote online, receive vital health information and access new educational opportunities through interactive digital TV. However, blind or partially sighted people may not have such opportunities.
It cannot be the Government's intention that the digital communications revolution should exclude blind or partially sighted people in that way. There is still time to ensure that A New Future For Communications urgently addresses their needs. We must all hope that the opportunity is seized.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, am delighted that my noble friend Lord Gordon introduced this debate. I congratulate the Government on publishing the White Paper primarily because it is very reassuring to see a government for once dealing with a future technology in such a proactive way.
I am not a broadcaster and I have no history in the broadcasting media. My background is in information technology and in consequence I probably view the White Paper with somewhat different eyes from those of many other noble Lords. From my perspective it seems that information technology and the Internet have been added to the White Paper somewhat as an afterthought.
I would like to state the obvious: that the Internet is not the same as broadcasting and that it has to be treated differently. Indeed, in a few years' time, when broadband will be universal, much more content will be available over the Internet than is available today on television.
I turn to a subject that I know worries Members of the House; that is, access to unsuitable material and pornography. Three weeks ago I was telephoned by a friend of mine, who suggested that I should take a look at a programme on Channel 5 called the Ricki Lake show. I turned on my television and was horrified to see a young American man extolling the virtues of pimping. His line was simple: that pimping was a fine profession and that it made him lots of money. Perhaps that is simply the world we live in. However, I venture that noble Lords will be as shocked as I was when I relate that I viewed that programme at 9.20 on a Friday morning. I had thought that there was a watershed relating to such programmes but clearly I am wrong. I am aghast that Channel 5 allowed that programme to appear on daytime television.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that I complained to the Independent Television Commission in writing and on House of Lords writing paper. I have received a n acknowledgement, but as yet no answer. Noble Lords may also be interested to know that someone else I know, who does not have a title, telephoned the ITC to complain, only to be fobbed off with the comment that that is the way that television is going these days. Finally, noble Lords may be even more interested to know that I also telephoned Channel 5 but, predictably, my call is yet to be returned. The conclusion is obvious—nobody gives a damn; all that matters is ratings.
However, all of that is sweetness and light compared with what is available on the Internet. Within one minute of leaving your Lordships' House, any noble Lord could be sitting in front of a computer in the Library and could have accessed the homepage of any number of highly offensive websites. Little skill is needed. One simply has to enter, "www.", followed by any expletive that one likes, and then ".com". An immediate connection will be made to a hardcore porn site that is located who knows where on this planet. One will see people engaged in all types of sexual activity. As noble Lords will have read, the material is
1236
not confined simply to adults; children too are featured. When broadband arrives those activities will become more immediate and infinitely more graphic.
If such material can be accessed in the Library of your Lordships' House it can equally be accessed by an eight-year-old child left unsupervised in front of a home computer. Soon there will be pornographic video on demand, in full Technicolor, in Dolby sound and "in your very own home". The Internet is so simple to use that it is no exaggeration to say that everyone can learn to tap into it very quickly and without hindrance. The Internet permits ludicrously easy access in a matter of seconds to the most hardcore, violent and perverted pornography. How can any child deal with that? How can any child know what he is letting himself in for when he gets together with a few friends after school to look up something naughty on the net?
To our children the Internet should be viewed as a wonderful window on to the world, a fantastic learning tool and a superb way of communicating. But when it offers easy access into depravity we should all be on our guard. It is our duty to ensure that our children are protected. I hope that OFCOM can step up to the challenge.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I should like to take four minutes—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for giving me the opportunity to do so—to make four points about the White Paper. I do so as someone who believes that convergence is coming and that the White Paper therefore points in the right direction.
My first point is about the composition and processes of OFCOM. It must be a new body that is fit for its ambitious role, it must be open, transparent and accountable in its processes and it must have executive and non-executive directors and functions and structures that are purpose made. Any attempt to create OFCOM simply by bolting together the ITC and Oftel would be wrong because they are very different bodies. Both have distinguished histories. But they were created for entirely different purposes. Of course we must draw on their strengths and people, as we must draw on other regulatory bodies' strengths and people. May we have an assurance from the Minister that OFCOM is a start-up and not a merger?
Secondly, I emphasise the extent to which wise, light-touch regulation should draw on research into people's attitudes and patterns of behaviour in relation to broadcasting. Research is an indispensable part of the wise judgment that will certainly be required. Powerful experience is now available through the broadcasting regulators, principally but not exclusively through the Broadcasting Standards Commission. May we have an assurance from the Minister—I know that research is a subject that is close to his heart—that that experience will be built on and reinforced in the new structure?
Thirdly, we must accept that competition should be the main route to the satisfaction of viewers, listeners and telecom users. Of course, one enemy of

1237
competition is excessive regulation; the other is abuse of dominant market position. I, for one, find the White Paper rather coy on the question of cross-media ownership. We need competition, and we need plurality of voice. Some competition may lead to the sort of concentration the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, described. But when it comes to cross-media ownership, over-dominant share of voice becomes the issue—an issue which is social, economic and political. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect the Government to be too brave on this issue in the run-up to an election. But afterwards is another matter. Let us hope that the Bill does not shirk this issue in the way that I fear the White Paper does.
Finally, what of the BBC? The BBC remains at the heart of the British communications kaleidoscope, not least as a benchmark of quality which still distinguishes British broadcasting from so much of the rest of the world. But we need a focused and accountable BBC with defined and specific public service objectives; not a beanstalk growing and proliferating in every direction, trying to fill every nook and cranny of the media market. It should be a BBC wholly within the scope of OFCOM, not half in and half out as it is in the White Paper, perhaps with governors still responsible for internal quality control and good governance, but securely protected from random, short-term political interference from politicians of all colours. That is one of the paradoxes of the White Paper; that it opens the BBC to political interference from which it can only be protected by being part of the complementary regulatory structure. I fear that that issue too has been shirked in the White Paper and I hope that the Bill will do better.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Gordon for making this debate possible. I declare an interest in that earlier this month I became chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, having previously been deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission, though clearly the views I put forward are entirely my own. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who was my predecessor at the Broadcasting Standards Commission and I pay tribute to his work and indeed that of his predecessors in the chair.
The Broadcasting Standards Commission, together with its predecessor body the Broadcasting Standards Council, set standards in this country for openness and transparency in dealing with standards and complaints, linked to high quality research—qualities which I hope will be carried fully into the new OFCOM procedures.
I welcome the idea of OFCOM as a merger of the five regulatory bodies. It will be a welcome end to the double jeopardy that now exists for broadcasters—indeed, sometimes triple jeopardy when there are complaints about their work. And I welcome the idea of a light regulatory touch over our broadcasting. However, I have a number of comments to make on the content of the White Paper.
1238
First, I hope that the new OFCOM will have proper representation of non-executive board members in order to fully represent consumers and citizens. Secondly, I hope that OFCOM will be fully accountable as a body. Indeed, it ought to come under the National Audit Bureau just to add another layer of oversight and accountability.
I hope that the good work on content, which was carried out by the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council before it over recent years, will not be lost in the larger OFCOM structure. It is therefore proper that within OFCOM there should be a content committee, also including one or more non-executive board members, in order to ensure that acceptable television standards are maintained. I am pleased that the phrase, "acceptable standards" will replace the words, "taste and decency".
I trust also that the new OFCOM will be robust in defending the concept of public service broadcasting, a concept which has made British television the best in the world and made us unique as a country in providing television. I am disappointed that so far it appears the BBC will not come fully under the new regulatory structure. The danger is that it means that either the Government or Parliament will have to act in an oversight capacity over the BBC if the governors do not meet the need, which they may not always do. That may bring the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, into possible conflict with the Government.
If I were a BBC governor, I would argue passionately that it is in the interests of the independence and integrity of the BBC that it should come fully under the new OFCOM structure. That will be desirable given the complexity of the White Paper and the likely complexity of the Bill to follow. If the Government were to publish a draft Bill, it would enable Parliament to exercise pre-legislative scrutiny, which would result in a better Bill in due course.
Lastly, it is right that OFCOM should deal with content problems post delivery. I am a little concerned at the suggestion that the role of classification should be given to OFCOM. That is probably not the best way forward, even though OFCOM may have a duty to consider complaints about classification itself. Having said that, I believe the White Paper represents a good way forward and if the Government listen to the criticisms, we will have an even better broadcasting structure in the end.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have no special interest to declare. I am just an ordinary consumer strongly in favour of broadcasting, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gordon for this opportunity to tell your Lordships the reasons why.
Public service broadcasting makes a special and distinct contribution to the sense we have of being a nation. That is why I am a supporter of public service broadcasting. By that I do not mean warm beer and cricket on the village green, or church bells across the

1239
meadow; I mean that it reflects the whole variety of different regions, different ethnic backgrounds and different cultures of our urban, rural and suburban life. Television and radio bring us the whole mixture of life that makes up our society today.
But the advantages of public sector broadcasting do not end there. News and current affairs, based on a high standard of journalistic integrity, feed our democracy. Public service broadcasting backs up our education system with such things as the Open University, the National Grid for Learning and the University for Industry. It provides us with entertainment and cultural activity, not only making the good popular and the popular good, but also nourishing us with cultural activity in which we can all share. In addition, public service broadcasting can provide a showcase for creativity and talent which helps the economy, particularly the creative economy.
Of course, broadcasters other than the BBC can provide that. Thanks to our system of regulation, all broadcasters in this country have to provide an element of public service. Public service broadcasting is not just there to provide what the market will not or cannot provide. The communications White Paper recognises that. That is why I am generally in favour of its recommendations.
But central to that is the way in which media technologies are converging. As all the broadcasting media come together, will we be able to maintain the public service ethos which I find so beneficial to our society? I hope so.
In the White Paper the Government clearly state that public service is an objective. Regulation and controlling ownership are their means of achieving that. For there are obvious dangers from concentrating media ownership in a few hands. I saw a quotation the other day from Gerald Levene of America On line. He is reported to have said:
"The global media is becoming more important than Government, than NGOs, than the educational institutions".
I find that rather chilling and worrying. Neither am I persuaded that the proliferation of services in the media markets means there is any less need for regulation. There may be more competition but the public interest remains to be defended.
To get that right, we need a lot more debate to hear what ordinary consumers have to say, because the experts sometimes get it wrong. For instance, they certainly got wrong our anxiety to shop over the Internet; they obviously grossly overestimated that. But one thing seems certain; that is, that the development of public service broadcasting partly lies in what Steve Morrison of Granada has referred to as the broadcasting of public services. By that he means programmes such as homework and revision TV channels; a televised health advisory service; a citizens advice bureau of the air, and help with pensions and social security matters. With interactivity, all those are likely to become an important part of public service broadcasting.
At a seminar on digital citizenship last year, my right honourable friend Chris Smith gave a vision of the future of broadcasting that I rather like. He saw the
1240
multichannel, online, multitechnology broadcasting world as a public library of the airwaves, which would inform, entertain, educate, challenge and unite us. I hope that his vision becomes a reality.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I too welcome the White Paper and thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for the opportunity to debate it. However, there are real concerns that the White Paper gives far too much power to broadcasters to determine their own priorities with little or no emphasis on broadcasting's responsibility to its audiences both as consumers and as citizens. We want artistic and dramatic freedom and creativity, but it has to be balanced with responsibilities which public sector broadcasting gives, and that must have the utmost importance.
Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of public sector broadcasting which is enshrined in legislation. That would give greater reassurance to many viewers and listeners, which self-regulation cannot. The organisation Public Voice brings together many bodies which focus on public sector broadcasting. It feels that the current consumer panel should have its remit extended or, if not, that it should be supplemented by a citizenship panel which could monitor broadcasting's performance and ensure that it contains a sufficient mix of educational, social action and children's programmes to reflect the multiple interests of our society today.
When the rules were relaxed in 1990, the amount of public sector broadcasting rapidly diminished. There is evidence that certain groups are very much underrepresented. Their voices are not heard sufficiently. They are not visible enough to ensure that through that sort of broadcasting the diversity of our communities is fully represented. I believe that strengthening is needed before we get too far along the road.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for introducing this debate and providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important document.
I begin by congratulating Her Majesty's Government on this excellent White Paper, which is widely welcomed. However, there are a number of issues in relation to ethnic minorities, religious minorities and particularly the Muslim community, on which I should like to concentrate in the next three-and-a-half minutes.
Last week the Home Office Minister, Mike O'Brien, stated:
"Religious belief is important to many of us. It is the moral code by which many people live their lives. We live in a multicultural society with people of many faiths. To make that society truly equal and inclusive it is vital that we respect the right of others to freedom of thought, conscience and religion—and their right to practise their religion or belief. The Government is alive to concerns among some minority faith communities that they suffer discrimination".

1241
There are more than 200 commercial radio stations in the UK and almost none are owned or administered by Muslims. They do not have a comparable right to reply. They remain under-served and underrepresented by almost all media groups. If we are to reflect the multicultural, multi-religious nature of Great Britain, it is important that all ethnic and religious minority groups are part of the mainstream too.
As your Lordships are aware, major pieces of broadcasting legislation come before Parliament only occasionally. It is against that background that 2 million British Muslims will welcome the attention given to "Access Radio" and community broadcasting in the Communications White Paper, A new future for communications. They too would like to see some specific definitions and amendments to make the new media legislation compatible with the Human Rights Act 2000 and EU and other international laws, conventions and treaties.
The right to communicate is a basic human right, which is unfortunately denied to the many minorities in Europe. The Muslim community contributes more than £6 billion to the UK economy every year, yet it has a tiny impact within the media. British Muslims wish to see a strategic approach from the Government to the development and regulation of community access radio and television. Such an approach should be cross-media in nature and grounded in clear public service objectives.
British Muslims have a substantial contribution to make to neighbourhood renewal, equality and social inclusion, local democracy, participation in local decision-making and supporting lifelong learning and access to new information and communication technology. I hope that the Government will establish a community media fund whose purpose will include support for start-up and development costs, operating costs, including social and creative programming, training, learner support costs and research into audience and impact.
The new communications regulator, OFCOM, could adopt a strategic and supportive cross-sector approach to the regulation of all minority media including broad public service requirements where licensing is required and self-regulation where appropriate. There is a case for OFCOM to hire and retain informed and representative individuals from the minority communities as well as Muslims, at key decision-making levels to create greater representation and participation. I should be obliged if my noble friend the Minister in his reply could tell us whether OFCOM will have regional offices and what efforts will be made to consult with all the communities throughout the regions.
Finally, I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships the many organisations which have made representations and written about the White Paper including Access Media Alliance and others. I hope that the Government will take note of their views and ensure that all sections of our community are fairly represented.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I, too, commend the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, on having the ingenuity to raise this debate. It is the House of Lords at its best. On other occasions when we imitate the other place, we are not very good. Debates of this nature are very good and worth listening to. I commend the Government for publishing a White Paper which is their response to a new communications environment.
I notice in the introduction that the Government wish to restore the balance between basic standards of decency and quality. That prompted me to say a word about the video industry. For nine or 10 years I have been chairman of the Video Standards Council. It is not generally known how important the video industry is. We are taken by what happens on the Internet, quite properly; it is a new departure and is important. But the video industry serves the 89 per cent of households in this country which own a video recorder, and the number is still growing. The industry sold 96 million videos in 1999. It rents 3.5 million videos each week and generates £1.2 billion from video sales. It employs over 38,000 people. It has paid £2 million in VAT and generated considerable revenues for investment. It is a substantial part of the entertainment industry. Not much is said about it in this White Paper.
For historical reasons, the UK video industry is the responsibility of the sentencing and offences unit of the Home Office. The White Paper introduces OFCOM and so forth, the implication being that the responsibility for videos will remain with the sentencing and offences unit. But the reason for the introduction of the Video Recording Act 1984 was the dirty videos and the like.
The situation is different today because there is an anomaly. When the Government talk about OFCOM and so forth, it is important that they consider putting the regulation of videos under the same regulating department; the Departure for Culture, Media and Sport. It cannot be divided between the two bodies. The British Board of Film Classification should remain. I have every confidence in it. It has done a good job over the years and a very good job for the video industry. It is important that we consider the structures of government, which is my purpose in speaking tonight.
6.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for securing tonight's debate. I congratulate the Government on the White Paper. It is an excellent start and I hope that there will be opportunities for further consultation and more detailed clarification before the appropriate legislation is brought forward.
In the formal response to the White Paper submitted in my name from the Church of England's Communications Unit, we warmly welcome the Government's emphasis on public service broadcasting. It is a beguiling argument that in a multi-channel world neither religious programmes nor

1243
any other category should have protected status; or that they should be narrow-cast into a digital ghetto. So it is good to see that countered in the Government's firmly expressed aim that public service broadcasting will have potentially an even more important role. And I welcome the commitment to secure the carriage of public service channels on cable and satellite and that these will be given due prominence in electronic programme guides.
Not only religious programmes but also educational, children's and other strands and genres which contribute to our high international reputation would fall by the wayside if left to commercial imperatives. Indeed, I have some worry with the paper's proposal that ITV companies will continue as the main commercial provider with
"less prescriptive detailed regulation".
Does that mean that there will be no indication of how much religious and other public service broadcasting will be required? I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, that by "religious" I mean not only Christian but other faiths, too.
The White Paper sets out only one justification for public service broadcasting; namely, that it works. I venture to suggest that the reason it works is because of the kind of pressures broadcasters face: the lowest common denominator; competitiveness; and the power of what is appealing rather than what is important. Such matters are currently held more or less in check.
But even with its interesting proposals for a light three-tier structure, the White Paper is a little short on detail about how such vital tempering and balancing is to be sustained. How will the various elements of public service broadcasting be measured? To relax regulation without putting in its place a clear and measurable strategy seems to be a strange way of strengthening public service broadcasting. I suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that each genre within the public service broadcasting responsibility is properly defended as part of the mainstream. We need more detail on that.
If the Government are sincere—as I believe they are—in their reiteration of public service values in broadcasting, they have to look beyond the technical enhancements of increased choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, indicated, we have an understandable tendency to be seduced by technical progress. But new technologies are simply means of distribution. They do not of themselves make the end product any better.
An essential test of the new arrangements will be that they deliver in terms of content. So do the Government believe that the mechanism for regulation in the White Paper will be sufficiently robust? There is much to be said for the more unified approach. However, like the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Dubs, I believe that OFCOM's remit should include the BBC because in order to be effective regulation needs to be distant from production.
How effectively will the proposed new arrangements deal with matters which violate generally accepted standards of taste and decency? As the noble Lord,
1244
Lord Mitchell, demonstrated, these concerns are by no means confined to a small cranky group of the disgusted. There are legitimate and public protests about offensive broadcasts, videos and the Internet. The White Paper begins to address them and I hope that the Government will take the issue very seriously indeed.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the topic on which I want to touch is the regulation of advertising, considered in Chapter 6 of the White Paper. I declare an interest as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. Because I took up the office only on 1st January, I can happily welcome the favourable comment about the authority in the White Paper without appearing to boast. Indeed, I can at the same time pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and to the council and staff of the authority for improving the processes and efficiency of the ASA in recent years while maintaining its independence both of government and the industry.
The ASA currently regulates not only advertising in all the print media but also in the cinema, on videos and on the Internet. The White Paper proposes that the new regulatory body, OFCOM, should have the principal responsibility for regulating advertising in the broadcast media, taking over the responsibilities currently held by the ITC and the Radio Authority, but states—and this is of importance—that OFCOM could authorise the broadcasting or advertising industry to run industry-based codes within a co-regulatory system whereby OFCOM would set the framework and the industry could be left to draft detailed rules and take responsibility for implementation and enforcement. The White Paper states:
"The strengths and effectiveness of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) system for self-regulation of non-broadcast media, which is well-regarded both here and overseas, gives us confidence that a more co-regulatory approach than the present could be effective".
Fast moving changes in technology and its application mean that old distinctions have become problematic. There is much convergence between what is regulated as broadcast advertising and what is regulated as non-broadcast advertising. Video advertisements appear on buses, in taxis and on the Heathrow Express. We have moving pictures in Internet advertising. All those look like television advertising and it is difficult to discern the distinction between broadcast and non-broadcast electronic advertising, particularly when the Internet can be accessed on a television screen and television can be viewed on a personal computer. I need hardly say that modern advertising is no respecter of the division between broadcast and non-broadcast. And global brands expect to advertise on all platforms.
The legislation that is envisaged should allow sufficient flexibility for OFCOM, the ASA and any new co- regulatory arrangements to operate effectively in a rapidly changing scene. But there needs to be in

1245
place a mechanism to ensure consistency of standards and in decision-making and to enable consumers to know where they should go.
Inevitably, I suppose that the legislation will be complex and lengthy. Because my noble friend Lord McIntosh recalls the complexity and length of the Financial Services and Markets Act, which he took through the House, he might like to recall the warning of Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the Financial Services Authority. He said:
"Having a Bill in Parliament is like having a skip in front of your house: other people put their rubbish in before you have a chance to fill it with your own".
6.50 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I spent many hours on the Davies committee considering the BBC with my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Therefore, I particularly welcome this opportunity to debate these matters with him tonight. He was rather more successful: one of his recommendations was accepted by the Government. None of mine was. That is what committees of inquiry are like.
I rise to make just one concrete suggestion following the remarks of my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Borrie. When I look at the White Paper and the Bill that is to follow it I have a powerful sense of défà vu. This is very much like the Financial Services and Markets Bill in which some of us were closely involved last year. We have a situation in which the existing system of regulation no longer matches modern reality. The subject is fantastically complicated in its detail. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, nodding. The subject is also absolutely non-partisan. We have a situation in which four or five regulators are to be merged into one. We hope that that will be done from the bottom up and that they will not all be shovelled into the same pot. We also have disciplinary systems with serious implications for human rights legislation.
The Financial Services and Markets Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Had it not been for the work of that committee the Bill would have been completely unworkable. We had enough trouble with the Bill when it emerged, but without that work it would have been unworkable and probably would have offended against human rights legislation. The simple suggestion that I make tonight, which has also been made by the all-party media committee, is that the Bill be referred to such a committee. I believe that all the more strongly because, from what I hear of the drafting process—I make no criticism of it—the clauses are being shovelled to the draftsman so that the Bill is ready as soon as possible in the new Session. No doubt the best job is being made of it by the best possible people, but I shall be surprised if they come up with a flawless Bill.
Here we have an opportunity to use that method to consider the Bill before it is passed. It has been used only once since the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but clearly that is how we should proceed with the Bill before it is considered in detail in both Houses so
1246
that we arrive at a correct piece of legislation that lasts for the decade of revolutionary change which lies ahead of the broadcasting industry.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for introducing this debate. I should like to address my remarks primarily to the subject of disabled users of the broadcast media. I believe that over 2.5 million people have visual impairment and 8.7 million people have hearing impairment. Traditionally, those groups of people are pushed into ghettos within broadcasting and are dependent on our changing the system to make it more accessible to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has already spoken of the tremendous opportunities for change that are available with the new technological media if the Government are prepared to give a little nudge to ensure that people are better able to gain access.
Public service broadcasting—I believe that all broadcasting should have an element of public service, even if it is only for a minority interest—has been one of the democratising influences in our society, certainly throughout my lifetime. That is beginning to break down with the ability to purchase what one wants. We now have an opportunity to insist that the Government pay greater attention to the new technological possibilities to cater for the 6 or 7 million people who have problems with the media. That may mean stipulating that programmes must be broadcast over particular ranges or that suppliers ensure that new equipment can receive new broadcasts.
Probably the most obvious example is that the BBC believes that it is capable of achieving 100 per cent subtitling. Other terrestrial broadcasters do not believe that that is possible. I welcome the fact that we intend to bring into the system both cable and satellite broadcasting, but surely in the not too distant future we should work towards a system in which all of them are included, especially in view of the fact that many programmes in these other media are recycled from the primary producers. We have been over the subject many times. The estimated cost of providing broadcast subtitling is £400 an hour, which is not a huge cost. I believe that not long ago I and the Minister agreed at Question Time that under the Disability Discrimination Act there was an arguable case for regarding that as a reasonable consideration. I suggest that now is the opportunity for the Government to nudge it further forward.
There are similar requirements, for example in relation to those with hearing problems who use radios. There is the possibility of broadcasting without sound effects, for example on Radio 4, to enable people to pick up the gist of programmes. It is possible that with the emergence of new channels that service will be available. That is the kind of approach which must be looked at in the current environment.
As to the use of telephones, unless we begin to put pressure on providers to ensure that equipment is adapted to enable those with hearing problems to use

1247
them, for example, by building in microphones, and is available at the same cost as ordinary telephones, we shall continue to deny to a large section of our community the use of that basic form of communication. I do not know how many people who use mobile telephones noble Lords have bumped into in the past few weeks. Mobile telephones are here to stay for the foreseeable future. We must begin to apply pressure, and I hope that discussion on progress will allow us to do so.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I begin by declaring two interests: first, as a non-executive director of Anglia Television; secondly, as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. The communications White Paper has been generally well received, and quite rightly so. It is a far-sighted document which in general has tackled the issues of technological change, convergence and the future of the communications industry with imagination. Sadly, there is a major exception to that general approbation. The radio industry has reacted with undisguised disappointment. That disappointment is derived both from what the White Paper says and what it does not say.
Part of the radio industry's disappointment derives from the failure of the White Paper to say anything decisive about the future of radio ownership. Concerns about radio ownership arise from the desire to provide listeners with a wide range of choice of high quality programmes. What then is the relationship between diversity of programming and the pattern of ownership?
It is a well known result in economic analysis that having a large number of owners does not provide a wide range of choice. In that case every owner will compete for the largest number of listeners, and the result will be a narrow range of programming as different stations struggle to capture the most popular part of the market, cannibalising each other's markets. It is a small number of owners that will produce greater diversity as stations spread along the spectrum of taste to maximise total listening. The BBC is an excellent example of that; it is a major company which provides a diverse range of programming on its national and local services. Clearly, the Government agree with the argument of my noble friend Lord Gordon that plurality of ownership reduces choice and that a limited number of owners can increase choice, for they have deployed that argument convincingly in the case of television.
The White Paper makes clear that a future in which there are only two companies providing regional television; namely, the BBC and a single ITV company, will not in any way compromise the provision of a diverse local service. Does the Minister agree that the same argument can be applied to radio? The radio industry itself has proposed that in future there should be at least three companies providing radio services in a given locality, the BBC and two commercial companies, hence providing a framework with the plurality necessary to stimulate competition
1248
and the concentration necessary for the provision of a wide choice of programming. Will the Minister this evening endorse that proposal?
I turn now to what the White Paper does say. I believe that the proposal to create OFCOM, a single integrated regulator, is really excellent. A single regulator is necessary if this country is to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the new technologies. However, the ability of OFC'OM to deliver the Government's goals of diversity, a dynamic market and efficient use of the scarce spectrum, is seriously compromised by the failure to include the BBC within OFCOM's regulatory domain.
Again, it is a well-known result in economics, now the economics of regulation, that if one has more than one regulator of an industry, the result is wasteful duplication, the inefficient utilisation of scarce resources and the consumer being badly served. These were some of the reasons, for example, why the Government quite rightly opted for a single regulator for the whole financial services industry.
In radio, a single regulator could be the guardian of diversity and choice and of the efficient use of the spectrum. A single regulator for radio would be able to ensure that format commitments are kept where appropriate, are adapted where necessary and in either case there is not wasteful duplication. The proposed system of radio regulation in the White Paper, in which OFCOM regulates commercial radio and BBC radio is regulated by the BBC governors, is an economic nonsense and a guaranteed recipe for inefficiency.
As everyone who has spoken on this topic in this debate so far has agreed—namely, the noble Lords, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, Lord Bragg, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, Lord Dubs and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield—the enormous benefits which a single integrated regulator, properly constructed, will bring to broadcasting will be lost if the Government preserve the antiquated anomaly of the BBC being regulated entirely separately. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this matter again?
The radio industry to keen to work with the Government in transforming the White Paper into a successful Bill. Regrettably, all the major recommendations made by the radio industry in the consultation process preceding the White Paper were ignored. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance this evening that that will not be the case the second time around.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane for having the luck of a Napoleonic general in the ballot and giving your Lordships the chance to debate this White Paper, I was going to say how quickly we seem to be returning to this subject. I then realised that five years have already elapsed since the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996, a virtual lifetime in a world in which Moore's Law, for instance—the doubling of processing power every 18 months—applies.

1249
That rate of dynamic change lies at the heart of the regulatory challenge. Each of the last Broadcasting Acts has arguably been overtaken by developments in the markets and technology before the ink on the Royal Assent has dried. The proposal to establish OFCOM, therefore, will be judged on the basis of how well and how flexibly, under the legislative framework, it can respond to the rapidly changing environment.
My version of the agnosticism of my noble friend Lord Gordon is to ask whether we really need a concurrent regulator at all, or whether the DTI and OFT could not be responsible for all the commercial and competition issues and another single body responsible for all issues of content and standards. I suspect that, on balance, OFCOM is the right route to go down, but when the legislation is introduced I hope that the argument will be convincingly and clearly made.
In addressing just two other points in my remaining time, I should declare a number of interests as a director of, or venture capital investor in, various companies for which broadband connectivity in particular is of critical importance. In addition, I am a director of a company, Indicii Salus, which is in the forefront of cryptographic security for Internet services.
Universal broadband access is of overwhelming importance to both individual consumers and to businesses, large and small. Our culture and our prosperity alike will be diminished if we fall behind in its provision. There is no doubt that over the past 10 years neither BT nor the cable operators have shown the level of innovation or dynamism that consumers deserve. In the end I believe that the markets will pass judgment, as the board of BT may now be finding, and perhaps as a result we will see the long-needed improvement in commitment and service.
The regulator, as so often, may only be the enforcer of last resort, but Oftel's recent record in sharpening or complementing market forces is deeply disappointing. If, as the White Paper notes,
"unbundling … in every country, gives rise to disputes between the incumbent operator and its competitors"
Oftel was as well prepared to handle these disputes, many years after they were apparent in other countries, as Dad's Army would have been for 21st century warfare. I sincerely hope that OFCOM in the future and Oftel in the interim, show greater vision and determination.
The White Paper covers briefly the issue of Internet security and the prevention of on-line fraud. The DTI, over 10 years or more, has been longsighted and energetic in encouraging work and standards in this field. But it is impossible to overstate the importance not only of achieving the highest levels of security for e-commerce and on-line payments, but also of instilling unequivocal confidence in these systems on the part of consumers. Much of that responsibility lies with the private sector whether Internet companies, banks or retailers.
1250
But the Government have a vital role as well. In particular, where the Government have an existing regulatory or supervisory role such as, for example, in the move of the National Lottery to on-line playing, they must surely ensure that the highest levels of security are adopted. Can the Minister say whether he believes that the present regulatory regime, before any new regulation, is adequate in that respect?
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for initiating this debate. I would also like to thank him for planting a very important seed, at least in my mind, that technology should not be in the driving seat. I hope that noble Lords will take note of that because I am sure that when the Bill arrives in this House we shall have to bear that in mind. We shall have to make sure that the controlling force is not technology.
I must declare an interest. I am a director of Meridian Broadcasting, which is a regional ITV company. I am also a director of Kiss and Magic, which are independent radio stations. I am very proud of Meridian's record in providing services in the area it serves. I am also very proud of the original way in which it has used its charitable trust to provide programmes on very special subjects, which are mainly disability issues as well as programmes on ageing, carers and all the related matters which affect us. It has followed them up with booklets, information, provided loops and so forth. It is very important that, whatever happens, the regional dimension must be maintained and not be smothered by too much regulation.
I was going to mention one or two names, but there are more than I can quote now. Many noble Lords have already said that the BBC should be fully regulated by OFCOM. The Charter was brought into force at a time when, in their wildest imaginings people would not have envisaged what is happening today. There is no question but that the BBC should be part of the regulatory process. Ultimately, it cannot continue to be judge and jury in its own case. It does not work.
The main issue at the moment is providing a level playing field. There are a number of different aspects. I am talking only about television. Noble Lords have touched on many matters which are beyond my comprehension. With regard to television, there is the BBC, free to air, pay TV and all the ITV companies which have to generate their own revenue to provide programmes. If we provide a level playing field for all these services, they will grow and prosper and we shall have the best of all worlds.
If the ITV companies are penalised when they want digital carriage or when they compete in other forms of carriage, they will not have the money to provide the programmes. We know that ITV companies are providing the programmes and have overtaken the BBC among ABC viewers. That people are watching TV is a most important statement. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is not here; but Channel 4

1251
provides a tremendous number of programmes. It provides programmes on Islam. They are not patronising, which the BBC's programmes so often tend to be.
My time is up. The real point I want to leave with noble Lords is that when we come to debate the Bill we must try to see that there is fair play between the different providers and that they all have the opportunity to grow and do their best for us.
7.12 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, last year I had the honour of meeting the world-wide president of Sony. When we were introduced, I said, to break the ice: "You know, sir, I sometimes think that in 10 years' time we will not recognise this industry". With typical Japanese terseness he replied, "Three years". I thought of that when the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, made a comment about the 1996 Bill. Whenever, over the past 20 years, we have debated broadcasting communications it has been against a realisation that the technology is moving much faster than the parliamentary process.
Nevertheless, like other noble Lords, I welcome and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for initiating the debate. We have, in this debate perhaps more than in previous debates during the past 20 years, and in the legislation we are looking forward to, an opportunity for setting the parameters and the foundations for our communication system, at least for the earlier parts of the 21st century. That is why I should like first of all to welcome and endorse the call of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for an imaginative way of scrutinising the Bill.
The Government have had the benefit of a great deal of experience today. Indeed, the debate could have lasted twice as long. Some of the shortened speeches left much wisdom unsaid. I have received over 30 briefing papers from various organisations in preparation for the debate. Because there is an onus on us to get it right, we need a procedure which will allow the various interest groups to have their say at a pre-legislative stage. I hope that the Government take that on board and think imaginatively about the process.
Furthermore, that is illustrated by the fact that today we have had more than the usual number of declarations of interest. My noble friend Lord Thomson took the matter to a new stage. I have heard of the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons, but the success of the daughters being visited on the fathers is a new dimension.
My own declaration is that I am president of BREMA, the manufacturers' trade association. Over the past 20 years I have been involved in various capacities in the passage of most of the Bills. At present I am chairman of my party's study group on the White Paper.
My own involvement in broadcasting started just over 30 years ago, when I worked for the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in Downing Street. He said to me,
1252
"Find out what Merlyn is up to with the BBC"—and he was one of the Ministers whom the noble Lord trusted!
Perhaps I may just make a comment about what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said about radio. That is often neglected. The Minister always has the stock reply that digital radio is far too expensive for him. The signs are that digital radio is making advances. Both the BBC and the commercial sector have given it a real impetus. The manufacturers have always said that they need the quantity before they can get prices down. One good sign is that Ford have said that they will put digital radios into their cars from 2004. It could be that digital radio will get its impetus first through car radio.
I turn to TV. It is only with reticence that I take issue with the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for a level playing field. Many of our problems over the past few years, and particularly much of the sniping at the BBC is because some of the commercial interests do not understand the matter. I can best illustrate that by saying that a few years ago I was involved in the setup of the National Lottery. I went to see a very senior civil servant with a representative of the football pool. The representative asked for a level playing field. After a while the civil servant said, "But you don't understand. We have no intention of creating a level playing field. We want the lottery to win". That came as a great shock. But I am sure that it would help the commercial interests if they realised that we want public service broadcasting to win.
Over the past few years, or certainly in the early part of the 1980s, the great debate has been whether public service broadcasting in this country would be forced into a smaller and smaller ghetto as it has been in the United States, in Canada, in Australia and elsewhere. But the great victory of the debates of the 1980s and 1990s is that in the 21st century we are determined to build into our regulatory framework of broadcasting a very strong public service broadcasting sector.
We wish the commercial sector well and that it should prosper. But the commercial sector should stop thinking that it can shrink the public service sector by constantly sniping at it. There is no doubt about that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, looks surprised, but I am not surprised because I have seen strong vested interests trying to undermine public service broadcasting in this country. I am happy and. indeed, in some ways pleasantly surprised, at the robust nature of the White Paper's defence of the public sector. I welcome that.
I feel that we have an opportunity on digital broadcasting, but it is not an opportunity if we leave it purely to market forces. Each individual digital provider is happy to adopt the cheap and cheerful technology that will get it subscriptions into a walled garden. I understand that. They have the interests of their shareholders profit maximisation to fulfil. But that commercial impetus is not necessarily the same one as a national commitment to an orderly digital switchover. I welcome the parallel White Paper, Enterprise, Skills and Innovation, published by the DTI and the Department for Education and Employment,

1253
which puts forward a whole range of initiatives for a proactive approach to the adoption of digital. Paragraph 4.5.3 of Chapter 4 of the White Paper sets out a real plan for a digital switchover. It will not happen without that kind of commitment from government.
I welcome the work done by Chris Smith and Patricia Hewitt. They have shown that grown-up government works. Chris Smith is the first Secretary of State to have made it to Cambridge television conferences—a great success in terms of the Ministry of Fun having been a rather short-term appointment in successive governments. However, at the base of it, we have to go back to the old mantra laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, in his White Paper—quality, diversity and choice. How do we do that? We do it by defending and building on the strengths of the White Paper and by using the consultative process to which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred. The danger is not that we progress from the White Paper but that we slip back and allow it to become green and frayed at the edges.
Our late colleague, Lord Ted Willis, used to say that the kind of Minister for whom he had the most contempt was the one who always carried the imprint of the last bottom which sat on him. In the communications industry, there are some very big bottoms about. Ministers will need support to resist being sat upon. I hope the Minister believes that he and his colleagues will have the support of this House if they remain robust in the defence of public service broadcasting and a truly inter-operable digital service.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for having used his valuable place in the ballot to introduce this debate on a topic of which he has had so much experience in his business career.
Communications is a topic which bears down on us with increasing intensity, complexity and with bewildering speed. Let me say, right at the outset, that we on these Benches accept the need for a major overhaul of the regulatory regime of the communications industry in all its forms, especially as the demarcation between those forms is becoming increasingly blurred. We can read newspapers on the Internet, and even watch the cricket from California. We can send and receive e-mails and faxes from mobile phones. Indeed, whereas 20 years ago you would ask someone if he had a fax, you now automatically ask, "What is your e-mail address?"
Considering the importance that telecommunications play in everyday life, with about 50 per cent of the population possessing mobile phones and that telecommunications are an essential ingredient in fax and e-mail and the Internet, it may surprise your Lordships to know that in the White Paper the word "broadcasting" is used 592 times whereas the word "telecommunications" appears only 78 times.
1254
Because of the increasing technical connection between the differing forms of communications, the time has come for some rationalisation of the industry. We agree that the time has arrived to consolidate the activities of the various regulators. As the White Paper points out in paragraph 1.3.2:
"There are nine separate regulators covering television and radio and telecommunications, with different regulators covering issues of taste and decency and economics and competition".
Obviously, that cannot continue. In addition, the BBC is a law unto itself, and the White Paper proposes that it should continue to be so, with some slight modification. This gaggle of regulators is to be replaced by a single regulatory body to be called in the jargon of the day, OFCOM.
We also agree that this is the right route to take. However, this job is far too big and complex for any one person or superstar; or perhaps "superczar" is the right word. The Secretary of State told the other place on 12th December last year (at col. 487 of the Official Report) that the regulator,
"will be a hoard, not a single person",
although the actual wording of the White Paper is,
"the new regulator will be governed by a board",
which is not quite the same thing. Perhaps the Minister will explain this discrepancy because the White Paper makes it clear that OFCOM will consist of a chairman, a chief executive and other executive and non-executive members. We do not quarrel with that because obviously OFCOM will have to have a series of chairmen or managers of divisions or whatever to deal with its day-to-day operations. We are in actuality converting five large quangos into a gigantic quango filled with the favoured nominees of two different departments of the government of the day.
We accept that a single regulator is necessary, but we certainly believe that, without detracting from its essential independence, the regulator should be fully answerable to Parliament. I would appreciate the Minister reassuring me on that point because although the White Paper refers to OFCOM establishing links with the devolved assemblies and the English regions, there is no mention of accountability to Westminster. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State told the other place that OFCOM,
"will be jointly accountable to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/00; col. 487.]
The White Paper is the product of two government departments, the DTI and the hybrid Department for Culture Media and Sport, and gives rise to strange inconsistencies, depending on which department wrote which chapter. As a result, while it provides a superficial analysis of the subject and is undoubtedly full of good intentions, it is woefully short of detail and inconsistent in its approach. We see practical proposals to implement "light touch regulation" and self-regulation for broadcasters, but the chapters on telecommunications recite a litany of deregulation without containing any ideas of how this is to be brought about.

1255
We all know that, left to itself, regulation grows. That is a particular danger for OFCOM. It will inherit the responsibilities of the existing regulators. In addition, it will be given new concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading; concurrent, my Lords. This means that broadcasters will be simultaneously subjected to the jurisdiction of two separate authorities. Optimistically, the White Paper says that which of the two would exercise their powers in a particular case would be the subject of consultation in each particular case. Getting one authority to defer to an equal authority may happen elsewhere, but not on planet Earth! And whose criteria is the broadcaster supposed to conform to if they are not identical?
Left to themselves, the present constituent sub-regulatory parts of OFCOM are likely to seek to retain all their existing powers, and indeed take on board any new ones their colleagues enjoy, but which they do not. There is a danger, therefore, that we will have regulation by the highest common factor, rather than the light touch that the Government promise and which we all support. There is a saying about the devil being in the detail. Our problem is that there is a considerable lack of detail in the White Paper, which shows some signs of having been rushed into print ahead of the rumoured imminent general election. There is also the rumour of a draft Bill ready for publication. That would not be surprising when one considers that the Government wanted to tack this gigantic separate subject onto the Utilities Bill until common sense prevailed and it was left to separate legislation.
We look forward to seeing the Bill in due course. While I am not in a position to issue any blank cheques, I believe that all the principles will be acceptable. It is the only the detail that we shall want closely to examine.
We are not happy with the bland phrase buried in the fine print that,
"we will give OFCOM Competition Act type powers to levy financial penalties … This will bring the range of enforcement powers into line with the powers of other regulatory bodies, for example the Financial Services Authority".
This means that the regulator could fine companies up to 10 per cent of turnover and impose penalties on individuals. There is lack of reference to any appeals procedure over the exercise of any of these regulatory powers, especially the financial penalties. I shall be pleased if the Minister is able to tell the House today what right of appeal would be available.
FSA type powers include those to enter premises and seize documents. Those powers are not truly consistent with a "lighter regulatory touch" and putting them into the hands of what—I am sure that noble Lords opposite will not mind my saying this—will be a political appointee could possibly be entirely inconsistent with the freedom of the press.
Another cloud no bigger than a man's hand appears in the seemingly innocuous and pious passage which states that,
"we believe there is a case for OFCOM to have a general responsibility to promote support for training … including powers to research and monitor performance".
1256
By what standard in spin doctoring will that performance be monitored? One does not have to be paranoid to see where such powers could go wrong under the influence of any government, and where that might lead. I believe that it could represent a danger. Other regulators around the world are facing the same issues and Britain should take the lead by finding practical solutions.
To repeat and stress what I have said previously, we believe that the White Paper is short on practical measures to give the communications industry, in particular telecommunications, the space it needs to develop its potential. For example, I have time to touch only briefly on the wide subject of streamed video material on the Internet. Does the White Paper suggest that this should be licensed? Will there be the same "must carry" obligations as on public service broadcasting?
Telecommunications is a rapidly expanding international industry which technically knows no borders but in which Britain could and should play a major role. It seems to me that every door is left ajar and I await the draft legislation with interest. It is important to the economy that the entire communications industry should be regulated well, but not too hard, and that such regulation as is necessary is forward looking rather than backward looking. We on these Benches will support those ideas.
7.33 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for securing his place in the ballot and thus bringing forward such an expert range of speakers. That has made my task tonight extraordinarily difficult, not only because the White Paper is necessarily wide-ranging, but because the range of expertise to which I must respond is very great indeed.
Perhaps I may begin by agreeing immediately with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the ways in which we communicate are being transformed. We have had and at the moment still have distinct static media—broadcasting, telephony and the Internet—but these are changing and converging with astonishing speed. I am not sure whether the president of Sony was right to say that great changes will take three years rather than 10 years, but certainly the change, for example, in the ownership of mobile phones over the past 12 months—an increase of 67 per cent—is absolutely staggering. I now find myself in a minority by not having one.
Many contributions to the debate have reflected a general recognition that the White Paper strikes an effective balance between lighter, more appropriate regulation and the continued protection of the public interest, although the balance of the debate has erred towards the public interest, and quite properly so. We believe that we shall meet the twin goals of freeing industry from outdated restrictions but still put in place a framework which will at its heart meet the needs of citizens.

1257
We have three main objectives: first, to make our communications and media market the most dynamic and competitive in the world; secondly, to ensure universal access to a choice of high quality and diverse services; and, thirdly, to safeguard the interests of citizens and consumers. Those objectives are not set out in any particular order of importance. The way in which we shall embody those is through the establishment of the office of communications, OFCOM. I was interested to hear the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Thomson, acquiesce to that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accept it. In that context, I was grateful for enthusiastic support, based on sound economic principles, expressed by my noble friend Lord Eatwell.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of course OFCOM will be responsible to Parliament. Any organisation responsible to Ministers is by that fact then responsible to Parliament. I am not sure that I welcome the reminders from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey of the analogies with the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, I am afraid there are many ways in which in due course a communications Bill will encounter some of the complexities with which we had to grapple when dealing with the regulation of financial services.
Perhaps I may start with the first objective of creating a dynamic market and look at the relationship between OFCOM and the Office of Fair Trading, which at present exercises the powers contained in the Competition Act in the communications sector. We see this developing in the following manner. As competition becomes more pervasive, we will expect to rely more on the general competition framework than on the sector-specific powers which will be exercised by OFCOM. However, we think that there will be a continuing need for sectoral powers, in particular to address the competition implications of technical bottlenecks and to protect the interests of consumers. OFCOM will be given appropriate powers in line with the new European framework. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, expressed doubts about that in his early remarks, but in the end I believe he came to recognise that this is the right approach.
So far as concerns ensuring universal access, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield that this will continue to need a strong regulatory presence. Everyone should continue to have easy access to public service television and radio channels. In the future, as it is now, it should be free at the point of delivery, along with other communications services at affordable prices. The proposals contained in the White Paper ensure that channels currently available free to air are carried on all platforms and that electronic programme guides provide easy access to them.
The Internet, of course, is more complicated. More and more people are gaining access to the Internet. They may access through personal computers, televisions, mobile phones and now even games consoles. They may access at work, at home—families
1258
with young children are increasingly going online—and in the future in access centres, to which I shall refer in more detail shortly. Businesses of all kinds can access global markets and make great efficiency savings in how they interact with suppliers and customers and in the way they make, market and trade their goods and services. Over the past year, business access to the Internet has risen from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. Since the beginning of 1999, household access to the Internet has more than doubled to 32 per cent. We have a part to play in this. By the end of last year, 42 per cent of government services were being delivered electronically. By 2002, this will increase to 73 per cent. We have a target of 100 per cent by the end of 2005.
On the issue of universal access, one comment made from the point of view of broadcasters—this was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and my noble friend Lord Bragg—was that we are being inequitable between terrestrial and cable and satellite broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, in particular, criticised the asymmetry of the "must carry" and "must offer" regimes. It is difficult to answer questions at the moment because, as he knows, currently negotiations are being carried on between BSkyB and ITV on non-discriminatory access. I should not like to intervene in those negotiations, except to say that, unless we achieve a just result from them, there is always Oftel in the wings, ready to act.
As to access to broadband, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is right; broadband matters. Our goal is for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in G7 by the year 2005. That was set out in our broadband strategy document on 13th February—which, incidentally, is two months after the communications White Paper, not three months.
The noble Earl criticised the fact that we acknowledge that in some areas it will be many years before broadband access is available universally to homes. To achieve broadband access, it is necessary to install a server—let us say a telephone exchange or a central point—which has a range of only three to five kilometres from that point. One can therefore appreciate the difficulty of geographical access. In addition to local loop unbundling, we propose to set up an extensive network of approximately 6,000 centres, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord St John, referred.
The noble Lord asked how we are going to do that. We are proposing to devote £10 billion over the next three years to connect schools, colleges, universities, libraries, hospitals, surgeries, police stations and the UK on-line centres to broadband. Even in areas where home broadband access is not physically possible, that will make a great dent in the inaccessibility of broadband.
As an initial step, we are setting up a new £30 million fund to support innovative schemes to meet local requirements and to ensure that as many people and businesses across the UK as possible have access to affordable broadband services. We are working with the Countryside Agency to introduce this scheme into rural areas.

1259
I recognise the points made about telecommunication services. I do not think that a word count indicates any lack of seriousness about this in the White Paper. I should say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that Internet security is partly the responsibility of the Electronic Communications Act of last year, which provides the framework, and partly the responsibility of self-regulation.
Quite rightly, much of the debate was about diversity and plurality. There was considerable criticism of the existing rules of media ownership and some comments were less friendly than others about our proposals. Generally, we want to consult on a new and suitable framework for regulating media ownership. We are clear enough about our policy but it is less obvious how we will put it into effect.
We do not argue that competition alone delivers diversity. Digital technology means that consumers can choose from a wide number of channels but that does not necessarily mean a more diverse range of content. The noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Holme, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, recognised that point. If you have too many participants, then you have, I say with trepidation to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the "hoteling" effect of the market working but generating more and more mass market output. We have seen that working rather badly in the United States.
The noble Lord asked whether we would apply our analysis to radio and specifically to the BBC plus two commercial stations. This is an issue on which we are seeking views through the communications White Paper.
While on the subject of radio, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and other noble Lords have said about the importance of community radio and access radio, particularly for religious and ethnic minorities. We are very keen to encourage community radio—the White Paper is very strong on this point—and we see a continuing role for local analogue radio in religious broadcasting.
As I am on the subject of minorities, perhaps I should say something about communications for people with disabilities, which formed an important element of the debate. As noble Lords will know, we published plans at the end of January for improving access to digital terrestrial television for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. This was debated in the House quite recently when I answered a Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in which reference was made to the heightened targets for special provision; to the half-price licences for the blind; to the extension of the regime to cable and satellite; and to the new regulations which provide for disabled access to public call boxes and text phones. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point about individual phones, which might be more difficult to achieve. Certainly this matter is high on our list of priorities.
Securing quality is, of course, absolutely essential. We strongly reaffirm our belief in the value of public service broadcasting. I am sorry that the noble Lord,
1260
Lord McNally, was surprised by that; I thought we had been consistent in our view over the past four years. I should say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield that I am not keen on measuring it or defining it, but it is there. The three-tier system of regulation that we are proposing is designed to protect that.
Tier one will cover all broadcasters. There will be codes establishing minimum content standards and rules on advertising and sponsorship. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to the fact that OFCOM could delegate to industry using the excellent example of the Advertising Standards Authority, although I think that the noble Lord recognises that television is a special case, both because of its persuasive power and the relationship between programmes and advertising.
The second tier provides for an element of external regulation for the BBC. This has raised a good deal of controversy in the debate. The noble Lords, Lord Gordon, Lord Bragg, Lord Holme, Lord Dubs, Lord Eatwell, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and the noble Baroness, Lady F.-lather, all thought that the BBC should be completely under the control of OFCOM. If a debate on that subject were organised in the House, a large number of noble Lords could be persuaded by the BBC to put the opposite point of view. But certainly we have heard what has been said. I do not think that our view leads to the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, that ITV is being ignored. ITV will benefit more from unified regulation than from the more discriminating regulation that we have at the moment.
In tier two we shall be concerned with quotas for independent productions and regional productions and the availability of news and current affairs in peak time. The requirements in this tier are important for the quality of broadcasting and for the continued success of the UK's creative industries.
Finally, in tier three, we propose that the qualitative public service remit of the broadcasters should be based on transparent self-regulation with back-stop powers for OFCOM in relation to commercial broadcasters and for the BBC, the Secretary of State, and Parliament. It should not be thought that the Governors of the BBC are not in turn responsible, through the BBC Charter, to the Secretary of State and Parliament. Again, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that definition is what we need. What we need in practice is that the broadcasters responsible should make statements of programme policies, should report on them, and should develop adequate self-regulatory mechanisms which will be backed up, if necessary, by OFCOM. That will create a more level playing field for public service and commercial broadcasters, giving commercial broadcasters the challenge of demonstrating that they can exercise this new freedom.
There has been a great deal of debate about the regulation of content. I am well aware of the concerns, which were most eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, about what is acceptable in broadcasting. OFCOM will take over the role of the

1261
Broadcasting Standards Commission in adjudicating on complaints of fairness and privacy; however, the issue of acceptability is much less clear. People have very different views about what is acceptable. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, about the even greater difficulty of regulating the Internet. The noble Lord will be aware of the Internet Watch Foundation and the content rating that it is proposing. But he will be the first to tell me that that requires international co-operation and international standards. The legislation will be constructed flexibly so that, as controls improve or expectations change, the degree of regulation can be adjusted by OFCOM in the light of research.
The interest of consumers as opposed to citizens is always a difficult distinction to make, although it is clear that there is a distinction. We shall be keeping the key role of the regulator in consumer protection, but we recognise the need for a consumer advocate. That is what the consumer panel will do. It will include codes of practice for people with disabilities and for minorities of various kinds. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will be aware of the Cultural Diversity Network, which is now producing an action plan in this sphere. The question of interoperability—which is a consumer interest question—is for the industry in the first place, but there will be a back-up power to impose standards when necessary.
The issue of digital switchover is extraordinarily complicated. We have set out our tests: of availability, affordability and take-up. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is right to continue pushing us, because we are continuing to push ourselves. But there are significant problems in actually promoting, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, would wish us to do, the process of switchover. It has to be driven by availability, by the market and by individual decision rather than by government diktat. It will be recognised that it is not merely a question of the first television set in a home, but of all the other television sets, in children's bedrooms, in bathrooms or wherever they may be.
I was asked a number of questions about the organisational framework of OFCOM. I do not have time to answer them in detail, except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme: yes, indeed, it will be a start-up and not a merger. OFCOM will have important powers which existing sectoral regulators do not have. It will have the power to fine broadcasters for breaches of general authorisations, and the concurrent powers for the broadcast sector with the Director-General of Fair Trading under the Competition Act.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson: no, the British Board of Film Classification will not be handed over to OFCOM; however, it will be expected to adhere to the same tier one standards. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, makes about the need for consumer representatives. That is a question between OFCOM and the consumer panel. So far as concerns regional offices, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, that there will be a regional presence. What form that will take is not yet known.
1262
I have been greatly encouraged by the tone of the debate and by a great deal of the content. Consultation is going on, and the speeches in this debate are very much part of that process. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his support for what he sees in the White Paper as a robust defence of public service broadcasting—that is also my belief. I believe that that is what we are in the process of achieving. That process has a good deal further to go.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. Bearing in mind the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that broadcasting is mentioned 592 times in the White Paper whereas telecommunications is mentioned only 78 times, I am all too conscious that I concentrated exclusively on broadcasting. It is a question of my background. I was grateful, therefore, that within minutes the debate had swung on to broadband and the Internet. I was particularly grateful that we also gave due attention to the needs of the deaf and the blind and to the opportunities that the Bill could present to do something meaningful for them.
It is significant that very few speakers covered the same aspect of the Bill. That indicates the wide scope of the legislation that will shortly come before the House. I hope that the Government will reflect on some of the points that have been raised, and indeed on some of the innovative ideas as to how the Bill might be handled.
Most important of all, I hope that the Government will give adequate time for debate on the Bill. There could have been a full-scale debate on any one of the 20 or so contributions that we heard this evening. If the Chief Whip is listening, I say to him that it would be wise not to plan for too much else in the legislative programme for the Session in which the Bill is brought forward. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hunting Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Selby Rail Crash
7.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister in another place about the tragic accident at Selby at about 6.20 this morning. The Statement is as follows:
"I am grateful to the House and in particular the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to make this Statement at this time, which has allowed me to visit the scene this afternoon.

1263
"The latest casualty figures are 13 killed. We believe at present that these include two train drivers. There are 75 other casualties, 10 of whom are in a serious or critical condition. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the injured and to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragic and horrific accident.
"When I visited the scene I saw for myself the tremendous efforts of our emergency services and the many agencies involved in dealing with the accident. As always, they showed true professionalism, courage and efficiency in yet again the most difficult circumstances.
"The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the North Yorkshire Police, working with the British Transport Police and other forces, the local lire brigades and ambulance services, the Royal Air Force's air sea rescue helicopters, and the local hospitals which treated the injured.
"My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Health is visiting hospitals this evening and will be thanking hospital staff for their work today. I also want to pay tribute to the way in which members of the local community responded so quickly with help and comfort to the passengers.
"Let me turn to the facts of the tragedy in so far as they are known. At approximately 6.20 a.m. this morning a Land Rover was travelling west along the M62 motorway, pulling a trailer carrying another car. It left the motorway as it approached a bridge which crosses over the East Coast Main Line. The bridge is protected by crash barriers. But the vehicle left the road some 30 metres before the beginning of the crash barrier. It then travelled along and down the embankment behind the safety barrier before falling down the railway cutting and onto the railway track. In all, on present information, it is estimated that the vehicle travelled more than 100 metres from leaving the main carriageway before reaching the railway line.
"The driver got out of his vehicle and phoned the North Yorkshire Police. As he was speaking to them the 4.45 a.m. GNER Newcastle to London train, carrying more than 100 passengers, collided with the vehicle on the track.
"The passenger train left the rails as a result of the collision but remained upright. Almost immediately it then collided with an oncoming freight train. The time between the emergency call and the first collision was some 40 seconds, and the two trains crashed within seconds after that.
"It is essential that this appalling tragedy is subject to the fullest investigation. There are a number of agencies involved in this—the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, the British Transport and North Yorkshire police, and the Highways Agency. I have asked the Health and Safety Executive, therefore, to provide me with an interim report within the next few days. I shall then
1264
make a decision as to what further steps may be appropriate. I shall ensure that the report is made public".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place earlier this evening.
8.2 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement this evening. On behalf of all noble Lords on these Benches, I join with the Minister in expressing our grief and sympathy for those who died or who were involved in the accident. At this time we feel for their families, we feel for those who cannot be sure that their loved ones are safe, and we also feel for those who might not yet have found out that their loved ones are involved.
On these occasions we rightly praise the sterling efforts of our emergency services. Successful handling of these disasters is derived from two factors. The first is the courage, determination, resourcefulness and skill of those involved on the scene. However, we should not forget the second factor; namely, the emergency planning carried out a long time in advance just in case. Mercifully, it does not get tested too often.
This accident occurred as a result of an unbelievably unfortunate chain of events. If any one of them had not taken place, the accident—if it had happened at all—would not have been nearly so serious. There will, of course, be public and media concern over the safety crash barriers. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that much research has taken place over many years. As a result, hundreds or even thousands of lives have been saved by the barriers. Noble Lords will be aware that the Highways Agency and local authorities are constantly installing more crash barriers to protect high-risk features. Of course, there are a few which are more high-risk than railway crossings. Indeed, there was a similar accident in Germany a while ago.
I have no intention of asking any technical questions tonight. We shall find out more tomorrow, and the preliminary results of the official investigation will no doubt be available within a few days. I am also confident that the Minister has taken all the appropriate steps following this most tragic disaster.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I associate these Benches with the expression of sympathy that has been made to the injured and to the friends and families of those who were killed in this astonishing and catastrophic accident. Indeed, I believe that it is the worst accident on the railways for several years. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Health, and others, are talking with people who were involved in the accident, I hope that they will ensure that those involved do understand that Parliament as a whole—not just this House, but also the other place—is deeply sympathetic as regards what happened today.

1265
As the noble Earl just said, it was an extraordinary collection of events all happening within seconds, as the Statement makes plain. In all the confusion, and considering the terrible things that happened, it was a mercy that the engine of the train, which I understand was derailed, actually stopped short of hitting the nearest houses. Had it not stopped, that would have added yet another horrendous aspect to this already terrible accident.
There are questions that could be asked, but can the Minister assure me that the North Yorkshire Police will be carrying out the usual investigations that apply to any road incident? I ask that because, at the bottom of this, we are talking about an incident on a motorway. It is not for us to judge what happened or, indeed, what caused that accident. But that was the cause of the rail accident.
Further, can the Minister say whether the investigation of the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate will cover all the other rail-oriented factors that might have made a difference one way or the other? Bridges have a natural vulnerability when they are involved in accidents with cars. That may sound a silly way of putting it, but not only is the car vulnerable in such circumstances but so, too, is the bridge. The Statement explained what seemed to me as I watched the events unfolding this morning to be an impossibility; namely, a car going over the barrier of a motorway bridge and ending up on a track. But, of course, it did not go over the barrier; it went behind the barrier, which is quite different.
I am sure that there are questions to consider and decisions to be taken as a result of the accident. Despite the fact that I agree with what has been said about the great care that is taken with bridges, I hope that the vulnerability of bridges will, nevertheless, be borne in mind. We look forward to the publication of the results of the inquiry. In closing my remarks, I repeat our sympathy for those who have been injured and for those who have lost loved ones today.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House will share my appreciation of the sincere tribute made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the emergency services and their careful contingency planning of even the most unexpected of accidents. The Highways Agency is constantly concerned about its standards in relation to crash barriers. I thank the noble Earl for his remarks, with which I associate myself completely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, is right to stress the exceptional and awful coincidences at work in this morning's accident. As I said, the railway inspectorate will produce an interim report, which I hope we shall receive at an early stage. This will be made public. Like noble Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware of the professionalism that is inherent in the inspectorate. I am sure that it will consider every aspect of this tragedy.
As the noble Baroness said, bridges are, indeed, vulnerable. One of the primary functions of the crash barriers erected around bridges is that they should
1266
offer protection above railway lines. They are built to agreed standards. My understanding is that the crash barriers on this bridge were in fact longer than the required standard for such barriers. However, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, in these circumstances we have a vehicle that seems to have gone off the road before the barrier and then travelled a hundred metres or so on to the track. Those circumstance will be inquired into by North Yorkshire Police and other agencies. The Transport Research Laboratory has a team now at work assisting the Highways Agency. It, too, will make a report and, where appropriate, I shall bring those reports to the attention of your Lordships' House.
8.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to add words of sympathy from these Benches after this terrible tragedy. I do so as a bishop from Yorkshire although my diocese is on one side of the boundary where this accident took place.
When I heard the news this morning, I was with a choir and readers ready to broadcast the Radio 4 service on the BBC. We were able to do in that service what I know many others will have done during the day; that is, to remember in our prayers those who have been killed, those who were injured, and those who rescued them.
As I thought more about this terrible event, it is only during the latter part of the day that I realised that some sympathy also needs to be shown to GNER. This is the second tragedy that that rail company has had to face. Naturally, our deepest sympathy must go to those whom we have already mentioned but I should like to put down that little marker of sadness for the rail company.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate draws our attention to the two tragedies which have now struck the GNER company. I echo with real sympathy his concerns. Many of us who today heard Mr Christopher Garnett, the Chief Executive of GNER, would have been clearly affected by the way in which he spoke so movingly of the terribly tragedy which has happened and of his sympathy for the injured and bereaved.
I add my admiration for the work of GNER in these difficult circumstances. All day it has been working to ensure that every assistance is given not only to the injured but also to relatives. It is arranging travel, accommodation and counselling for relatives, staff and those involved in the accident and those profoundly affected by it.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I live in North Yorkshire and use this railway line every week when attending your Lordships' House. However, I wish to comment as the chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority. I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about the help that North Yorkshire Police have given in this tragic accident. I have been in close contact all day with the deputy chief constable in North Yorkshire who wishes your

1267
Lordships to know that he has been touched by the enormous amount of help and assistance that has been given all day. He will be grateful for your Lordships' recognition of that. He has been in liaison with other agencies and forces. He wished me to convey his gratitude to your Lordships' House; and I do so.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the noble Baroness has much to be proud of in the way that the North Yorkshire Police Force has worked today along with the other emergency services. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear at the scene of the accident how impressed he was with the way in which it had taken command of the situation in an effective but sensitive way. All of us who have watched as the tragedy has unfolded over the day would echo the noble Baroness's sentiments and praise the police force and other emergency services for their outstanding work.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, as have other noble Lords, I express my sympathy and extend thanks to the emergency services.
I am sorry to introduce this issue but matters will go on. No one knows how long the line will be closed; it may be for a short or a long period. If it is to be closed for any length of time there will need to be additional services on the West Coast Main Line. At present that line suffers from great restrictions. I hope that there will be liaison between the two railways to ensure that there is adequate provision of additional services for people travelling to the north, over the Pennines to York, and so on.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. GNER is the main operator on the East Coast Main Line. Its services north of Doncaster are currently suspended but its Leeds services are unaffected. It is too early to tell when those services can be resumed. All concerned are keen to reopen this important link as soon as possible. I take the noble Lord's point about the need for cooperation between companies in these circumstances. The rail recovery action group will meet tomorrow. That will give the industry an opportunity to share its views. At this stage it is too early to say when the service will reopen. I do not think that it would be proper for me to speculate on such matters before we have established the facts.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, at this time we think about this awful tragedy. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said, we have to look forward. The Minister will be aware that there has been considerable criticism about the length of time taken to get services running again through Hatfield, and to resume services when there are accidents, small and large. I understand what the Minister says, but can he assure us that once the necessary investigations have taken place and the wreckage cleared—clearly that is a sensitive matter because there may be more bodies—as a priority every effort will be made to get the line
1268
repaired and back into service, if possible within days rather than the 17 days involved with regard to Hatfield?
If services are to be diverted to Leeds—that is clearly a possibility—is consideration being given to suspending the work at Leeds Station?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I spoke earlier of the close liaison between the British Transport Police and the North Yorkshire Police. I understand that the police are treating this as an accident investigation. It has not been identified as the scene of a crime, as was the case at Hatfield. From talking to the parties today, I know that there is a shared belief that the line should be opened as soon as is practical given the fact that agencies have to carry out proper inquiries. The rail recovery action group will meet tomorrow. Operational matters of the kind to which the noble Lord referred can no doubt be on the agenda of that meeting.

Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.19 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Viscount of Oxfuird) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
SECTION 1 (INTERPRETATION).
(". Nothing in section 1 shall reduce the steps or the time required for the House of Commons to overrule a legislative decision of the House of Lords.")
The noble Earl said: I would never dream of entering into a debate with some of our legal pundits, but a question of principle appears to be involved—I do not say that it is definitely involved, but it appears to be on the face of it. The Explanatory Notes—issued, I understand, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—say that one indirect effect of the Bill will be that in future the House of Commons will only have to pass a Bill twice instead of three times before overruling us. We are also told that it will take the House of Commons only one year instead of two before achieving that result. I may be told that that is a misunderstanding but, as it is in the Explanatory Notes, it needs clearing up.
I must say two or three words about why I object so strongly to the weakening of the delaying power of this House. I do not say that it should be strengthened, but it should stay as it is now. There are not many noble

1269
Lords who want to stay to hear my reasons, but I can explain how I see the relations between the Houses by telling a short story. In 1946, when Lord Montgomery was Chief of the Imperial General Staff and I was Under-Secretary for War, he took me to the staff college at Camberley. Like everyone there, he was in uniform, while I was a wretched civilian, cowering on the platform. He finished his speech, "Well, gentlemen, you must never forget the politicians. They are our masters". There was loud laughter. He went on, "But we must also never forget our duty to lead them up the garden path".
That is how I see the relationship between the two Houses. In the end we have to give way to the Commons, but we do not want to allow them to overrule us without any delay. We do not want them to reduce the delay that we impose, because we have a higher intellectual and moral standard than they have. Anybody knows that perfectly well. However, we know that self-government is better than good government, so we have to give way to them in the last resort. However, we must be in a position to make our opinions widely heard throughout the country and exert our full influence. Once our delaying power is tampered with, that influence will be diminished. I therefore strongly object to any provision that could possibly reduce our delaying powers. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I regret to have to say that the noble Earl has wholly misunderstood the purpose of Clause 1. He has misread the Explanatory Notes, which I am confident accurately express the purpose and tenor of Clause 1. In the circumstances, I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to the Explanatory Notes. They read:
"Clause 1 of the Bill deliberately avoids the necessity for Parliament to express any view as to the validity of the 1949 Act by providing that it and those acts passed in reliance upon it, shall be 'confirmed"'.
The 1949 Act, of course, purported to reduce the period between two readings in the other place and the number of occasions on which the Bill had to be passed by the other place before the will of this House could be overridden. The Explanatory Notes continue:
"This is the appropriate term"
that is, "confirmed"—
"if the 1949 Act, and consequentially the War Crimes Act 1991 (the 1991 Act), the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) would otherwise be invalid, or if the four Acts are, and always have been, valid and all that is required is a stilling of unfounded doubts. Its purpose is not only to place the validity of the 1949, 1991, 1999 and 2000 Acts beyond question. but indirectly to affirm that in future when using the Parliament Act procedure the House of Commons need only pass the Bill on two occasions (instead of three) and that the time required to elapse between second reading in the Commons in the first of these sessions and its final passing by that House is one year (instead of two)".
That has been accepted as the position since 1991, which was the first occasion on which that view could have been challenged. However, there are three views among the legal fraternity and others. The Attorney-General believes that no action is needed, because
1270
everybody knows that the 1949 Act was validly passed by the other place to amend the 1911 Act. Others take the diametrically opposite view that the other place had no power to change the constitutional arrangements. The third, and I hope not insignificant, group, of which I am one, does not know the answer. Not only do I not know the answer, I do not want it to emerge as a result of what the media will portray as a clash between the courts, the judiciary and the legislature. The Bill is designed to still doubts or to confirm the Attorney-General's view. At any rate, it would put the issue beyond controversy.
If the amendment were accepted, we would have the astonishing position that, in the event of a challenge to the validity of any attempt by the other place to pass, say, the Hunting Bill—I take that as an example, although other occasions may well arise—within the reduced time limits, the courts would have to ask whether this Act, as it then would be, reduced the terms required for the passing of Acts by the other place without the consent of this House.
The courts would have to resolve the question that Clause 1 is designed to remove from the arena. They would have to ask whether, without the amendment, the clause reduced the relevant periods. The Attorney-General would say that of course it did not. Others would say that of course it did. I would say that I do not know. As a result, we would have a potential collision between the courts and the legislature, which is what the clause was designed to avoid.
I say with some confidence and all the emphasis that I can command that the amendment would wreck one of the primary purposes of the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
The Earl of Northesk: It is with both delight and regret that I find myself responding on behalf of the Conservatives to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl's proposition appears to be that nothing in the Bill should reduce or limit the existing powers of your Lordships' House. It is a real pleasure to have that perspective advanced and maintained by such a senior and respected Member of the Government Back Benches. I take this opportunity to ask the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to endorse that view on behalf of the Government.
We agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Furthermore, we do not believe that anything in Clause I as drafted would have the effect that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, fears. To that extent, while we welcome the underlying principles and sentiments of the amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I understand the motive that the two noble Earls have addressed. It may be useful if I spell out the Government's position. We maintain the view that the Parliament Act 1949, the Salisbury/Addison convention and the convention that, after discussion and consideration of the views expressed in this House, the Government will get their business through, provide a proper and satisfactory working basis for the

1271
relationship between the Houses. I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that nothing in the Bill as drafted would have any effect on this House's suspensory veto.
Perhaps I may give a crumb or two of further comfort to both noble Earls by indicating the unanimous view of the report of the Royal Commission, chaired so well by the noble Lord, Lord Walceham. I shall give the quotation, which is from Recommendation 3, paragraph 4.12 of the report:
"The second Chamber should continue to have a suspensory veto of the present length in respect of most primary legislation".
I believe that that is the point which my noble friend Lord Longford made. The qualification refers primarily, of course, to the two special cases. The first relates to extending the life of Parliament, and the second—I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in his place—concerns money Bills. Therefore, I respectfully agree that this provision is not needed. However, if the opportunity were there to be taken, I hope that I have clarified the position so far as concerns the Government.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I do not find the answers given so far very convincing, although I welcome all the kind things said from the Opposition Bench. Why were those words included in the Explanatory Notes when, at the very least, they were liable to mislead? Certainly they misled me. Nevertheless, I am glad to have raised the matter because it is set out in black and white. On the face of it, anyone would conclude that the Bill would weaken the delaying power of this House. For that reason, I am glad that I raised the matter. No doubt we shall hear more on other issues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, commands such enormous respect that I timidly suggest to him that the Explanatory Notes should be revised before they are published again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Hinduja Foundation and the Millennium Dome
  Hinduja Foundation and the Millennium Dome
  Digital Terrestrial TV: Subtitling
  Digital Terrestrial TV: Subtitling
  Overseas Tourism to UK
  Overseas Tourism to UK
  Church Buildings: VAT on Repairs
  Church Buildings: VAT on Repairs
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Death Penalty: British Nationals Overseas
  Death Penalty: British Nationals Overseas
  Iraq: Export of Controlled Goods
  Iraq: Export of Controlled Goods
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration
  EU and EC Treaties: Articles Subject to Unanimity
  EU and EC Treaties: Articles Subject to Unanimity
  London Underground: Grant
  London Underground: Grant
  London Rail Schemes: Co-ordination
  London Rail Schemes: Co-ordination
  Variant CJD
  Variant CJD
  Contraception and Advice Services for Young People
  Contraception and Advice Services for Young People
  Organic Produce
  Organic Produce
  Ex-Miners' Assessment for Compensation
  Ex-Miners' Assessment for Compensation
  Sub-post Office Closures
  Sub-post Office Closures
  ADSL Roll-out
  ADSL Roll-out
  Copyright: Draft Directive
  Copyright: Draft Directive
  Postage Costs
  Postage Costs
  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Legislation: Implementation Support
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Legislation: Implementation Support
  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Regulatory Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies: Guidance
  Regulatory Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies: Guidance
  Immigration Detainees: Random Mandatory Drug Testing
  Immigration Detainees: Random Mandatory Drug Testing
  Terrorism Act 2000: Proscribed Organisations
  Terrorism Act 2000: Proscribed Organisations