Sitting of 11 January 2001

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

    Nursery Education
    Dr. George Turner: What progress he has made in increasing the number of nursery places since May 1997. [143457]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The Government have created 120,000 new, free nursery places as part of the commitment fulfilled in 1998 to provide a free nursery place for all four-year-olds. We are on track to provide a free nursery place for all three and four-year-olds by 2004.
    Dr. Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on being the first Secretary of State to recognise the key role of early-years education as the foundation for educational success, but on delivering investment in it. Having been on Norfolk education committee and served as its chairman, I know that the Conservatives singularly failed to do that, either in government or in local government. Does he acknowledge that delivering and extending nursery provision to all three-year-olds by 2004 will be challenging, particularly in rural counties, and that there may be a need for capital investment as well as revenue investment? How will he rise to that challenge?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that that will be challenging, but it would be especially challenging were the Opposition to win the general election, because they are not committed to spending the money on expanding nursery education. Their so-called promise on spending applies only to statutory schooling, not to education as a whole, and would wipe out the doubling of the nursery education budget to £2 billion. He will be pleased to know that £2.25 million of that will go next year to Norfolk county council as part of the early years and child care partnership funding, so that it and its partners in the voluntary and private sectors can deliver.
    That is where the challenge lies—getting the partnership to work between the private and voluntary sectors and the local authority to ensure that, in rural as well as in urban areas, we can deliver on the ground what
    1218
    parents require and give children what they need to have the firm foundation for standards and opportunity for the future which the Opposition would deny them.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The Government are to be commended on the number of nursery places that have been created. I welcome that, having been a member of the North Eastern Education and Library Board and involved in the provision of nursery schools in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the recognition that children in rural areas must have opportunity to benefit equally. However, what steps are being taken to ensure that there are adequate teachers trained to deal with children in nursery schools and that the right balance is struck between education and play?
    Mr. Phil Willis: Good question.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is an excellent question, which links with a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on which I did not have the opportunity to reflect. We need capital investment in providing the infrastructure—the facility—and we need to ensure that we plan the teacher training. In 1997, I said that the biggest challenge to delivering nursery education for all three and four-year-olds was not the commitment to money, which we are making, but the practicalities of getting the trainees in, ensuring that they have the competence to do the job and then building in the back-up and support staff. Therefore, we will have not only well trained nursery teachers, but well trained nursery nurses and child care assistants to provide what the Under-Secretary of State responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), calls wraparound care. That will enable us to link nursery education with child care—[Interruption.] I think that a message is coming through from Conservative central office with an answer to the next question. Like everything else from the Opposition, it will consist of more noise than substance.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that the Education Sub-Committee launched the early-years report this morning. Although I agree that good work on early-years education has been started over the past three and a half years, with a massive investment, does he agree that there must be quality as well as quantity and that the challenge in the coming years will be to ensure that early-years education is an area of high training, high skills and qualifications and good pay? The people who look after our children at a most vulnerable, delicate and challenging age must be of the best quality and have the greatest motivation.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree that quality is essential and that is assured in respect of trained nursery teachers. As for back-up and support staff, we have given the new Learning and Skills Council a target of 230,000 places to ensure that such workers reach at least level 2 and that there will be a level 3 worker in the child care support staff field in each setting, as well as someone available for work with special needs children—the special needs co-ordinators, or sencos, as they are known.
    I found the Select Committee's observations extremely interesting. I am pleased that the Committee agreed with the consultation that was carried out in the autumn on

    1219
    Government pronouncements on ensuring that learning outcomes reflect the fact that children at that age learn through play and that education and play are integrated in a common-sense fashion.
    Mr. John Hayes: Is it not true that the system is in crisis in terms of diversity in early-years education? According to the Government's own figures, there are 30,000 less pre-school and playgroup places for children than there were in 1997. In the sector as a whole—registered child minders, pre-schools and playgroups—there are more than 30,000 less providers. Most shocking of all, nursery school class sizes are larger than they were under the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nursery school class sizes are larger now than in 1997?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: By the way, it is fewer, not less.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who did Latin at school and as a consequence understands English, which is why we will make it more readily available through the internet.
    No, I will not confirm the point raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about nursery class sizes. I will not confirm that there are fewer places. There are more places in both formal and informal care. We have made it clear before that there were fewer child minders. We have never hidden the fact that we need to work with them to develop diversity and flexibility of care. There are more places in full-time and part-time nursery education. There are 170,000 more places for child care, which represents the creation of more places in 18 months than the Tories created in 18 years. We will ensure that quality and responsiveness are built into those programmes.

    After-school Clubs
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to improve the regulation and funding of after-school clubs. [143459]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The new opportunities fund is providing £170 million to help to set up out-of-school care for 865,000 children in the UK by 2003. From April, a new and additional £155 million will be available from the fund, part of which will be for out-of-school clubs. Day care regulation will transfer from local authorities to Ofsted in September 2001, which, with new national standards, will ensure improved consistency in the regulation and quality of day care for out-of-school clubs and other providers.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, particularly the news about the new funding. Is she aware that after-school clubs are currently seen in law as child care provision and that the schools in which they are based cannot legally be seen to run them? Does she recognise that that is causing much unnecessary additional work for the schools in which such clubs are based, particularly the excellent Vaughan first and middle school
    1220
    in my constituency, which has made representations to me? What action will my hon. Friend take to remedy that problem?
    Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and congratulate his authority on the great progress that it has made in meeting our national targets on child care. I am aware of the problem of schools having to set up separate bodies to run out-of-school clubs. We hope that by taking through Parliament by early next year the Bill dealing with deregulation, we can change that so that schools will have the permission—not the duty—to set up out-of-school clubs, if they so wish.

    Teacher Numbers
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on recruitment into teacher training. [143460]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In autumn, I acknowledged in the House that there was a problem and that we were taking decisive action to deal with it. The decisive action that had already been taken from March and before March last year has led to a 9 per cent. increase in the number of people in teacher training—there are 2,250 more men and women in teacher training courses. The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks have led to a dramatic improvement in the number of people seeking information or registering—[Interruption.] I do not think that that is at all funny, nor do parents or teachers. Our measures have led to a massive increase in those registering an interest, not just telephoning for information.
    To get the facts straight, since the advertising campaign began on 27 December, 14,000 people have rung the teacher helpline. In one day alone—2 January, immediately after the holiday—nearly 2,000 people made contact, which is the largest number ever. The number of registrations, as opposed to mere inquiries, for further details about application has gone up from 17,000 last year to 34,000 this year. The number of people making general inquiries has risen by 100 per cent. to 73,000. There is a problem, but not a crisis. However, it is made worse by those who pretend that it is a crisis.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that full answer. However, the figures that the Secretary of State has given are wrong. Applications this year are 16 per cent. down on last year's figures. He will recall that his Government were elected on an early pledge to reduce class sizes. The Government will meet that pledge only if they recruit more teachers. The Government are presiding over an unprecedented crisis in the teaching profession. Why, in his view, do more people not want to go into teaching under this Government?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, we have a good opportunity to get a few facts on the table. There are 7,500 more teachers than there were three years ago. If the Conservative Budget for 1997–98 had been continued, there would be 10,000 fewer teachers in schools in England, not 7,500 more. Of course, if that were the case, there would not be

    1221
    a problem in recruiting because there would be a surplus of people trying to get jobs in a climate of diminished investment.
    Secondly, there is not a problem with meeting the class size pledge. We agreed that the pledge was for 2002, but we then pulled that back to 2000–01, and it will be fulfilled this September by our £600 million investment and the recruitment of infants teachers that is taking place. It will be fulfilled because we changed the law in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, although people may not remember that—the media are certainly not aware of it. From this September, carrying through that class size pledge will be obligatory.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: If there is such a crisis, why has Halton seen the best improvement in literacy and numeracy results in primary schools in recent years? Is it not the case that, in the past year, the highest number of teachers has been employed? That is what this is about. We should not listen to Opposition scaremongering.
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, there are variations across the country. There is no doubt that there is a problem with recruitment especially, but not exclusively, in London and the south-east. That is partly because we have the most buoyant economy, the most buoyant labour market and the highest level of prosperity in 20 years. That is why there are genuine challenges in recruitment in every area. I should be interested to know how many vacancies there are at Conservative party central office: quite a lot at the moment, I should have thought.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): It is pretty vacant all round.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree. I would even be interested to know how many vacancies there are in the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers which, far from helping to resolve the problem, is deliberately trying to make it worse.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Deflecting attention to teacher unions, is does the Secretary of State little credit. Golden hellos and golden handcuffs might make quick headlines and nice gimmicks, but pay is a major factor. I am sure that he agrees. If the School Teachers Review Body reports that a 3.5 per cent. increase is widely acceptable, it will mean a £155 net increase for every graduate entering teaching this year. That is the equivalent of 45p per day, or a cup of coffee, which gives a new meaning to Gold Blend. Does he agree that salaries are a major issue? When will he provide a real increase in salaries to make them competitive with those in British industry?
    Mr. Blunkett: Of course salaries are important. However, the idea that the Government should take up the Liberal Democrats' suggestion and pay every trainee the starting salary of a teacher on level I would cost £296 million for graduates alone. If we took up the suggestion for all teacher trainees, it would cost just under £700 million.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's got rid of that Liberal penny again.
    Mr. Blunkett: The penny seems to have dropped several times. I hope that it might do so now with the realisation that one can do only so much with a given pound. So that the numeracy lesson gets through, I should point out that there are only 100 pence in a pound.
    Mr. Willis: Answer the question.
    Mr. Blunkett: The answer is that of course pay matters.
    Mr. Willis: What are you going to do about it?
    Mr. Blunkett: The heckler asks what I am doing. I am ensuring that between 160,000 and 200,000 teachers will receive a £2,000 uplift during the next few months. That will happen as long as the Liberal Democrat motion to stop it is not agreed to next Wednesday. The Government are committed—I commit us this morning—to accepting the School Teachers Review Body report this year. The combination of performance-related promotion and the likely pay increase will amount to an overall increase of between 10 and 15 per cent. I do not know what Opposition parties would do with the money—the Conservatives are cutting and the Liberal Democrats are committing—but I know what we are doing: ensuring that teachers are well paid and well supported and do a good job.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If the Liberals are so committed to extra pay for teachers, why did their alternative Budget contain no costed commitment in that respect? Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement about that? The general problems of teacher recruitment are of long standing and need a long-term solution. Will he join me in condemning the Essex Conservative party, which has claimed that Essex schools are on the verge of a four-day week, when no school in Essex is operating on that basis? The director of education in Essex has explicitly said that that is not happening. Are not the Opposition trying to play politics with our children's future?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, let me say that I would not want him to condemn the Essex Conservatives.
    Mr. Blunkett: I take your advice, Mr. Speaker; my hon. Friend has condemned them adequately. Not only have there been no four-day weeks in Essex, but no schools are working on a four-day week anywhere in England. It is time to applaud head teachers and teachers who face enormous strain on staffing and recruitment and are doing a first-class job. No one should exacerbate that problem; everybody should join in ensuring that our children get a decent education with staff who are well supported in doing a damn good job.
    Mrs. Theresa May: If the number of applicants for graduate teacher training was 14,224 at the beginning of January 2000 and 11,935 at the beginning of January this year, was that a rise or a fall?
    Mr. Blunkett: The difficulty is the question of applications. I have referred to inquiries and registration

    1223
    and I shall now deal with applications. The Graduate Teacher Training Registry used figures relating to the beginning of December which were different from the equivalent figures at the same date the previous year. [Laughter.] Conservative Members can check the figures for 8, 15 and 22 December and this week's figures, because they are all on the internet and are available for everyone to see.
    Some applications, including those resulting from the recent advertising campaign, have not yet come through—that is self-evident. The simple fact is that applications have been submitted later year on year. This time last year, the number of applications was less than the year before, but the take up of places was 2,250 higher. Rather than stirring things up, a little reality from the hon. Lady would not come amiss. She must answer one question: how would she pay for the £6,000 trainee teacher salaries, the graduate teacher recruitment programme and the golden hellos?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but it is not his concern to worry about how the hon. Lady would pay for those things.
    Mr. Blunkett: You are entirely right, Mr. Speaker. It is the electorate's job to worry about that, because the £180 million that we are spending is not included in the Tories' promise of spending on education.
    Mrs. May: It is the Secretary of State who needs to look at reality—and to attend a numeracy class. We now know that a fall is not a fall when it is a different figure. The Secretary of State's answers to all the questions about teacher recruitment show how complacent and out of touch the Government are with what is happening in our schools. It is no good saying that people are showing an interest in becoming a teacher some time in the future. Schools and children's education are suffering today. Children are being taught by unqualified teachers and by non-specialist teachers. In one school, children are being taught in a class of 90. Children are being sent home early, some schools have been on a four-day week and some are threatened with a four-day week. When the Prime Minister said "Education, education, education", no one knew that he meant the number of days a week that children would attend school. Schools face a crisis today; parents face a crisis today; children's education is suffering today. People have paid their taxes, now where are the teachers?
    Mr. Blunkett: They are doing the job in the classroom and there are 17,500 more of them than there would have been had the Tories been in office. I liked the reference to "Education, education, education." That is three, is it not, and which Government had a three-day week? The Tory Government of 1973–74. Do not talk to me about three-day weeks—the Tory party knows all about three-day weeks.

    Playing for Success Scheme
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the playing for success scheme. [143461]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The playing for success scheme is proving to be very successful. Thirty-three top football clubs have already opened study support centres, helping more than 20,000 pupils to improve their literacy, numeracy and ICT skills and increasing their motivation to learn. Evaluation of the first six centres found that primary and secondary pupils' numeracy improved by four and two months and their reading by six and eight months. More centres involving both football and other sports will open in 2001–02.
    Dr. Naysmith: Obviously, my hon. Friend agrees with me that the scheme is a success. Is she aware that it is almost as important that the scheme enthuses girls as well as boys?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In our evaluation, we were especially keen to ensure that the magic of football motivated girls in the same way as it does boys. I assure my hon. Friend that it does: the evaluation showed that girls as well as boys were making progress. The scheme is proving a success for both girls and boys, and we are proud of it.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister now tell us exactly which businesses are involved in the scheme—and, while she is about it, will she have the good grace to concede that both the fact of the scheme and its proposed extension are testimony to the failure of the Government's own fresh start initiative? Only one of the schools involved in the new scheme can report a significant increase over the past two years in the number of members of the relevant age cohort scoring five good GCSEs.
    Jacqui Smith: Judging by the last part of his question, I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what the playing for success scheme is about. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, in addition to the £6 million that the Government are investing in the scheme each year, clubs and businesses contribute £2 million.
    Mr. Bercow: Name them.
    Jacqui Smith: I am sorry that I cannot name the numerous businesses and 32 clubs in many cities that are contributing to the scheme's success. What I know is that 20,000 pupils are succeeding and that numerous businesses are contributing to the £2 million of sponsorship. The scheme is improving pupils' learning skills, helping them to read better and raising their mathematical standards. We commend that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman carps at the success of our children, our football clubs and the Government's initiative.

    Schools Funding
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the funding of schools. [143462]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): For 2001–02, we have increased the total revenue funding available to local authorities by £1.5 billion. Moreover, the direct grant that is payable to schools has increased from £290 million to £540 million.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that the money announced to deal with staff shortages will not help a single school in Southend, because our schools do not meet either the criterion requiring a maximum of 25 per cent. of A to C passes, or the criterion relating to free school meals? Will she also confirm that the new money for information technology that was announced yesterday had already been announced on 30 October last year, and that in any case £2.9 million of it will have to be raised by the council tax payers of Essex?
    Ms Morris: I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to want to let schools in his constituency know that there is extra money for staff recruitment and retention, if that is how they choose to spend it. He will be aware that all schools—primary and secondary—have received a direct grant. If schools in Southend or in Essex generally want to use it for retention purposes, or to recruit extra staff to teach shortage subjects, they can do so.
    The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that last Friday we announced the provision of £32 million for schools in challenging circumstances, particularly those serving deprived communities, in addition to the special direct grant received by every school—nursery, primary or secondary—accompanied by a guarantee that it will be paid over the next two years and increased by 2.75 per cent. I wonder whether he can confirm that that increased amount would continue to be paid to schools in his constituency if Labour were not in power.
    Charlotte Atkins: Over the last few years I have opened a huge number of computer suites, science laboratories and school extensions because of the Government's massive investment in education in Staffordshire. However, Staffordshire's local education authority still suffers because of its unfair standard spending assessment formula. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to make direct payments to schools, thus providing a short-term solution? Will she also go on trying to find a long-term solution to the problem of the tremendously unfair funding delivered to schools by the SSA formula?
    Ms Morris: That is a fair and balanced question. My hon. Friend is right on both counts. I have never sought to defend the SSA formula, which seems to allocate resources haphazardly to different local authorities. As she and the House will know, we inherited the formula from the previous Government, who made no attempt to change it. I give the assurance that we have given before. We are looking at that matter. It is part of the consultation. We have given a commitment to have transparency of funding and funding that is fairer than in at the moment.
    Even with the SSA formula, Staffordshire schools and Staffordshire children are far better funded than ever before. That has been matched by the increase in capital money and in direct grant. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that one of the advantages of the direct grants that are payable to schools is that they do not reflect the SSA formula. Children in Staffordshire and in other local authorities that feel poorly treated by the SSA formula will have welcomed the fact that, through
    1226
    that special grant, they are treated the same: those children's needs are treated the same as those of every other child.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that, after three and a half years of Labour Government, with schools now facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and needing every penny of resources that they can get, it is not acceptable for an unholy alliance of LEAs and her Department to continue to hold back £540 per pupil per year, mainly occupied in administration and in servicing not so much education as bureaucracy—money which our free schools policy would return to schools to do their job?
    Ms Morris: If that is Conservative party policy for meeting the challenges that schools face, it lacks any direction, substance or hope. The hon. Gentleman has a cheek. At least under the present Government, we know how much money is delegated from local authorities to schools because we publish the figures, which the previous Government never did.
    When we look at the figures, far from seeing that local authorities are holding more money back, more money is being delegated direct to schools than ever before. That is one of the differences between the Tories and the Government. It is right that local authorities are the ones that organise school transport and that do the administration on admissions. It is right that some of that money is held back for some children with special education needs. I have never ever yet met one head teacher who wants to use his or her time organising a bus or taxi system for children with special education needs.
    That is the money that the Tories want to delegate to schools. What is interesting is that there would not be a penny more from central Government. Their policy is to take the money from local authorities that is already being spent on raising standards and on helping many disadvantaged groups and to give that to schools. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have delegated more and head teachers know it.

    New Deal
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the progress of new deal for people aged over 25 years. [143463]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): As part of the new deal for those aged 25 plus, 76,000 men and women over that age have been placed in the past two years, with a further 22,000 in the 50-plus new deal programme in the eight months of its national operation. They are part of the 1.1 million men and women who have got a job during the duration of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Henderson: Was the Secretary of State aware that, prior to 1997, the Harwich constituency was classed as the unemployment black spot of Essex? The new deal has been a huge success for my constituency. Will he join me in congratulating Glynn Ridley on being the 1,000th successful candidate under the 25-plus new deal programme to achieve a full-time skilled job; and Reed, the new deal providers, on presenting Glynn Ridley with a £1,000 cheque to help him with his travel-to-work

    1227
    expenses? Is that not the clear difference between this Government, who are offering opportunity to the unemployed in my constituency, and the Conservative party, which offers no opportunity, no new deal, no new hope and no future for those who are unemployed there?
    Mr. Blunkett: Congratulations to Glynn Ridley, to Reed and to all those, including his new employer, who have set him on as an engineer. I think that the idea of the 1,000th 25-plus new dealer in the area receiving £1,000 was excellent. I hope that other providers will consider similar proposals. This is, of course, part of a drop of 75 per cent. in the number of people in my hon. Friend's constituency who have experienced unemployment for more than two years. That figure is repeated across the country, and it is something of which we should all be very proud.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the new deal's most important innovations has been the introduction of personal advisers? They have been extremely successful in reconnecting people to the labour market. However, the experience of the new deal suggests that people who need a little help have had more success than those who need a lot of help.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that, especially in rural areas such as mine, personal advisers for people over 25 will have real flexibility in practice to use their initiative to serve their clients and get the best out of the new deal for them?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is important to tailor programmes to the needs of the individual and to learn from the experience gained in the new deal programmes for people aged 18 to 24, and in the 25-plus pilots. That is why the 25-plus new deal will be strengthened from 1 April. The adviser service will be made more responsive, and time will be given to those who need it most—especially to those who have experienced very long-term unemployment.
    I also hope that we will learn a great deal from the first nine months of the employment zones in England, which have been working extremely well.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend and I have had several conversations about the pistachio problem associated with the new deal. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that pistachios are terribly moreish, but that the unopened ones always get thrown back into the bowl. In the context of new deal, the people who get thrown back are invariably the ones with drugs and alcohol problems, literacy and numeracy problems, or who have family or behavioural difficulties.
    My right hon. Friend has pioneered many initiatives in relation to new deal, but will he look at the work first initiative in the United States? Under that initiative, young adults who are the hardest to place are given the prospect of three years with an employer. They get a wage from day one, and all the support services are built into the programme. Would not such an approach mean that problem pistachios were no longer thrown back into the bowl?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes. About 11 per cent. of 25-plus new dealers return for a second time. One of the interesting
    1228
    outcomes of the training and work experience that they receive—which they would not have received previously—is that they are more readily easily placed in employment the second time around than would otherwise be the case.
    However, the major challenge is to link such people with an employer who is prepared to give them time and continuity and to see them through often major personal crises. In developing the programmes, it is very important to learn how they work in employment-zone areas. That will ensure that we can give people the support, rehabilitation and prolonged work experience that they need. That is the best way to keep them in jobs.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State knows that the new deal has done nothing to prevent unemployment from rising in the past month in every region of the country outside London, the south-east and the south-west. With 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the past 12 months alone, the right hon. Gentleman also knows that the north and the midlands are the arms that are suffering most at the moment under this Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what action is proposed by the Cabinet Committee that met for the first time on 18 September to examine the problem of job losses in manufacturing?
    Mr. Blunkett: Under the Conservatives, manufacturing lost more than 10 times the number of jobs it did under this Government. However, manufacturing now has many guises. New techniques are being developed through numerical control and information technology, and they make a difference to the ratio between output, and therefore productivity, and the number of people employed.
    There are now 1.1 million more people in work than there were four years ago.[Interruption.] I am being heckled again. That rise in employment has something to do with the health of the economy overall, to which the new deal is a contributor. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded that the new deal for people aged between 18 and 25 had contributed to a rise in gross domestic product of £0 5 billion. An increase in GDP helps us to sustain growth, growth creates jobs, and jobs enable us to place people in employment at every level in manufacturing, the service sector or wherever. That is why the economy and the new deal have been major Government successes in helping to turn unemployment into prospects and hope, enabling people to earn their own living and have job prospects for the future.

    School Performance
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on added-value measures of school performance. [143464]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The Government are committed to supplementing the information already published in school performance tables with information about how far schools help their pupils to progress between the stages of their education. We intend to do this as soon as we have the necessary

    1229
    information about individual pupil performance and have tested successfully the processes involved. The first value-added measures, for secondary schools, should appear in the performance tables in 2002.
    Mr. Benn: The Government's commitment to publish these measures is greatly welcomed and eagerly anticipated by schools in my constituency serving the most disadvantaged areas because those schools believe passionately that they will provide a fair reflection of the progress they are making with pupils. Will my hon. Friend use every effort to ensure that, apart from the Department, those who publish performance information, including the newspapers, include the new value-added measures as soon as they are available?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has made an important point and I know that there will be many schools in my his constituency and more widely that are doing an excellent job in making a difference to children's lives. That is what the value-added information will enable us to measure. I regret that we have not been able to introduce value-added performance tables more quickly, but my hon. Friend probably needs to know, as does the House, that when we took office, no work had been done on developing the individual pupil information that is necessary to ensure that our value-added tables are based on individual pupil progress. We have undertaken to do that work and we will publish the information as soon as possible. I hope that the way in which the information is published, in newspapers and more widely, will help to recognise the difference that schools are making to our children's lives.

    Teacher Numbers
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on teacher recruitment and retention in outer London. [143466]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Overall, there were almost 500 more teachers in post in outer London in January 2000 than January 1998 and over 600 more than January 1997. There are problems for some schools in particular subjects.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the products of the successful economy in London, particularly over the past couple of years, has been a real increase in house prices? Head teachers in my constituency tell me that one of the biggest problems they have in filling teacher vacancies is the high cost of housing in London, which means that schools have to become increasingly dependent on agency staff, particularly from overseas. Will my right hon. Friend look at housing costs for teachers in London and see whether she can do something to help with this real and growing problem?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Schools in some areas are having particular difficulties and he is right to identify housing costs, particularly in London and the south-east, as one of the factors making things tough for some schools. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced the initiative for starter homes involving expenditure of £250 million to help
    1230
    teachers in areas such as that to which my hon. Friend referred. It is the first time that any Government have provided that amount of resource to help key workers with high housing costs in areas such as London and the south-east. I hope that my hon. Friend can go back to his constituency and ensure that his local authority is making it clear that it is interested in that resource and working up plans to spend its allocation should it receive one.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In spite of the answer to the original question, will the Minister confirm that there is a serious and worsening shortage of teachers in the London borough of Barnet, particularly specialist teachers? That is instanced in one school where there are vacancies for four teachers, which is putting in peril a five-day education week for many of my constituents. Will the Minister confirm that that is also the case in other outer London boroughs? My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has told me that it is certainly the case in Hillingdon. Is the right hon. Lady addressing those serious problems?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman also represents a constituency in an area of London where it is particularly tough to recruit teachers. That is why, as well as introducing the £250 million to support key workers with housing costs, we asked the teachers pay review body this year to look particularly at the use of recruitment and retention posts, and it will be responding shortly. Although such posts have been available in past years, they have not been well used by schools. An open message can go to schools to use the recruitment and retention posts available.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's query about teacher shortages, the facts are clear. Now that we have the training allowances, there are more teachers in post than there were last year and in 1997, including in London. More people are going into initial teacher training and that would not be so if the Tories were in power and took away the training salaries. That is what they did. Of all the measures that the Government have introduced which have effectively got more people into teaching and into teacher training, I suspect that the training salary has had the most effect. The hon. Gentleman should not run away from that fact.

    Employment Rates
    Mr. Michael Clapham: How many regions of the United Kingdom have employment rates as high as the EU average. [143467]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Latest data from the labour force survey show that all regions in the United Kingdom have employment rates higher than the European Union average of 64.2 per cent.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree with me, however, that all regions of the UK have areas of high and low unemployment? The areas that tend to have the highest level of unemployment are those in which the local economy is in transition. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that although the new deal has been very helpful in areas such as Barnsley and south Yorkshire in directing young

    1231
    people into new jobs, it is essential that employers continue to provide a high level of training so that young people can have transferable skills, as that boosts the economy and helps British competitiveness? Does she further agree that the employment policies of the Conservative party would be an unmitigated disaster for Barnsley and south Yorkshire?
    Ms Jowell: I think that my hon. Friend's constituents and everyone on this side of the House would strongly agree with his last point. The recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s hit the country as a whole and we saw 2.5 million manufacturing jobs go. Those recessions hit his constituents in Barnsley particularly hard. He is right to pay tribute to the positive contribution of the new deal for young people which the Opposition, were they to be elected, are pledged to scrap. The new deal for young people has seen long-term youth unemployment in my hon. Friend's area fall by 74 per cent. since the election. The other major boost for the local economy is an extra £1.7 billion through the objective 1 status which south Yorkshire now has.
    My hon. Friend is also right that the partnership between employers, unions and workers focusing on the improvement of skills, particularly the skills required in the new economy—the new labour market—is key to raising productivity.
    The best future for my hon. Friend's constituents is a continuation of the policies that have promoted economic stability under this Government, enabling us to see the prospect of long-term unemployment as a thing of the past. For his constituents, that future would be threatened by the return to boom and bust, the hallmark of the Opposition.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: As the question related specifically to the European Union, will the Minister comment on whether this economic success is due to staying out of the euro? We were told that if we did not enter the euro, our unemployment rates would rocket while those in the European Union would fall.
    Ms Jowell: There is no clear correlation between membership of the single currency and employment rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—if we take, for instance, Sweden—[Interruption.] Conservative Members conduct business by heckling, Mr. Speaker. In the UK, employment rates in every region are higher than in the EU as a whole. The EU average conceals large variations. The secret of the UK's success is a combination of minimum standards at work and labour market flexibility.
    Let us not forget, however, that close to 2.7 million jobs rely on our trade with Europe—about 60 per cent. access to one of the largest markets, post-enlargement, in the world. We shall make judgments about entry to a single currency in the light of the five economic tests—one of which will be the impact on jobs—when the time comes.

    Child Care Places
    Mr. Peter Bradley: How many child care places have been provided in rural areas since May 1997. [143468]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Statistics are not split between urban and rural areas. However, some 295,000 new places for 540,000 children have been created in England since May 1997, which, taking turnover into account, still adds new places for 350,000 children. A number of initiatives will particularly benefit children in rural areas; for instance, our expansion of nursery education, our new neighbourhood nursery scheme and our start-up funding for child minders.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the 1,300 new out-of-school and pre-school places provided last year and this year in Telford and the Wrekin. However, voice my concern at the lack of statistical breakdown between rural and urban communities. There are special difficulties in rural areas: a scarcity of registered child minders; additional difficulties of distance because of travel and transport, and their cost, between home, child minders—where they exist—and employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that those difficulties should not be allowed to undermine the success of the new deal and other Government initiatives? Can she give me some assurance that she will consider special measures to ensure that women, especially in rural communities, receive the same opportunities as women in urban communities?
    Ms Hodge: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's comments about the specific problems facing rural communities. That is why we have done two things. We have introduced the start-up grant for child minders, who play an especially important role; by 2004, we hope to have places for 145,000 more children through child minders. Universal nursery education for three and four-year-olds will also have an impact on children in rural areas. However, I shall continue to explore new ways to ensure that we meet the needs of children and families in rural areas.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: As the Minister is a notable former Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, will she take note of the recommendation in today's report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment that no child minder should be allowed to smack any child or no smoke in the presence of a child in their care? That recommendation received support from both sides of the House.
    Instead of deciding the issue on the strength of a private opinion poll—as the hon. Lady, before Christmas, declared that she would do—will she allow the House to debate it and to make a decision on the strength of a free vote?
    Ms Hodge: I welcome the full and important contribution made by the Select Committee to the debate on early years education and child care. We shall consider all the recommendations with great care.
    On smacking and smoking, the issue is not whether a parent or child minder should be permitted to smack or smoke; it is whether the matter should be determined by the state or by parents in the privacy of their own home in negotiation with the child minder. Parents' rights take precedence over those of other people—including Members of Parliament.

    1233
    The hon. Gentleman should think about how we would implement a law forbidding smacking and smoking in the privacy of the home. If he were to think about the implications of that in a court, he would realise that it would be wholly unenforceable and impracticable; it would be a denial of parents' rights. The right of parents to influence children is uppermost in our mind.

    European Year of Languages
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What steps he is taking to promote the European year of language in schools. [143469]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The Government are doing a great deal to promote and support the European year of languages. We have appointed the Centre for Information on Language Teaching (CILT) to manage the UK's contribution to the year. It has produced a broad and inclusive programme of opportunities for people of all ages to participate in a wide range of events. Many of these are aimed specifically at schools. They are set out in a comprehensive publication entitled "Languages for Life—the UK programme", which is available from the centre.
    Mr. MacShane: Merci beaucoup! for the answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the BBC,
    1234
    as of next year, more than half of the exchanges on the net will not be in English; and that the conservative approach to working or travelling abroad—that one just keeps speaking English and if the foreigners do not understand, one starts shouting at them—is no recipe? We cannot have a monolingual Britain in a global economy. Will my hon. Friend, as Education Minister, pay particular attention to the need to start language teaching in primary schools, because we are far too old, and after the age of 13 or 14, people are too self-conscious? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself. I am far too old. We need to start in primary schools. That is the recipe to ensure that we have a Britain that can function in the rest of the world and speak more than the rabid English that is all the Tories are capable of.
    Mr. Wicks: My hon. Friend will never be too old; he grows more enthusiastic with age. However, I certainly take the point, and that is why one in five of our primary schools, on a voluntary basis, are teaching languages. The internet and e-mail enable more and more of our schoolchildren and our schools to twin with other children and schools elsewhere in Europe to make all of this possible.
    As part of the European year of languages, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is leading from the front by learning Spanish; so felicidades to her.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the forthcoming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Motions relating to the Capital Allowances Bill.
Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.
Motions relating to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
TUESDAY 16 JANUARY—Motion relating to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
Second Reading of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
Motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions)(No.4) Order 2000.
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY Consideration in Committee of the Hunting Bill.
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day].
Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Teacher Supply and Standards in Education", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Maintain an adequate Police Force". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 19 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 25 JANuARY—Debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Debate on the rural and urban White Papers on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 29 January, there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the audit of expenditure by EP political groups in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.
[Wednesday 17 January 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: (a) COM (99) 644: The Helsinki Report on Sport; (b) COM (99) 643: Doping in Sport; (c) Unnumbered EM dated 23 November 2000: Declaration on Sport; Relevant European Scrutiny committee reports: HC 23-viii, HC 23-xiii and HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000).
1236
Wednesday 29 January 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000) and HC 28-ii (2000–01).]
Mrs. Browning: I thank the right hon. Lady for announcing the business, but I regret that the Government have not listened to the Opposition's requests about the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill, the first part of which will be taken on the Floor of the House. That debate will still be restricted to one day, which we consider to be entirely inadequate.
The Leader of the House did not mention Tuesday 23 January. I assume, therefore, that there is a vacant slot, and perhaps she might be receptive to some of our suggestions about the business that may be taken on that day. At the last business questions before the House rose for the Christmas recess, I raised with her the increasing concern, both in the House and outside, about Equitable Life and the role played in the past three years, first by the Treasury and subsequently by the Financial Services Authority. There is a widespread belief that the supervisory role of those authorities was not carried out properly. In the circumstances, we believe that that merits a debate on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members can make their representations.
Another matter is still pending from the Christmas recess. Members noticed with interest the Deputy Prime Minister's activities during the recess, especially his presence at Leeds station. Leeds station is, of course, a mainline station for this country. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister was categoric that the problems there would be resolved, but there are still no mainline services from Leeds. Will a debate on that matter be held in Government time, because it obviously affects not only those who live in the Leeds area, but those who wish to use that line, both north and south?
Given the very worrying job losses in manufacturing, especially in Wales, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have the traditional St. David's day debate on the Floor of the House on 1 March? As that happens to be a Thursday, it would not be difficult to accommodate that request if she was minded to do so.
Will the Government also consider holding a debate on early years education? The Leader of the House will be aware that 1,000 playgroups closed last year and that 1,500 pre-schools have closed since new Labour came to office. The Pre-School Learning Alliance anticipates that another 1,700 will close as a result of the Government's policies, so it would be appropriate for the Government to allocate sufficient time for hon. Members to debate that on the Floor of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady consider very carefully the consequences of the way in which business is now taken in respect of programme motions and Programming Sub-Committees? I attended the first Programming Sub-Committee, which met this week to consider the programme for the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. The Chairman suspended the Committee for 15 minutes for the Clerk and others to take advice about the proceedings and how the Committee's business should be conducted. I draw to the right hon. Lady's attention the fact that no minutes are

1237
taken of such Committees. If hon. Members refer to what is said in such a Committee at the beginning of the Standing Committee, as happened this week with the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is a matter of one Member's word against another as to how that Committee's deliberations proceeded. That is most unsatisfactory. Even worse, a manuscript amendment was tabled in the Sub-Committee and a vote was taken, but there is no record of how that vote was conducted for the House to consider.
During this week's business, Mr Speaker, you ruled that such Committees would be subject to Select Committee rules. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to consider seriously the fact that those proceedings are the product of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs. She will know that those proceedings and the proposal that she brought to House did not have the support of the official Opposition. Those proposals having been introduced by the Leader of the House, who has responsibility for the whole House, I must ask her to sort out the mess that has been created and to return such proceedings to the Floor of the House so that we can all make our views known.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady raised the issue of having only one day to debate hunting. I do not recall being asked for more than one day on the Floor in Committee on the Hunting Bill, nor do I see any great necessity for it. It is a relatively simple issue. Members will have differing views about the options that we should pursue. The whole idea is that a decision in principle will be made as to which option commands the greatest support in the House and that the detail will then be examined in Committee.
The hon. Lady asked me about the business for Tuesday 23 January. I said that some matters were still under discussion and gave a broad pattern for the business for the week after next. She will know that the usual channels are discussing those matters and that there is good reason for that.
The hon. Lady raised the matter of Equitable Life. That is under discussion and it will no doubt be examined in the course of the normal business of the House. At the moment I do not envisage finding time for a special debate, but I will keep the issue under review and draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who deal with these matters.
I am aware that some safety work is continuing at Leeds station. The hon. Lady will be aware that questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department will be taken on Tuesday and no doubt an opportunity may arise to raise the matter then.
Obviously, I will consider through the usual channels the potential for a St. David's day debate.
I was a little surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks about the closure of pre-schools and playgroups as a result of Government policies. I take it that she means the enormous expansion of nursery education that the Government have undertaken.
Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend did not mean that.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady did not mean that, according to her right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, she must surely be aware of that investment and of the resulting far
1238
greater opportunities available to our young children. She should also know that the Government have put extra resources into playgroups precisely to help them deal with the knock-on effects of this different range of opportunities available to the youngest children.
The hon. Lady asked me to look at the management of Programming Sub-Committees. She will be aware that it was always envisaged that they would work by informal arrangement—[HON. MEMBERS:"By whom?"] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will finish the sentence—along the lines of those undertaken successfully, for example, in the Greater London Authority Standing Committee. It was always envisaged that they would work along the lines of previously existing Business Sub-Committees. [Interruption.] As for the issue—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this is not to be a dialogue, we will have to proceed differently.
As for whether or not minutes should be taken and what reference should be made to the discussions and so on, those issues are in part at least, Mr. Speaker, for you and the Vote Office. Of course I undertake to consider these matters, but I cannot undertake to bring back to the Floor of the House for discussion a procedure which the House has begun on an experimental basis, simply because one Committee has met and the hon. Lady is unhappy with its proceedings.
The House as a whole has decided to adopt this new set of procedures, albeit not with the consent of all Opposition Members. It follows recommendations by successive Committees of this House for at least 10 years and it offers the Opposition an opportunity, should they wish to take it, to make constructive use of time for debate and to make sure that all legislation is properly debated. [Interruption.] Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is absolutely no compulsion on the Opposition to use this time intelligently—and there is no evidence to suggest that they intend to do so.
Mr. Clive Soley: In considering her future programme, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the clear will of this House in the debate on the last Modernisation Committee report that we should end the nonsense of legislating in the early hours of the morning and that we should reassure the British people that we are not time wasting in debates on the Floor of the House or in Committee, but giving detailed scrutiny to legislation passing through the House? That was the desire and aim of the House. It is what British people want. It is what the Conservative party and others who are opposed to the modernisation of this place have been trying to stop. If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that further measures are introduced to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised, even if the Opposition are unable or unwilling to engage in that process?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in saying that the purpose of the changes proposed by the Modernisation Committee is to ensure that we make better and more effective use of the time available to the House, and that we use that time a little earlier in the evening than

1239
has sometimes been the case. That is principally because successive generations of hon. Members of all parties have observed that people are not at their best in the early hours of the morning—they only think they are.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about scrutiny, which reminded me that, in many ways, there is no advantage to the Government in proceeding in the way that we have identified. It is open to any Government to guillotine and to curtail discussion on any legislation. In so doing, they can, if they wish, ensure that it is impossible for the House to have time to examine parts of legislation, detailed debate on which the Government—any Government—might find embarrassing.
A mechanism is now potentially available to the House whereby the Opposition can decide how to use the time available and decide on which items in the legislation they wish to focus the debate. However, I repeat that there can be no compulsion on them to do so. If the Opposition wish to continue to waste time rather than to use it valuably, there is nothing that we can do to make them change.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can we have an urgent and early debate on the issue of the health hazards for our service personnel from depleted uranium? Is the Leader of the House aware of the report that was revealed this morning, apparently prepared by an official, which suggests that this hazard was identified no less than four years ago? Can we be told urgently—even before such a debate takes place—whether that advice was available to Ministers or their immediate advisers, and when it was available? Was it before or after the previous general election?
Reverting to the issue of scrutiny raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I endorse his request that we reconsider that matter. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's management of their business this week has degenerated into a ghastly shambles that is certainly undermining the whole case for the modernisation agenda?
I particularly ask the right hon. Lady to consider whether we need to take the programme motion immediately after the Second Reading debate. Such a practice means that we cannot consider any of the issues that arose in the debate. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have already made the point that it is extremely difficult. I have re-read the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which the right hon. Lady chairs and on which I sit, but I found no reference to the programme motion having immediately to follow the Second Reading debate. There seems to be no technical reason why it should, and not doing so would remove one of the objections that both Opposition parties rightly share to the way in which the business of the House has been handled this week.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the basic requirement of the Modernisation Committee recommendations, which was that there should be informal discussions about the whole of the Government's business? I appreciate that this year might not be a useful one from the point of view of avoiding oppositionitis on the Conservative Benches, but even so, no attempt has
1240
been made to discuss the handling of the Government's business on an all-party basis. That is why chaos has ensued this week.
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the document about depleted uranium to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which appeared in the press this week, relates to an incomplete draft paper that was produced as long ago as 1993. Much of its content is said to be scientifically incorrect or misleading. Consequently, there is nothing to add to the statement that was made about the issue earlier this week.
Regarding the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised on the handling of Programming Sub-Committees and programme motions, his recollection and mine differ somewhat. He may recall that we discussed whether the vote should be taken as a package, recognising that that would entail a number of votes after 10 o'clock. It was always my understanding that the Government's proposal for the programme motion would be taken as package on Second Reading.
As for the general discussion on business, we may be speaking at cross-purposes. The intention, which I understand has been carried out, was that there should be informal discussions on initial reactions to the Queen's Speech. There were proposals for a more formal process, but they were not accepted. Instead, we agreed that the discussions should be informal and informative, at least in part, so that we did not tie the hands of the Opposition by making them commit to decisions early on in the life of a Parliament before more information became available.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 175, which I have tabled?
[That this House expresses its disgust with, and condemnation of, Colley Civil Engineering of 76 Meagill Rise, Otley, West Yorshire, for persisting in failing to pay their former employee, Mr. Mark Aspray of Gorton, Manchester, £280 due to him in wages since April 2000 and for deliberately refusing to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mr. Aspray by his Member of Parliament, the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton; warns other potential employees to steer clear of these disgraceful employers; and calls on potential customers and clients of Colley Engineering to have nothing to do with an organisation which cheats those who work for it.]
It relates to the swindling of my constituent, Mr. Mark Aspray, of pay due to him from Colley Civil Engineering of Otley. Will she also look at early-day motion 176, which relates to the swindling of Mr. John Carroll in my constituency of pay due to him by Ideal Cleaning Contractors of Farnworth?
Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for the House to debate those motions so that I am able to draw attention to the way in which those companies not only swindled their employees, but will, no doubt, swindle their customers? It is intolerable that they should behave in such a manner and not respond to demands for the money to be paid.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my right hon. Friend's anger on behalf of his constituents and, indeed, his concern, as I understand it from his early-day motions, that approaches to the companies have produced no

1241
response. All hon. Members would deplore that. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to explore the issues in detail. We have provided substantially more time for debate and scrutiny in Westminster Hall, and he might like to consider raising the matter there.
Sir Peter Emery: As this is the first time that the Leader of the House has been at the Dispatch Box this year, may I wish her a happy new year? I hope that she enjoyed her visit to New York. Her absence would explain why she has not entirely understood some of this week's nonsense regarding the programming procedures of Committees. Does she accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we can debate in Committee all aspects of legislation? That was the intention of the recommendations of the Programming Sub-Committee. I am afraid that the Government did not make it clear from the Dispatch Box during the debates that that was the intention.
The idea was that the Government would attempt to meet, with all reasonableness, the Opposition's demands for the debates upstairs in Committee to be properly planned and programmed, which should be to the advantage of the Opposition. Will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear that the Government share that intention? That would defuse some of the feelings that are boiling up, as illustrated by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—or is it Shepherd's Bush? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shepherd's pie."] The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) has a difficult enough job; we do not have to add to it.
If the right hon. Lady makes it clear that that is the Government's intention, the experiment might have a chance of working.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I return new year good wishes to the whole House.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reaffirm that it was absolutely the intention of the Modernisation Committee's proposals, which were carried by the House on a free vote, to make public what all Members of any experience in the House know to be the case, namely, the date where the Government anticipate and want a Bill to leave Committee. The aim is to provide transparency in the management of discussions on legislation and, in particular, to ensure that if the Opposition want proper scrutiny and discussion of a Bill, that scrutiny and discussion can focus on the issues that members of the Committee, especially Opposition Members, believe to be of the most importance and weight.
I am slightly surprised to learn that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is any dubiety about that. However, I undertake to write to all my ministerial colleagues reminding them of our purpose and making it clear that the Government hope that discussions will proceed in that way and believe that the arrangements will make a contribution to the scrutiny of legislation which will be to the advantage of the whole House.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Health is today chairing an important seminar on organ retention? That follows the disclosure that organs of children who
1242
died at Alder Hey hospital and elsewhere were removed without informed consent. When the report on Alder Hey has been published, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the major, sensitive issues involved are properly debated in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of today's discussions, which are of great interest and will arouse great concern throughout the House. On the assumption that there are weighty issues involved that will benefit from further scrutiny in the House, I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind and continue to discuss the matter, not least through the usual channels.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Government's announcement last July about resurfacing concrete roads? Is she aware that there is great disappointment in Doveridge that according to the Highways Agency's announcement on 29 December—a day on which there was a great deal of media interest—the A50 is not to be included in the programme for 2001?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that there are improvements that many of us want, not least because of the considerable under-investment over many years. I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the A50 in Doveridge, but I can again recommend the virtues of the extra time available in Westminster Hall.
Mr. David Winnick: As someone who has not always been in favour of programming business for various reasons, which I shall not go into now, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the experiment will be judged largely on how far the Opposition of the day are able to discuss in Committee all the controversial matters that they want to discuss? If that happens, there will undoubtedly be a case for the experiment to be taken seriously, and not in the frivolous way in which the Opposition are conducting matters.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes the powerful, entirely correct point that in a rational world the experiment should be judged on whether it provides the opportunity for adequate scrutiny. He also makes the valid point that it is always open to any Opposition simply to waste whatever time is available—and if the Conservative party ultimately decides to do that, the changes will not benefit the scrutiny of legislation for which the Government wish and the House decided to provide. If it becomes apparent that time is being wasted, that will affect how people judge the experiment because, however much Members of all parties kid themselves, time wasting always brings the House into disrepute. The public do not understand when we waste time; they understand when we use it well.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The Leader of the House will recall the commitment that she gave me at business questions on 16 November about the Government's continuing consideration of the Liaison Committee proposals on parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. Did the substance of Tuesday night's debate on setting up the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, both as to the proportion and the relevant backgrounds of Back Benchers proposed for

1243
membership, reinforce or diminish the arguments that she deployed on behalf of the Executive in the 9 November debate on the Liaison Committee proposals?
Mrs. Beckett: Although I shall certainly do so, I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity to study in depth the link between the debate that I know was held on that issue earlier this week and the Liaison Committee report. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is hard to envisage that it would be likely to change the views that I expressed then.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 179—a very good motion that refers to taking back the track?
[That this House congratulates the railway unions on the launch of their campaign 'Take Back the Track' in the face of Railtrack PLC's failure to meet its obligation to provide a safe and efficient rail network; further considers that the current structure is insufficient to restore public confidence and attract people back to rail travel; and consequently calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to return Railtrack PLC to an appropriate form of public ownership.]
As a Member of Parliament for a railway town, my right hon. Friend will understand the virtues of such a motion. Will she find time for a debate on it? If not, will she bear it in mind that railway privatisation was one of the craziest things that the Tories did in 18 years, and that it was done with the purpose of lining the pockets of their friends? It will be necessary, because the subject will not go away, to take the track back into public ownership. If we cannot have a debate, will she join me in ensuring that that becomes part and parcel of the next Labour manifesto? It will be a sure-fire winner.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is continuing concern about the operation of rail, but I fear that there are no plans to do as the early-day motion suggests and return Railtrack to public ownership, although he will know that we are reviewing whether there are any impediments in the current arrangement to the provision of a safe and efficient rail service. He will also be well aware of the enormous increase in resources that the Government intend to make available to rectify the problems that have arisen as a result of decades of under-investment.
Mr. Skinner: I am not suggesting paying for it.
Mrs. Beckett: No, and I am well aware that my hon. Friend would be the last to suggest that moneys should be expended on compensation. Although his suggestion is interesting and we all share his wish to make improvements in rail transport provision, that specific path is not one that, at present, the Government are contemplating.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Hon. Members on both sides of the House from fishing constituencies will acknowledge and appreciate the fact that Government time has been found on 25 January to
1244
discuss important issues facing the industry. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Fisheries Minister will be able to react during that Adjournment debate to the important consultations in Brussels next week on the ludicrous and counterproductive European Commission proposals for prosecution in respect of cod fishery in the North sea in the ensuing six months? If he is able to do so, it would also be helpful if he could say a word about any progress being made to get the Commission to abandon its equally counterproductive and damaging proposals to cut the prawn quota for next year.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He was one of those Members who pressed for the fishing debate and he understood why we were unable to hold it earlier. Whether it will be possible for the Fisheries Minister to give such a reaction will depend a little on how the European Union discussions go and whether there is something constructive that he can report. However, I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Fisheries Minister, who will, I know, take them seriously and give the House as much information as he can.
Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend may not have had the opportunity to read this week's Basildon Evening Echo. Had she done so, she would have read of the tragic death of a brave young woman of 18 who died after waiting two years for a suitable donor for a transplant operation. On looking further into the matter, it was discovered that in 1994 the rules were changed so that kidney and organ donor cards were not sent automatically to chemist shops and GPs, who have to apply for and order them. As a result, there is a great shortage of them and people across the country no longer have the choice to take up a donor card and donate an organ after their death if they want to.
Can we have a debate on the subject to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health? We must reverse the rules introduced in 1994 and send cards automatically to all chemists and GPs.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important and serious issue. The House no doubt wishes to convey its condolences to her constituent's family, especially in the difficult circumstances that my hon. Friend describes. I readily admit that I was not aware that the rules had been changed in 1994 in the way that she identifies. I have carried a donor card for more years than I care to remember, and share her view that it is important that as many people as possible who would be willing to be organ donors are able to do so. The most important thing is for people to make sure not only that they carry a card, but that they make their family and friends aware of their wishes in that respect. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, I know, will take them seriously.
Mr. John Hayes: Perhaps because of my characteristic generosity, I assume that the Leader of the House innocently misunderstood the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for a debate on early years education. The right hon. Lady should know that the Select Committee report published today calls for diversity of provision in early years, yet since 1997 we

1245
have 30,000 fewer places in pre-schools and playgroups, and we have a fall of 20,000 in the number of providers. That includes a sharp fall in the number of child minders. There is a crisis across the sector. We need an urgent debate, and I repeat the call made earlier by my hon. Friend for such a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the wish for diversity. No one on either side of the House would deny that diversity in provision is welcome, and it would be wrong for the impression to be created that there has been some deliberate plan to reduce diversity in provision. To some extent, a re-balancing of provision is taking place as a result of the far greater opportunities for nursery education opened up under the Government. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter. We have just had Education questions, but the hon. Gentleman knows that among the other virtues of Westminster Hall is the fact that there is infinitely more time—four times as much—for discussion of Select Committee reports. He may want to press, through the Liaison Committee, for the report to be one of those debated there.
Mr. Tony Colman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on aviation policy? The long-awaited consultation paper, "The Future of Aviation", was issued on 12 December. There was no Government statement or debate at that time, nor has there been since, so I urge that upon my right hon. Friend. Will she pass on to her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions my thanks for their decision shortly before the recess that almost halved the number of night flights going over Putney? I hope that that will lead to a total ban on night flights.
My constituents have expressed concern that the consultation paper clearly states that the White Paper will be tabled only after a decision is taken on terminal 5 at Heathrow. It is extremely important that my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate covering aviation policy as a whole, but which particularly takes soundings of the views of the House on terminal 5, which I hotly oppose, as did some 99 per cent. of the people who appeared at the public inquiry.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the discussions that are under way, and for the changes that have already been undertaken to try to achieve a fairer approach to aircraft noise. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I can recommend to him, too, the advantages of a debate in Westminster Hall. I also remind him that it is questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday, and he may find an opportunity then to raise the issue.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I thought that the question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was revealing. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Opposition have played entirely by the rules this week—her rules—and that it would be monstrous and tyrannical if the Government, at the urging of their Back Benchers, tried to change the rules? The only weapon available to any Opposition, which she would have used—and, indeed did use—when she was in opposition, is time. Are the right
1246
hon. Lady and her colleagues beginning to realise that the old system based on consent was better? It may have resulted in people getting home to bed earlier. The right hon. Lady can go on changing the rules again and again, but we shall go on fighting the Government and ensuring that this is a proper Parliament with a proper debate on scrutiny.
Mrs. Beckett: The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is misplaced. In all my years in the House, I have never ever wasted time on fruitless discussion of pointless and trivial matters. I have always planned any Committee stage of which I was part, and have always planned and programmed discussion to make sure that all matters could be aired, so that, in particular, most time is given to the most important matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's basic premise is mistaken. I am not saying that there have never been Members who use time in the way that he describes, but I have never found that attractive and have never thought that it appeals to public or those who wish us to scrutinise legislation properly.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say, however, that, as with any other place of work, this place works best, most efficiently and most effectively when there is broad consent and understanding of what we are trying to do. We are supposed to be trying to scrutinise legislation, not engaging in self-indulgent time wasting.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that, with the change in the American Administration and the Bush takeover, there will be a welcome change in foreign policy on Iraq. Some of us would welcome taking a more aggressive position. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on Iraq, so that Members' varying and changing views could be well understood by the Government, as we ourselves begin to reform our foreign policy on Iraq?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that those issues are under continuing review, discussion and debate. He will know from his many years of experience in the effective use of the procedures of the House that debates on foreign affairs on the Floor of the House tend to range over a much greater expanse than one area of the world, let alone one country. One of the many reasons why the Modernisation Committee recommended that extra time should be made available in the procedures of Westminster Hall was to allow for debates of that kind. I believe that some such debates have already taken place, and have been found both constructive and genuinely useful by those who took part in them. Perhaps I could recommend that course to my hon. Friend.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will recall that, in two successive sets of business questions last year, I felt impelled to pursue her in seeking a debate on the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on our legislation and regulations. Re-reading her last oral answer to me, she rather pooh-poohed the importance of that. Will she look at the matter again? I could give her instances in which the Act will have a profound effect on parts of the town and country planning system other than the appeal system, which is the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords. For example, since I

1247
asked those questions, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the fundamental importance of the issue in arbitration in the construction industry. If we cannot have a debate on the Floor of the House next week, will the right hon. Lady kindly look at having it before Easter?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to have a debate on the matter on the Floor of the House although, again, I would certainly recommend to the hon. Gentleman the greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall. Of course, I take his point and I apologise if I appeared to pooh-pooh it, as I did not intend to do so in any way. I simply took, and continue to take, the view that it is perhaps a little early to assess the impact of the changes. Many concerns which, I accept, are perfectly legitimate and reasonable, are as yet somewhat theoretical. I shall obviously keep the matter under review and consideration. However, at this moment in time, I am not sure that we are likely to find time for an early debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my right hon. Friend about a recent incident in my constituency, involving the vicious racist murder of a local taxi driver, Mr. Tariq Javed? Would she join me in sending condolences to Mr. Javed's family and in expressing thanks to the local police for their efficient conduct of the investigation into the incident? Does she agree that there appears to be a rise across the country in racist incidents of this kind, and that those politicians who choose to use intolerance and xenophobia for their own political purposes have a special responsibility for creating the climate in which the growth in racist incidents takes place? Will she find time in the near future to arrange for a full and frank debate on racist incidents in the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. It is always appalling when somebody's life is taken in such a manner. The House will also want to join him in appreciating the efficient and speedy way in which the police conducted the investigation. Many hon. Members will share his understandable concern that none of us should do or say anything that fosters a climate in which it appears that racist attacks are acceptable. I am not aware of a growing trend such as that to which he referred. Every such event is particularly shocking. I shall draw his remarks and observations about the trend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in case there is evidence or opinion that backs them up, but I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on the matter in the near future. Perhaps I can recommend to him also the additional opportunities for debate elsewhere.
Mr. Stephen Day: The Leader of the House has my greatest respect for her abilities in her office. I do not, however, understand why somebody with those qualities can suggest to the House that she is the sole arbiter of what is important and what should be given time in Parliament. In any democracy, it is the right of the Opposition to decide what is important and what should be given parliamentary time. When she expresses such
1248
views and tries to impose on the House what shall be dealt with and in what time, she is patronising the Opposition; she offers us patronage that we then refuse. The Liberal Democrats might be bought off with such patronage, but they should be on the Labour side of the House anyway. Opposition Members will not be bought off, as we put parliamentary democracy and its effectiveness above all else.
Mrs. Beckett: I say with respect—I have respect for the hon. Gentleman—that I share many of his views about the importance of the use of time in the House. I am not clear, however, about where he believes that I suggested that I should be the sole arbiter of what is important. In fact, that is the opposite of what I have repeatedly pointed out: we have offered the Opposition the chance to decide how time should be used. As for the specific date when legislation leaves the Committee stage, that has always been in the purview of the Government; it is merely that nobody used to say anything about it.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of allowing a debate on the middle east? An Adjournment debate occurred in Westminster Hall in October, but far more hon. Members wanted to participate than could be accommodated. When I think back to crises, in Kosovo and Bosnia, I remember frequent ministerial statements and debates in the House. Since September and October last year, when violence erupted in the occupied territories, in the west bank and Gaza, we have not heard a statement from a Minister or been given an opportunity for debate. In the light of the current serious circumstances, the middle east, like Iraq and the change of presidency in America, deserves the attention of the whole House.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that the middle east peace process raises issues that are of concern among hon. Members of all parties. I understand fully that there is rarely enough time to discuss all the issues that hon. Members rightly feel to be important and of pressing concern. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, there are other opportunities for raising the matter, not least Foreign Office questions on 23 January.
Mr. David Heath: If indeed there is a vacant day on Tuesday 23, may I urge the right hon. Lady, in the strongest terms, to use that time for a debate on Lord Phillips's report on BSE? It will be almost exactly three months since that report was published. In Germany, two Ministers have resigned after a handful of cases. In Britain, the previous Government presided over events that led to the tragic deaths of many people, caused businesses throughout the agricultural world to go to the wall and resulted in an estimated cost of almost £5 billion to the United Kingdom. Is it not time the House had a chance to debate those matters properly?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that there is no such thing as a vacant day in this life, but discussion is taking place about how to make most effective use of time on that day. I fear that we will not be able as speedily as that to have a debate on the Phillips report on the BSE crisis. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was something like

1249
a 16-volume report, and when it was first published my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture said that he wanted to give it the full consideration and weight that the work involved demanded, and that he hoped others would do the same. I anticipate that there will be a debate on that report, but perhaps not quite as speedily as the hon. Gentleman would like.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Education and Employment questions are dominated by education questions? In the Question Time that we have just had, only two of the 11 questions that were dealt with were employment questions. Out of the 36 on the Order Paper, only six were employment questions. Many of us want to raise issues at Employment questions, such as the problem that I keep pursuing—Biwater at Clay Cross, where 700 jobs have now gone and there are serious problems of regeneration. Should we not have separate Question Times for education and employment?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend uses all the opportunities available to him properly to raise the concerns of his constituents. The number of questions on education as opposed to employment depends on the draw, which is done randomly. I understand the wish to have further question sessions and to split the two subjects, but I fear that I cannot undertake to my hon. Friend that such a step is likely to be taken in the near future. There is always more demand for the opportunity to raise issues than any use of time could possibly supply, but my hon. Friend is a clear example and standard of how, no matter what the fundamental provision is and what the rules are about the way this place works, people manage to raise their points when they wish to do so.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: What steps will the right hon. Lady take to protect the business of the House next week from the shambles that befell it on Monday night this week, when the House was without a quorum? Will she seek to maintain a quorum on the Government Benches next week? Will that quorum accord with the aspirations of major Labour party backers, in that it should not be hideously white, grotesquely male or of sadly uniform sexual proclivity?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure how a representative sample of the House would fit that definition. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government will manage their part in the public's business and the House's business effectively and efficiently. I wish I could see evidence that the same was true of the Opposition.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we discuss early-day motion 2217, tabled on 24 June 1993? It said that the House condemned
the Government's failure to respond positively to hon. Members' concern on the dangers of depleted uranium weapons,
and called for an investigation into the health consequences for British troops. That was one of many concerns expressed from 1991 to 1993 about uranium depleted weapons. The leaked letter today, although imperfect, reveals that the Ministry of Defence was genuinely concerned and knew about the likely consequences of depleted uranium in creating cancers among our soldiers. The story of the previous
1250
Government's policy—the denial of information and the neurotically secretive answers from the MOD—should be exposed to the House.
We should have a proper debate on this issue. The inquiry into the effects of these weapons should not be taking place now: it should have taken place 10 years ago.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. Some of the concerns being discussed today have been discussed for seven or more years—certainly during the Conservative party's time in office.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and others will continue to raise these issues, and to hear them aired and debated properly in the House. All I can tell him now, however, is that—he probably knows this—there is still a dispute about the nature of the scientific evidence relating to the impact of such material. No doubt that question, like others, will continue to be discussed, as is perfectly proper; but I fear that I cannot find the time for a debate on the Floor of the House of the kind that my hon. Friend wants in the near future. In any event, it is clear from what he himself said that such an occasion would not provide the only opportunity for Members to give their views. The debate on this issue has been raging, and will continue to rage, for many years.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House afford us time at an early date to discuss transport in and for London? Is she aware that London Underground's rail unions are balloting their members today on industrial action—in effect, politically motivated industrial action against her party's proposals for modernisation of the tube? Is she also aware that the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), is egging the unions on, at a time when Londoners are paying even higher tube fares and receiving ever worse service? Is this not an intolerable state of affairs, and should it not be addressed by the whole House?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next week. He will also know that there has been continuing discussion for some time about how we can best inject into London Underground—and other parts of our transport system—investment that London Underground has needed for decades, and did not receive under a Conservative Government.
These will continue to be matters for discussion, but I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on them in the near future.
Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on town and country planning issues? Only this morning, Conservative-controlled Bradford city council's planning committee decided to approve a development brief for new housing on the Baildon bank reservoir site, off West lane in Baildon. I am appalled that the threat of development should hang over that greenfield site, given all the consequences—not least the traffic that such development would generate.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, expressed on behalf of his constituents, about the impact

1251
of the proposed decision. I fear I cannot undertake to find the time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I remind him, as I reminded the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that questions to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place on Tuesday.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence following yesterday's announcement of significant job losses at BAE Systems, formerly British Aerospace?
My constituency contains a plant in Samlesbury, and another nearby in Warton. We understand from the unions that there may be up to 2,000 job losses, and that they will fall significantly on the military side. Moreover, they will disproportionately affect a number of smaller businesses that rely on a healthy BAE Systems in the north-west. We have enormous skills there, and if we lose those jobs now it is unlikely that we shall ever regain them. If the Government are serious about having a strategic military defence capability, we must be more intelligent about the way in which we procure our defence.
Mrs. Beckett: I am of course aware of the announcements made by BAE Systems, and, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are liaising closely with the company with regard to the implications of those announcements. He will also know that we have repeatedly demonstrated our commitment both to the aerospace industry as a whole and to BAE Systems, through launch investment and other supportive action. We shall continue to work with the company to identify any further steps that can be taken.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House, but perhaps I can recommend the virtues of Westminster Hall.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I repeat the calls for an urgent statement and debate on the risk assessment process in relation to depleted uranium? The most disturbing part of the news today is that United Kingdom service personnel were apparently given the all-clear by the MOD screening process, but were discovered to have high levels of depleted uranium in their system when they put their samples through the Canadian scrutiny process. Can the House have an opportunity to discuss the urgent need, not for a voluntary system of screening, but for a universal and inclusive system that is administered by the Department of Health, not at the convenience of the MOD?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and perhaps slightly different point about the way in which any screening procedure should be carried out. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue on the Floor of the House in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House a happy new
1252
year. Having got that cordiality out of the way, in view of the Prime Minister's failure to give an adequate answer in Prime Minister's questions yesterday to the serious problem of recruitment and retention of special constables, will she make a request to the Home Secretary so that we could question him on that subject, which is particularly important in view of the national fall in police numbers and the closure of three rural police stations in my constituency recently?
Mrs. Beckett: Part of the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is in error, as it is my understanding that we are beginning, although slowly, to turn the corner on police numbers, no doubt partly as a result of the enormous investment that the Government have been prepared to put into the police service. He makes a separate and different point about the special constables. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future.
Mr. John Cryer: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of a debate on early-day motion 179, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? She referred, rightly, to the Government's increased investment in the railways, but inevitably a lot of that investment will end up in the pockets of shareholders and directors, which is precisely what privatisation was designed to do—shift public funds into private pockets. The vast majority of the public are sick and tired of seeing the spivs and cowboys running the railways and they want us to take it back tomorrow.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the strong feelings that have been expressed by my hon. Friend and others in the House about the developments of recent times. I also understand his anxiety that the substantial investment that is being made available should be well and effectively used. It remains the case that I cannot find time for a special debate on those issues in the near future, but I have no doubt that, over the course of that investment programme, my hon. Friends will find many opportunities to raise them.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady minded to make time available on a Government day for an early debate on the plight of rural post offices? Post offices are writing to me at the rate of one a week to announce the closure or threat of closure of sub-post offices throughout the Vale of York. That is extremely alarming to constituents, who face the prospect of not being able to draw benefits and pensions at those sub-post offices. It has recently emerged that vacancies are being advertised offering less pay per hour than the minimum wage. Is that contributing to the problem? May we have an early debate to discuss that and a pledge of a positive future for post offices in villages?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Lady and I accept that it will be shared by her constituents. She will know that both the Government and the Post Office have expressed concern, although she will be aware that, unfortunately, it is by no means a record: far greater numbers of post

1253
offices have closed in the past. Nevertheless, we continue to express concern at the rate of closures. Further analysis of what is happening is being undertaken. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right to say that, in many cases, such post offices are reopening.
The. Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices and will continue to work with the Post Office at national level in order to do so. Although Department of Trade and Industry questions are next week, when she might find an opportunity to raise the matter, I cannot say that there is likely to be a special debate on the Floor of the House soon.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to finding time to discuss the closure of Leeds city station, given the scale of the inconvenience to people and the fact that Railtrack has described the closure as unacceptable? I recognise that engineers are working around the clock to install the new signalling equipment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are entitled to accurate information from Railtrack about when major projects such as this will be completed? In this case, by contrast, they have been given three successive deadlines for completion of the work.
Mrs. Beckett: I very much sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents. I share his view that it is unacceptable to give people unsound information. That leads to doubts that those engaged in such works are clear about the scale of their task.
Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, I remind my hon. Friend that it is Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions questions on Tuesday. If my hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may well have a chance to raise the matter then.
Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Leader of the House feel proud or embarrassed at the fact that her ministerial colleagues are starting to make her look like a paragon of honesty and openness in government? At business questions on 21 December, I asked her about the Cabinet Committee set up to look at job losses in manufacturing, and she gave me a commendably frank and full response. I subsequently tabled a question to the Department of Trade and Industry, which denied that such a group existed. I raised the same matter at Education and Employment questions with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who would neither confirm nor deny the group's existence.
The Leader of the House is clearly ahead of the field among her colleagues when it comes to offering honest and open replies to questions from hon. Members of all parties. Will she therefore give some guidance to her ministerial colleagues, and will she make time for a statement to the House on the findings of that Cabinet Committee with regard to job losses in manufacturing?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, which I am sure were not intended to do me any harm, but I can undertake only to consider his question. No hon. Member wants there to be job losses, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under this Government, they
1254
are on nothing like the scale experienced under the Government that he supported. The Government continue to work with manufacturing industry to try and help to resolve the difficulties that it faces.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my ministerial colleagues always endeavour to give full information to the House, and that they will continue to do so.
Mr. John Bercow: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. The exercise involved in trying to catch your eye has been most useful.
My question concerns the replies that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Will she please find time for an urgent statement on flexibility in the total number of hours available for consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee?
The right hon. Lady is usually spectacularly well informed, but is she aware that Conservative members of the Committee considering the Vehicle (Crimes) Bill have been complimented already—by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—on our constructive use of the available time? The problem is that there is too little such time.
Will the right hon. Lady explain why our request for a further nine hours' debate on the 45 clauses of the Bill—to which 33 amendments have been tabled so far—was summarily rejected on the basis of a Government vote in the Programming Sub-Committee? Will she concede that there is a powerful case for the establishment of a formal procedure under which members of the Standing Committee who are not members of the Programming Sub-Committee could put forward their own proposals and draft resolutions regarding the order of consideration of a Bill's clauses?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and worthwhile point and I undertake to consider it and to discuss it with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I would be reluctant—I accept that this is not what he is suggesting—to see us adopting a procedure whereby people are encouraged to spend time discussing how long they ought to spend discussing the legislation, as opposed to discussing the legislation itself. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. Also, to assume at the beginning of discussions on legislation that more time is likely to be needed will not always encourage the best use of the time available. He will know, I hope, that under the Modernisation Committee's proposals there is room for manoeuvre if it becomes clear that, for whatever reason, time has been inadequate. Obviously, the Government would be prepared constructively to consider that.
We would be reluctant to see this as the thin end of the wedge—always demanding more time regardless of whether it is necessary. I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman's points and to discuss them with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Points of Order
Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take up an issue raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When the proceedings of today's sitting are printed, would you cause a study to be made of the amount of the 55 minutes of Education and Employment Question Time that was taken up by ministerial answers? My layman's research found that on at least six occasions, questions that could have been answered in a quarter of a minute took upwards of one and a half minutes. If I were of a more cynical disposition, I would say—and you might agree, Mr. Speaker—that Question Time is being used not to answer questions but to peddle petty party political propaganda. More importantly for the rights of the House and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, because Question Time is limited, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that the greater the time used on ministerial answers, the more it infringes the rights of Back Benchers. Will you look into that please, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly do not intend to become involved in the content of ministerial replies at Question Time, but I am deeply concerned that Back Benchers are not being given an opportunity to ask their questions and that we are not dealing with enough questions because ministerial replies are far too long.
I call on Ministers to bear in mind what I have to say. I want to be able to call Back Benchers, particularly those who have tabled questions. The questions from Opposition Front Benchers could also be a bit sharper. I hope that both parties will consider this matter.
Mr. Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a point of order about my written question on volunteering. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the courtesy of informing me that he intended to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. Not only was that a gross discourtesy to me—I have informed him that I intended to raise this matter today—but had he approached me, he would have avoided misleading you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.
1256
The hon. Gentleman reported last night that House of Commons Library staff had been told by the Home Office that they would not receive a copy of the answer to my question until after a press conference had been held by the Chancellor at 8.45 this morning. What he failed to tell the House was that the Home Office had told the Library that the answer would be given at 8.30 this morning, before the press conference. He also failed to tell the House that the and the Library had been promised an early copy of the answer, which would be faxed directly to them at 8.30 this morning. That procedure was confirmed to me by the Library staff.
It appears that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has misrepresented the facts and unfairly embroiled Library staff in his misjudged intervention. Surely he should come to the Dispatch Box to put the record straight and to apologise.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a matter with me, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will know that I said that I would look into it. In doing so, I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said. However, I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Aylesbury would deliberately mislead the House. Perhaps he was misinformed, but he certainly did not deliberately mislead the House. I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said, and I will of course reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I think that that would help.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the matter that I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, I should like to seek your guidance. Having established from the Leader of the House before Christmas that a ministerial group has been set up to look into job losses in manufacturing, I was perplexed to receive from the Department of Trade and Industry a reply to a written question to the effect that no such group exists. Would it be in order for me to table the same question again to the Department of Trade and Industry in the hope of an accurate response, or could the Minister be brought here to correct the misleading impression that he gave?
Mr. Speaker: I have always found the Table Office very helpful, and that is where the hon. Gentleman should go in these circumstances.

Cancer Research
[Relevant documents: The Government's response to the Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1999–2000, Cm 4928,.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
1.46 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I welcome the opportunity to present the report of my Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Cancer Research—A Fresh Look". I thank the Liaison Committee for allowing us to have this estimates day debate and the Leader of the House, who has now departed, for agreeing to include it in this Session's busy programme.
The attendance this afternoon may not be as large as we might wish to see for a debate on cancer, but those attending have a great interest in the issue and will, I know, make a useful contribution when the time comes.
Over my lifetime, there have been subjects that one has never talked about. When I was a boy and a youth, homosexuality was never mentioned. When I was a young man—even a married young man—contraception was taboo and not discussed. Yet both those subjects are now quite rightly widely discussed. However, all my life, until very recently, cancer has been a taboo subject, and only recently has it been discussed openly and frequently among people, at work and at leisure.
Why has cancer been a taboo subject for so long? It is not as though it is rare—40 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed at some time as having cancer. It is not as though cancer is something to be ashamed of: it is not caught from an illicit sexual contact; it is not a sign of unclean living; and it is not contagious—it cannot be transmitted by contact. So why has cancer been ignored in conversation and swept under the carpet for so long?
I believe that the reason is that cancer kills—it kills 25 per cent. of the population. Not only does it kill, however: until very recently, there has been no cure and little hope. If people spoke about cancer they did so in hushed tones, in awe of an unbeatable killer. They knew that for the friend, the relative, the loved one who had cancer, the death knell had sounded. For that reason, cancer was not discussed.
In recent years, there has been an amazing virtuous circle. Medical science has advanced quietly, very often from behind the scenes, without much trumpeting of its success. People have talked about patients surviving cancer. Cancer has slowly become a topic for discussion. The more discussion there has been, the more optimism has entered into the whole issue of cancer treatment and cancer medicine, and the more money has been given by the public to charities for cancer research. As a result, advances have been made in drugs and in treatment; there has been more success, followed by more hope, more money and more results. There is complete openness about cancer because we have got rid of the terrible situation that I described—in which cancer was a killer and there was little hope.
Our report was conceived at the beginning of last year; we started our inquiry in March 2000. We chose its title because we thought that there was a new opportunity on cancer. We were not the first to think so. In 1995,
1258
the Conservative Government published a report on cancer treatment, led by the heads of the national health service in England and in Wales, which became known as the Calman-Hine report. That was the beginning of the consideration of how to improve the organisation and delivery of cancer services.
In July 1999, about eight months before we began our inquiry, the Labour Government issued a report, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which identified cancer as a disease—among others, such as coronary heart disease—on which action was needed to improve the quality of life for people in this country. In October 1999, a national cancer director was appointed. Thus we do not claim that our report is the beginning of a movement for the improvement of cancer treatment; it is part of a continuum—we like to think that it is a helpful and significant part.
Immediately we announced our inquiry, the BBC contacted us and asked if it could make a programme in the "Scrutiny" series on the work that we planned to undertake. We agreed, but with the proviso that the programme should be a serious study of a serious subject—not a frivolous film that aimed to catch Members of Parliament out as they went about their business.
I am delighted to say that the BBC filmed the majority of our eight evidence sessions, in which we heard from 30 eminent witnesses. The corporation also filmed all but one of our five visits to cancer treatment centres in the United Kingdom; and accompanied us on our visits to the United States, Canada and Finland, where we compared and contrasted cancer treatments with those in the UK. A 40-minute film was produced; it was screened on BBC 2 on 29 July. The majority—if not all—members of the Select Committee thought it a worthwhile film; it was well and professionally made, and we thank the BBC for its interest and for its contribution to the fight against cancer.
While we were abroad, we found much to admire; we were grateful that every institution that we visited received us warmly. We were gratified that each of them appreciated and praised the work being done in this country. Our visits abroad were not just about finding out whether other countries were doing better than us, as they were in some respects. Each centre and each country congratulated us on the high quality of individual work in this country, on our centres of excellence and on our research. That does not mean that we cannot do better, because we can, but it does mean that we have international standing.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I note, in my hon. Friend's excellent report, recommendation (m):
More clinical research is needed to determine the benefits that patients derive from complementary therapies.
Is my hon. Friend aware that that recommendation neatly ties in with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on complementary and alternative medicine, which argued for more research, and with the fact that nearly 160 Members of this House have signed an early-day motion broadly supporting the Lords report? Can my hon. Friend mention recommendation (m) in his opening remarks?
Dr. Clark: Of course complementary medicine should not be ignored. We mentioned it in our report, as my

1259
hon. Friend rightly says, and I would continue to support the need for research into complementary medicine, but I believe that our key priority at this stage is to find money for more traditional research, which is likely to have a greater payback in terms of cancer treatment. By that I do not mean that complementary medicines should be excluded. The research should continue in parallel with the traditional research to which the report principally refers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman spoke about traditional research, and mentioned the fact that tributes were paid abroad to the research that was taking place in this country. May I press him and encourage him in his campaign to get more money into that research, bearing in mind the fact that at least £25 million will be needed in Northern Ireland alone—in an excellent department under Professor Johnston—and that that need is replicated all over the United Kingdom?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right. At the end of my few remarks I shall discuss the need for more money. We recognise in our report the excellent work that is being done in Belfast, and Northern Ireland in general. We took evidence from people from the Province, and one of our last witness sessions—one of our larger sessions—gave us the opportunity to hear people who were recovering from cancer, who had travelled from Northern Ireland to tell us about the excellence of the service there.
Not only was it right that the organisations that we visited abroad should pay tribute to cancer research in this country, but that we as a Committee paid tribute to the cancer professionals, the cancer charities and all those associated with cancer care in this country. We are grateful for the willing help that we have obtained in preparing our report—from the Committee's own advisers, from the 30 witnesses who came to see us and from the host of institutions that we visited, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We received 106 written submissions, all of which were carefully scrutinised, and all of which were very valuable in helping us to prepare our report.
I mentioned that we had one witness session at the end to which we invited 20 witnesses, some of whom came from Northern Ireland to tell us of their experience of cancer. We lifted that idea from what we saw when we visited the United States Congress, where we attended a session at which members of the public were invited to speak for no more than five minutes to present their views on an issue. We held a similar session in this Parliament, at which we heard 20 witnesses in two hours. Each person was allowed five minutes to express their point of view. They came along with some trepidation, never having given evidence to a Select Committee. We received them in as friendly a way as we could and listened to their points of view, which we have taken into account in our report.
I commend to other Select Committees the idea of holding a witness session that members of the public may apply to attend to give evidence. Twenty are selected and can present their individual, and sometimes lonely, point of view to a Select Committee of the House.
1260
It was right to call our report "A Fresh Look". There have been changes to the way in which the services are delivered. A national cancer director has been appointed, and the two largest cancer research charities are now willing to work together.
What was it, then, that triggered our report? Many factors did so, some of which I have mentioned. Comparisons have been draw between the mortality and survival rates in this country and those in other parts of the world, especially north America and Europe. It is difficult to draw definitive comparisons, but we found that some of our mortality and survival rates were not as good as they could be compared with those in other countries in the developed western world, particularly in north America. Although the survival rates for cancers overall have steadily improved in this country, there has been little or no improvement in the survival rates for cancers of the lung or the prostate.
Our report is comprehensive, as is the Government response, dated November 2000. Many issues were highlighted and discussed in our report, and other members of the Select Committee present this afternoon will wish to raise many others. I shall, therefore, quickly confine myself to dealing with three topics in the report—epidemiological and public health research issues; Government funding, as I promised the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth); and the national cancer research institute.
On epidemiology, cancer registration is an invaluable tool in the fight against cancer, yet the organisation of records is haphazard—probably because of historical accident, rather than by design—and needs to be improved if we are to get the most of our those records, which can be valuable in fighting cancer. If we are to fight cancer effectively, it is always helpful to know where, in which age group and in relation to which type of life style cancers occur. The Government are aware that data collection may be hindered by the Data Protection Act 1998.
In our report, we recommended:
The Government should introduce legislation to make registration of cancer a legal requirement, both to ensure completeness of the cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate purposes.
I believe that the Government have sympathy with that point of view, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that matter and what she and the Government might do about it.
On Government funding, in the United Kingdom, for every pound spent by the Government, £2 is spent by charities. However, in north America, for every pound spent by charities, £2 is spent by Government. In the United Kingdom, because of the public's generosity to cancer charities, it is possible that the Government have, to some extent, been let off the hook. That is no longer acceptable. The Government should view public giving not as an excuse to minimise their own contribution, but as showing the public's earnest determination to improve the situation. The Government should recognise the fact that the public want to improve the situation, and match— and preferably double—charitable giving.
In paragraph 102 and 103 on page 16 of their response, the Government give an encouraging reply. They say:
The UK Government expenditure on cancer research is inevitably a smaller proportion of total expenditure from all sources than in many countries where a tradition of popular support for cancer research is less evident.

1261
Nonetheless, the Government accepts the Committee's basic premise, and supports the case for increased investment in order to redress years of under-funding, to make the most of exciting new opportunities.
That is a generous Government response to the criticism that we made, but there is still a need for delivery in due course.
The day before the press conference on our report, the Government announced an extra £200 million for cancer research. I am sure that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will recap on all the initiatives that the Government have undertaken and all the new money that they plan to make available.
Finally, we proposed a national cancer research institute to co-ordinate cancer research in the United Kingdom and cancer research funding. On 27 September 2000 the Government responded positively with the announcement in the NHS cancer plan of their intention to come forward with definitive proposals for such a research institute, broadly along the lines that we had proposed. Page 20, paragraph 117 of the Government reply 117 sets that out. We are grateful to the Government for that response and look forward to seeing the benefits of implementing those proposals in due course.
Although we are debating cancer from our adversarial positions in this House, cancer is not a political topic. It is a human problem of national and, indeed, international importance and dimensions. The alleviation of suffering, the treatment of patients and the cures for the disease are also national and international responsibilities. We on the Science and Technology Select Committee have tried to present a fair, comprehensive and helpful report. The Government's response was appreciative and encouraging. I believe that the Government are ready to acknowledge that there is still a lot to do, and we wish them well in their endeavours.
2.6 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: As a member of the Science and Technology Committee I start by paying tribute to our Chairman, who co-ordinated the work and ensured that we all behaved cordially and made significant progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was the prime mover and the idea was his brainchild. We should, therefore, record, that the agenda was set by him.
As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, the debate is essential and we need a fresh look at cancer research in the United Kingdom. I agree that what the Government have done and the Secretary of State's announcements have given a boost to cancer treatment. That boost fits perfectly with the national plan for the NHS. The NHS is the greatest achievement of Labour Members. We recognise that the health plan fits in with the Government's programme for the 21st century.
As the hon. Gentleman said, cancer is one of the great scourges of our time. It is a disease that knows no boundaries—boundaries of country, class, gender or race. The prevalence of cancer means that one person in four will at some time be diagnosed as suffering from a cancerous condition and a third of all those here will die from that condition.
As anyone who has had a close family relative with cancer knows, the sheer malignancy can infect the entire household emotionally. I know that only too well myself
1262
as my aunt died from breast cancer in 1983. In a close-knit, Asian family where ties of affinity are great, it hit me hard personally and caused a lot of pain and heartache. I saw at first hand what a deadly disease cancer was. My aunt was only 52. She was effectively robbed of her young life. She was a happy, lively woman and I adored her. She faced this dreadful disease with dignity and courage. She was given all the support of her doctors, nurses and hospital staff and, of course, of her family— her nearest and dearest.
The challenge that we face is to eradicate the conditions that help to foster cancer. Society can then begin to make positive steps towards the better treatment and analysis of the cancers that still occur.
At this point, I want to highlight some of the Committee's findings and to place them in the context of the work being carried out on cancer research, treatment and prevention, from which my constituents could benefit. The report makes 38 good recommendations. I want to focus on only a few of them, specifically those in paragraphs 119 and 143 of the report, relating to the need for patient involvement and the need to spread cancer research across the United Kingdom in a new network of centres of excellence.
Research is being carried out into the causes and the nature of cancer and can be fertilised by other research being carried out in related fields, notably the work being carried out on the human genome project. Research into drug discovery and design is also taking place, as is translational research that seeks to transfer the findings of interdisciplinary teams of scientific workers into treatment regimes. Such work is based on clinical trials and their evaluation. Research is also being carried out into improving patients' quality of life. It is crucial that such work is seen as cross-disciplinary and cross-frontier, and that everyone involved, in whatever sector, is able to appreciate how his or her work can be seen to contribute to the over-arching cause: the eradication and overcoming of cancer.
There are many strands to the research work. The Medical Research Council, in giving evidence to the Committee, stated that such strands
can be pursued and shared simultaneously.
It is crucial that all the agencies involved in this battle see their work as complementary and not competitive. The national health service is the key agency in this country, but there must be parity of esteem between consultants and specialists working for the national health service and scientists working in an academic setting or in drug company laboratories.
Specialists working in those fields must, likewise, pay heed to the work of those dedicated people who manage national and local cancer charities. Charities fund much research work at local and national levels, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh mentioned. All those engaged in research must be conscious of the efforts of people working at the sharp end of the treatment process: the consultant oncologists, the nursing staff, professionals allied to medicine, radiographers and voluntary workers from the various cancer relief groups.
Those involved in research must, above all, have empathy with cancer sufferers and patients, who have a role in combating the disease by volunteering for clinical trials and by playing a full role in supporting research

1263
work carried out in their locality. One of the Committee's most far-reaching recommendations is in paragraph 119, which is that
all Government-supported cancer research committees include patients' representatives as full members and that the Government provides resources to ensure proper training and support for patients' representatives.
I said earlier that the NHS must be the UK pivot. The Committee's most important recommendation, to be found in paragraph 143, is that national health service funding for cancer research should be increased immediately by £100 million, and that this dramatic increase in funding should be spread geographically across the UK so that at least 12 new centres of excellence can be established. Those centres should be at least the equivalent of the Royal Marsden hospital, which Committee members visited.
This call for resources is little more than cancer sufferers and their families deserve. The Committee showed, on the evidence of cross-comparisons, that Government support for advanced research into cancer is low compared with that available in other advanced nations. We come out particularly badly when compared to the United States. Indeed, as paragraph 145 of the report points out, the two UK centres that we visited— Belfast city hospital and the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow—receive better funding from the US National Cancer Institute than they do from our own Government. That should not be tolerated.
The siting of centres of excellence should be tied to existing facilities, such as new large hospitals and universities with records of excellence in medical research and training, and to areas where there are specific incidence of cancer. My area of Teesside should be considered. It has hospitals and university expertise at the university of Teesside and the university of Durham's Teesside campus, which is located in Stockton. The simple reason why such a centre should be situated there is that we are unfortunate in having one of the highest incidence of cancer in the country.
Specialists from the South Cleveland hospital, which is managed by the South Tees acute hospitals NHS trust and is the cancer centre for Teesside, told me that they support, from a local perspective, the sentiments of many of the report's conclusions. Oncologists in particular are optimistic. Mr. Peter Dunlop, the clinical director of radiotherapy and oncology, and a cancer specialist at the hospital, told me:
Research and development and education are vital elements involved in running an effective cancer service … Stimulate and advance local academic and research training activity and you will get quality outcomes for patients … Many of these recommendations for enhancing the UK cancer research resource base in the UK are fully supported.
However, Dr. Dunlop gave a serious warning. He said:
I still believe that difficulties lie ahead. Recruitment of specialist staff will be needed across many disciplines, particularly those suffering the worst workforce planning blight ever … We are still short of nurses, we have difficulty in recruiting therapy radiographers, medical physics and technical staff, whilst other specialisms such as clinical oncology … are entering a barren period.
In that context, Dr. Dunlop explained that he is one of only 340 clinical oncologists in England and Wales. On average, he sees two and a half times the number of new
1264
cancer patients that are seen by his equivalent in any other developed country. He thinks that at least 700 more consultants in clinical oncology are needed to meet European standards at a time when stress levels among staff are leading to an even higher number of people taking early retirement. Dr. Dunlop's warning is very simple: we must proceed with many of the improvements suggested in the report, but there must be full cross-collaboration, and we must not raise expectations unduly.
It is not only consultants who welcome aspects of the report. Another local leading cancer fighter, Dr. Pat Keane, director of the local Cancer Care Alliance at Middlesbrough general hospital, told me:
We would welcome the opportunity to increase our contribution in cancer research, both locally and nationally, to the proposals outlined within the report … Unfortunately the Teesside area has some of the highest incidence of deaths from cancer, particularly for lung … cancer, in the U.K … We are very keen to increase resources to support local clinical staff in matching their excellent clinical work with a higher involvement in both clinical trials and ongoing research associated with the quality of life of people with cancer.
That is the voice of the people at the sharp end who, in general, support the report's proposals. However, I acknowledge their view that simply considering the possibility of establishing new centres of research excellence without looking in more depth at the staffing of the centres is not enough. We need to consider the flow of research graduates from our universities and to tie in good links between research, clinical practice and the work of the pharmaceutical industry. We also need to use the national plan for cancer to train, recruit and retain more specialists. I know that the Minister recognises that need. There needs to be a proper dialogue with academia and industry so that everyone pulls together to ensure that the ultimate beneficiaries—cancer sufferers and their families—receive the treatment and the quality of life that they deserve.
I believe that this is an excellent report, though I am bound to say that because I was involved in it. It points out a way forward for the radical overhaul and improvement of UK research centres. I know that the Minister will respond positively and I look forward to a day when many more announcements will be made on the back of the work that we have done.
2.20 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and his Select Committee for their outstanding report. I served on the Science and Technology Committee almost 30 years ago, but do not remember any of our reports offering such a wide range of potential benefits to the community as that which is before the House.
I shall point out how the admirable recommendations of the Select Committee relate to the work of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood, in my constituency, which is one of the premier cancer treatment and research centres in the south of England and, indeed, the whole country. Recommendation (e) states:
We recommend that the Government and the National Screening Committee evaluate high speed and precise techniques with a view to commencing large-scale trials for CT cancer screening. This would require the NHS to purchase state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment.

1265
Mount Vernon is pre-eminent in that field. Recommendation (g) states:
We recommend that the Government address the service problems in the delivery of radiotherapy and actively encourage research into radiotherapy.
Mount Vernon hospital has worked in this field since the second world war.
Recommendation (n) states:
We believe that cancer care networks should also provide an essential resource for clinical research and that research based on cancer networks should be given more emphasis than was evident in the Calman-Hine report itself. Clinical research should be an explicit part of the remit of both cancer centres and their associated units.
This is precisely what Mount Vernon is all about—the co-ordination and integration of medical treatment with cancer research. Recommendation (z) states:
There is widespread agreement that the poor state of the infrastructure for cancer treatment and research in the NHS is a serious barrier to clinical research. The Government must act quickly to address this through investment in the necessary staff, training, equipment and buildings.
Mount Vernon's work is second to none and the intellectual quality of all who work there is outstanding, but the fabric of many of its buildings is declining and needs to be addressed.
Last, but not least, recommendation (oo) states:
We recommend that annual NHS R and D funding for cancer research support be increased by £100 million immediately. This extra funding should be spread across the UK to ensure that approximately twelve large centres of cancer research excellence are developed, capable of delivering a volume of clinical research similar to or greater than that currently being delivered at the Royal Marsden Hospital.
Mount Vernon is in the Royal Marsden hospital league already, but it needs more money. Its research is largely supported by extremely generous donations, but the Government can and should do more.
Mount Vernon was established in 1930 as a cancer hospital, having begun operation before the first world war, and it quickly established a reputation in surgery and radiotherapy. The Radium Institute, which was originally established in central London in 1911, moved entirely to Mount Vernon in 1939. The radiotherapy department of the Middlesex hospital became established at Mount Vernon during the war. With the establishment of the national health service, a centre for radiotherapy for the north-west Thames region was established at Mount Vernon under the direction of Professor Sir Brian Windeyer.
To general medicine and surgery—well established on the site since the war—was added the centre for plastic surgery in 1952. Hon. Members are aware that in many cases, plastic surgery is an essential element in cancer treatment and rehabilitation. Sad to say, it is planned that the plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon might be moved away from the site to Northwick Park in the not too distant future. I regret the move and have resisted it, but it does not mean that the excellent work of the cancer centre cannot continue.
The Gray laboratory was established in 1957 on the Mount Vernon site by the British Empire Cancer Campaign, now the Cancer Research Campaign. It was initially a unit for radiobiological research, but after the death of its first director, Dr. Gray, it was called the Gray laboratory and soon gained a premier position in research
1266
in its field. Now responsible to the Gray laboratory cancer research trust, with a staff of almost 100, it continues to play a leading role in radiation and tumour biology. The work performed in collaboration with the clinical oncologists of the cancer centre has received widespread international recognition. In many areas of research, the laboratory is ahead of the field worldwide.
In 1967, the Marie Curie hospital—established in 1926 in Hampstead for the care of women with cancer—was transferred to the Mount Vernon site and became part of the cancer centre. In 1977, Michael Sobell house, a hospice for terminal patients, was built adjacent to the site and later expanded to give out-patient as well as in-patient services.
The cancer centre at Mount Vernon is long established as a regional centre caring for a population of 1.8 million living in Hertfordshire, south Bedfordshire, adjacent areas of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and the suburbs of north-west London. Sixteen consultant medical staff visit 15 general hospitals in the area, where patients with cancer are initially seen and screened. Patients who are to receive radiotherapy or intensive chemotherapy go on to attend the cancer centre at Mount Vernon for their treatment, and return closer to home for follow-up treatment.
At Mount Vernon, about 4,200 new patients a year with cancer receive treatment by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. The centre currently has five linear accelerators for radiotherapy, but work is proceeding on two further accelerator housings, which should be installed this year, bringing the total number of high energy machines to seven. With the new building which is being constructed, a new treatment simulator is to be added to the two at present in action, and there will be an extension of the research facilities of the Marie Curie research wing.
There are 65 in-patient beds in three wards, together with a unit for high-dose chemotherapy. Complementing in-patient facilities is a hostel, a CHART—continuous hyperfactionated accelerated radiotherapy—lodge, which was constructed in 1990. It contains comfortable hotel rooms, which are extremely useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy or for their relatives to stay nearby.
The Paul Strickland scanner centre was opened in 1985 and has been extended on three occasions. The centre is supported by voluntary donation and is now equipped with a spiral computed tomography, two magnetic resonance imaging units and a positron emission tomography scanner. That equipment provides an excellent service for the radiological investigation of patients attending the centre, facilitating diagnosis, treatment planning and the assessment of response. During 2001, a cyclotron will be built in collaboration with industry, so as to allow further advance in the care and research that the PET has facilitated.
I must inform the House that a most imaginative scheme, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan centre, was opened in 1993 to provide support and information to cancer patients being treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre and to the area served by it. Approximately 4,000 patients per annum use the service, and a psychological research team has undertaken several studies which show improvement in the quality of patients' lives and demonstrate that the centre is instrumental in giving them

1267
and their families invaluable support. The centre has recently gained an NHS beacon award, which is a Government recognition of high-quality cancer care.
The cancer centre provides comprehensive care in the treatment of patients with cancer. There are special groups concerned with breast cancer; cancer of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract; gynaecological cancer; urological cancer; germ cell tumours; head, neck and lung cancer; and haematological malignancies, including myeloma and lymphomas. A traditional strength of the centre is close integration of clinical care and research, which is at the heart of the Select Committee's recommendations. The translation of laboratory advances into clinical practice has long been a feature of the work at Mount Vernon, which is built on the strong links with the Gray laboratory.
The Cancer Research Campaign's tumour biology and radiation therapy group is sited in the Marie Curie research wing at the cancer centre. Professor Saunders, Dr. Hoskin and Dr. Makris have established an international reputation for its work on the physiology of tumours and the importance of their oxygen supply, together with programming radiotherapy to improve tumour responses and decrease the changes in normal tissues. The clinical trials group at the centre, under the direction of Dr. Rustin, has established an international reputation for its work in ovarian cancer. It is also engaged in original work looking at vaso-active drugs that shrink tumours by attacking their blood supply. A new clinical research group headed by Dr. Rob Glynne-Jones has been established to investigate the role of combination chemotherapy in the treatment of intestinal cancer.
The cancer centre at Mount Vernon plays a prominent role in the pan-London training scheme for doctors training in clinical oncology. Again, the Select Committee is adamant that we need to do more to train more specialists in that field. There are 24 junior medical staff at the cancer centre, whose registrars are trained in clinical oncology and medical oncology. Seventy nurses, including clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners, are responsible for the care of the patients on the ward, while 40 therapy radiographers operate and treat patients on the treatment machines. Postgraduate training for nurses and radiographers is continued at the centre, and they are encouraged to take part in research projects. Six clinical physicists and two radiographers are responsible for patient planning, together with the running of machines, quality assurance and the commissioning of new equipment.
There are difficulties at present. Organisational changes have been made and medical and surgical services have been shifted away from the Mount Vernon site. There has been a change in ownership of the site as a whole, which comes under Hillingdon health authority, whereas regional specialist services in cancer, burns and plastics are the responsibility of the eastern region to the north of the hospital. That dichotomy does not make administrative sense. It is accepted that the everyday working of the cancer centre has been made more complicated by those transfers.
As a consequence, the cancer centre is now a lodger in its own home. Maintenance standards of property have fallen and it is often difficult to get improvements to basic support services without making an enormous effort.
1268
Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, despite all those problems, the number of patients treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre, continues to rise. The standard of care continues to improve, while morale and staffing levels have been maintained. The centre's popularity among the patients attending remains high, and its national and international reputation continues to rise. Those performing clinical research, together with their colleagues in laboratory science, have performed well. The work of established research groups has been assessed by teams of doctors and experts from the United Kingdom and overseas and has always been given a high rating.
Funding has been maintained and, in some cases, increased. New proposals for research have a high success rate. I am convinced that the Select Committee proposals, which I wholeheartedly applaud, can only help the admirable work of the Mount Vernon cancer centre and its related research institutes.
2.35 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: For me, the inquiry was precipitated by two matters. First, cancer survival rates in the United Kingdom are atrocious when compared with those in other countries, especially in Europe, and they fall far short of those in the United States. That is true for breast, lung and colon cancers; indeed, it is true for 10 major cancers suffered by men and women.
Secondly, basic biomedical research into cancer in the United Kingdom is world class, yet the major discoveries are not being translated into clinical practice. There is little political recognition of that, and a serious lack of noise from many cancer interest groups. It took 26 years from the initial laboratory work to develop the drugs that we use to treat breast cancer today. That is far too long. We need a different infrastructure to make sure that that does not happen again.
The question is not whether the Government have tried to tackle cancer—they certainly have—but whether they will solve the problems that I described. Will the many recent announcements, including the national cancer plan and increased investment, correct the position whereby cancer survival rates in the United States are three times greater than those in the United Kingdom? Analysis of the statistics clearly shows that five-year survival rates for the major cancers are better in most European countries than in the United Kingdom. Let us put that in perspective: approximately 10,000 deaths per annum could be avoided if we attained the average European survival rates. Two thousand of those deaths are from breast cancer.
There are major geographical variations in the incidence of colon cancer in this country. High incidence rates are associated with economic deprivation and poverty. I acclaim the Government's attitude towards tackling poverty because health will benefit from that. We could save 2,500 lives a year through equality of diagnosis, treatment and patient care throughout the country. For major cancers, the 10-year survival rate for the richest sector of our society is better than the five-year survival rate for the poorest. We cannot justify that, and we cannot sleep until we correct that aberration.
I appreciate that basic scientific and medical research has received a large injection of money from the Government for equipment, repairing, for example,

1269
university laboratories and bringing the boys—and, hopefully, the girls—back home from their rich, luxury laboratories in the United States. However, is it enough? I agree with some other speakers who doubt whether it is enough at this stage.
It takes time to train clinical oncologists, thoracic cancer surgeons, histopathologists, radiographers, biochemists and physics technicians. I welcome the Government's injection of massive sums into the pay packets of such people in the past 48 hours. They are essential for providing cancer screening in this country. The Government's action constitutes a major political advance. Many of us acclaim it, and we will be proud to talk to the unions who represent those professions and the Institute of Biomedical Science, which campaigned for that tremendous leap forward. Many graduates will welcome the chance to enter those professions because we have addressed the pay problem and begun to consider the career structure.
I say to the Government, "Yes, great, more money has been put in, but we need even more." We can improve our basic research and cancer services even more. We can carry out clinical trials, which are shown to benefit patients, if we provide more money. I shall say more about the way in which we could do that. A local consultant told me last week that Culyer money was available to fund trials co-ordinators. The local trust refused the money and charity money had to be found to enable the trials to happen. I could repeat many such anecdotal stories of available money that does not get to the place where it counts.
We may need to think in the same way as we did for education. Perhaps we should give a pot of money directly to the relevant cancer network, unit or centre so that the practitioners can use it to effect improvements.
In order to establish a challenging service, we need to develop not a virtual cancer institute but a real one: a small centre, not a huge, rambling building as in Washington. It should co-ordinate and develop a national strategy for all aspects of the cancer journey and cancer care. That must be supported by a national cancer Act, as in the United States. The Government side-stepped that issue in their reply, so I look forward to the Minister saying something about that now.
A national cancer Act would make the matter independent of which party was in Government. The question whether we are putting enough money and resources into cancer research would have to be reviewed every year. That is a challenge for this century, and one that we could take up.
It is a tremendous advance that the Government have acknowledged the need for a national cancer research institute. The silence on that issue has been deafening. It is a major political contribution to the cancer arena and the national health service, and I look forward to hearing more about it. A national cancer institute could co-ordinate work on a tobacco policy, on diet and cancer, on the new human genome project and the outcomes of that, and the knowledge that we will have. It would be a real step forward to have an institute where people could talk about cancer and develop a national strategy and priorities.
1270
Many consultants and practitioners would welcome a national institute. They have campaigned for such a body for some time.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I, too, welcome the Government's acceptance of our Committee's recommendation on the establishment of a national cancer research institute. How would my hon. Friend tie the funders, especially the charities, into the strategy of such an institute?
Dr. Gibson: I would envisage a co-ordinated policy. A council could sit down with the national cancer research institute and combine their knowledge with that of all the other groups—consultants, charities and patients' groups. We should co-ordinate and combine, rather than continue the fragmentation that has beset the cancer challenge year after year.
To get decisions on cancer services and research requires the involvement of 46 groups and individuals. They all have acronyms and they have an input in decisions about funding. There are about 600 cancer charities in this country, and that cannot be right. I welcome the fact that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign have got their trustees together to talk about merger, which cannot come soon enough. The old rivalries must be dispelled, and we must have a unitary policy. We could take a leaf out of the Jubilee 2000 group's book. In a short time, it has affected the politics of world debt and how to handle it. That is a message for cancer charities.
The two-week waiting list proposal is superb, but we must ensure that at the end of that people do not have to wait weeks or months for a CT scanner and a linear accelerator. The whole process can be speeded up. I know that the Minister has many examples of that happening, and we need to make it happen across the country.
The issue is not just about cutting bureaucracy, but about getting trained staff and equipment together to ensure that the journey is much quicker for our people. We must carry out research into many areas of radiotherapy, IMRT and Conformal, because much research has led up a blind ally. That is the challenge of cancer research. There will be new technologies and new techniques, and we need a national strategy that can be developed locally in the various centres.
Although research and infrastructure are crucial to the task of defeating cancer, much can be done more immediately to improve the quality of life of people living with cancer. The increasing use of concepts such as "living with cancer" has shown how, in many cases, cancer can become a chronic long-term condition that responds well to treatment, with a good prospect of survival. Even when the survival prospects are less good, the quality of life of people undergoing treatment can be far greater than could have been envisaged a few years ago. Much research needs to be carried out in that area on quality care, drugs and so on.
Improving the quality of life for patients and coping with the side effects of treatment are just as important as the treatment of the disease itself, and in some cases more important. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, many people who visited the Committee called for research into improving the quality of life, yet research into service provision for all aspects of supportive care is

1271
accorded far less priority for funding and attracts far less academic interest. We have a duty to all who are living with cancer to ensure that the maximum effort is made to give them the best possible support, and to enable them to enjoy as much independence and as good a life as can be provided.
I was proud to be associated with the inquiry, with the members of the Select Committee and with the disciplined way in which some of us were made to respond in certain circumstances. I give credit to our Chairman for ensuring that, when excitement got the better of us, we managed to contain our enthusiasm.
There was a very unco-ordinated campaign, involving many different groups, to put pressure on the Government to show the political will that they are showing now. We have turned a corner, in that the Government now recognise the need to act, but there is never a time for us to rest on our laurels: we must deliver better co-ordination and teamwork between all the groups involved in cancer care.
What we have learned about cancer treatment could, I think, be applied to the treatment of mental health and heart disease. We are developing important structures. In the next few years, our message should be "teamwork, co-ordination, and partnership among industry, patient groups, cancer charities and Government". That will enable us to rise in the league tables and, I am sure, to be at the top in no time. Our people will receive the best treatment that is available to those elsewhere in the world.
The challenge is there, and the Government are taking up the cudgels. We must now give them all possible support in order to ensure that there is no rest, and that we continue to forge ahead in developing even better standards.
2.46 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on an excellent report, which is also timely. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, cancer is not all about misery now; it is also about hope.
I remember that, 30 years ago, childhood leukaemias involved nasty treatment and extremely poor outcomes. People indulged in "heroic" surgery, in which the patient was the victim and the surgeon was thought to be the hero. We have moved a long way since those days, and I welcome the Government's response to the Committee's excellent report, but there are still some bits missing.
As the introduction to the report helpfully explains, the steps that we can take in cancer treatment and research depend largely on a fundamental understanding of the cancer process. We still do not know why some cells start to behave aberrantly; nor do we know why some people manage to get rid of the aberrant cells, while others do not. However, I think that we are near to finding answers to some of those fundamental questions, and that we should not forget the importance of basic research. I certainly approve of the concept of a national cancer centre, benefiting from international collaboration.
The report also deals with research in treatment. The last Government did well in commissioning the Calman-Hine report, but did abysmally in terms of its implementation. It was ridiculous to allow the market in
1272
health care to determine where people should have their cancer centres. It was ludicrous not to draw up a national, or even regional, strategy determining where radiotherapy services or linear accelerators should be. I am glad that the planning is now gaining some semblance of order, but I am disappointed that there is not a stronger regional input in decisions about where such services are to be.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke eloquently in support of his local unit. It is a unit of great excellence, but I sometimes doubt whether having two or three adjoining units of great excellence is the best way of serving the country. I do not deny that we have some excellent centres, but I also feel that one of the most striking aspects of outcomes is the postcode lottery. Outcomes depend on where people live, and where they can be referred to.
May I be critical of the Government? The new system of out of area treatment as opposed to extra-contractual referrals is having a dramatic impact on referral patterns, patient choice and patients' ability to get to units that may be at the leading edge of a particular treatment regime for a particular cancer, which could not have been foreseen by the health authority or trust. So arrangements cannot always be easily made.
We can refer out of area, but there will be no obligation on the people to whom we refer to accept that referral if they cannot guarantee getting the resources to go with the treatment. The OAT scheme must be looked at. We are almost working against the rules to make things happen. That cannot be in either the patient's or the clinician's interest.
I echo the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in congratulating the Government on recognising the tremendous value of laboratory scientists and pathologists. I remember the front page of a local paper having a nice picture of a man in a white coat holding a chicken. He was a qualified laboratory technician with a science degree who had stopped being a laboratory technician and become a chicken sexer, which brought in £2,000 more a year. That is ridiculous. I am glad that we are taking steps to correct that.
If we are going to get something out of the system other than just treading water and enormous pressure, all the people involved with research, whether it be fundamental research or research in treatment, require thinking time and deliberation time, which in today's clinical practice is often missing. That is one of the reasons perhaps why trusts are putting such an enormous premium on research being done within the trust. It is costing their clinicians' time and their scientific staff's time to an extent that is becoming unreasonable.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Does he agree that the figures that the Prime Minister has used to suggest that the Government will match voluntary sector funding are deeply suspect, given that much of that funding is being used within mixed clinical and research situations in the NHS and is liable to be diverted in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested?
Dr. Brand: I am not as suspicious or as cynical as the hon. Gentleman, but we perhaps take a different approach to these matters. It is difficult to cost the two. My plea is that, where clinicians are working in an area where there

1273
is active research, that should be recognised in their work load and their departments should be adequately staffed to cope with some of the work that needs to be done.
I pick up two or three points that may seem minor in relation to the report but are important and practical. We now have to refer all research to research and ethical committees in a correct way, but we have not gone far enough in streamlining the system when the research involves more than one health authority area. The trading standards people have a rather better system. A home trading standards authority approves a particular product and that recognition is given nationally. We need to be a little more streamlined in sorting that out.
No one likes unnecessary animal research, but there is no doubt that animal research has made, and will continue to make for the foreseeable future, a big contribution to our understanding of the causes and treatment of cancers, among other things. The current process where one has to go through not only a Home Office procedure but a medical research and ethics committee is unduly cumbersome, very long and not in the interests of either the researchers or the animals that we are thinking about. It distorts and lengthens a process that should be rigorous, but consistent.
It is important that newer treatment be researched. We do not use the opportunities that the NHS provides. We probably have a unique system world wide in having records that are complete in a vertical sense—from primary care through secondary care to tertiary care. When looking at new treatment, we do not use adequately the enormous resource that an integrated health service provides.
I ask the Minister to examine the effect of the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the introduction of new drugs and on research. There is some evidence that clinicians and funding health authorities are reluctant to accept the introduction of a new treatment because it has not been considered by NICE and, indeed, has not been referred to NICE yet. NICE should either be resourced to the extent that all new treatments can be looked at quickly, or it should be made clear to health authorities that the fact that NICE has not considered a drug is not an excuse for not using it.
That was the evidence with some of the new cancer drugs. Health authorities used the existence of NICE not to make a drug available. That will stultify the excellent scope for doing post-marketing and population research.
A number of expert hon. Members are keen to contribute to the debate. I again echo what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. I was taken by his comparison of mental health services with the approach to cancer services. Cancer is an emotive subject, but it is not a unique disease. Other diseases are just as ghastly and a number of diseases are more deadly than some of the cancers. There is a wide spread, as the report points out.
I welcome the focus on cancer services in the report, but I hope that, whatever lesson is drawn from the report, from the Government action and from the audit of the action on how to arrange the inter-relationship between primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, the experience will be reflected in how we deal with some of the other illnesses and diseases that we are all keen to tackle.
2.58 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: As many other hon. Members wish to speak and time is short, I will confine my remarks to just two main points.
I welcome the Government response to the Select Committee's report. I welcome in particular their recognition of many of the points that we have made in the NHS cancer plan. That plan acknowledges, as the Select Committee does, that there is a serious shortage of therapists and clinicians to treat patients who are suffering from cancer. The Government have promised that the process of improvement will begin immediately, provided that the NHS can recruit the staff that it needs, and that the necessary reforms are put in place. The aim is that, by 2008, access to treatment for all types of cancer will compare with the best in Europe.
Members of the Select Committee welcome and support that aim, but we must make the best use of resources available in the meantime, and especially of staffing resources. I want to highlight some work being done in Birmingham to encourage collaboration between different specialties to ensure that they work together effectively.
The joint approach to cancer outcomes in Birmingham project—JACOB—is greatly improving collaboration between different specialties. It is hoped that, by April this year, all projects will hit the target for first treatment within two months from urgent GP referral. That is the target that the Government have determined must be reached nationally by 2005. The work done by projects in Birmingham and elsewhere is putting us on course to reach it.
As an example of what is being achieved, in Birmingham the waiting time for prostatic biopsy has been cut from 10 weeks to two. I therefore commend the Government on the work that they are encouraging within the NHS. It is definitely leading to a substantial improvement in waiting times for treatment and therapy.
The other main point on which I want to focus is cancer registration. It is easy to underestimate the importance of cancer registration for cancer treatment and research. The Committee's inquiry identified serious concerns about the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on researchers' ability to gather and process complete data. Local interpretations of the legislation have already led to anomalies in cancer registration practice. For example, the Institute of Cancer Research told the Committee that enforcement of the 1998 Act had already held up its research into mesothelioma.
The Committee recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the advisory group on patient confidentiality should address the problems posed by the 1998 Act for the registration of cancer. The Committee recommended also that the Government should introduce legislation to make the registration of cancer a legal requirement, to ensure the completeness of cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate research purposes.
That recommendation has been supported, through early-day motion 138, by 115 hon. Members, who also expressed concern about the guidance issued by the General Medical Council. The council suggested that doctors should no longer pass on the names of patients to the national cancer registry. In their response, the Government stated that they were determined to secure

1275
the future of cancer registration and that they would take the necessary action to do so. They also said that they would be setting out their plans to strengthen cancer registries, taking into account the review carried out by Professor Charles Gillis.
Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Lady agree that the GMC said that doctors should not pass on a patient's name if that patient expressly objected? It is a matter of patient consent.
Dr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was trying to rush through the point, but the Committee was told time and again that it would be very difficult to get the express permission of patients. That is why we recommended that patient confidentiality should not necessarily apply in the case of cancer registration.
Local interpretations of the legislation are causing considerable problems. When they responded to our report, the Government said that they would respond early this year to the review being carried out by Professor Gillis. However, that already represented a shift in time scale from the original promise contained in the NHS plan, which was that a response to the review would be available by autumn last year.
When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will spend some time describing how the Government will deal with that problem. I know that the chief medical officer has written articles in the British Medical Journal emphasising the importance of cancer registration.
3.6 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am very pleased to have caught your eye in this very important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on this excellent report. It will make a sizeable and significant contribution to the alleviation of suffering experienced by people with cancer. In addition, the timeliness of the Government's response is helpful.
I want to suggest some alternative resources that may be useful to the Government and to everyone involved in caring for cancer patients. My approach may be a little oblique for some people in mainstream medicine, as I am the long-standing treasurer of the parliamentary group on alternative and complementary medicine. I may not have the length of service in the House of my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh or for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—the latter entered the House in 1970— but I have served as treasurer of that group during three Parliaments.
In that time, there has been a complete change in the approach to some complementary therapies. I want to suggest that the shortage of resources could be alleviated by looking afresh at some of the therapies that are available, and by thinking slightly differently about how they can be used.
When I entered the House in 1987, chiropractic and osteopathy were thought by many doctors to be pretty much off the wall. If they did not get the evil eye, patients who told their doctors that they had been to a chiropractor or osteopath would certainly receive a ticking off.
1276
That has changed. Osteopaths are now regulated by legislation. Passage of the relevant legislation covering osteopaths and chiropractors took place over two Parliaments, and I sat on both the Standing Committees scrutinising the proposals. Disciplines that were once regarded as suspect are now part of mainstream medicine, but there is great scope for that process to be taken further.
In that regard, publication of the Select Committee report, and of the report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on complementary and alternative medicine, has helped the Government tremendously. In addition, an early-day motion supporting that House of Lords report has been signed by nearly 160 hon. Members of various persuasions, some of whom are in the Chamber today.
As I said, I want to focus on resources. The report emphasises the problems of availability—of personnel, drugs, equipment, technicians and communications. Recommendation (c) talks of an "over-stretched service" and of the need for a "fast-track system". Recommendation (f) speaks of the need for an increase in the number of specialist surgeons, and recommendation (g) of "service problems in… delivery". Recommendation (h) talks about drugs "only available to some" and recommendation (i) talks of the need for additional funding for NICE-approved treatments. Recommendation (g) talks about the shortage of key personnel.
There are shortages of key personnel—don't we know it?—but there are other personnel who are not referred to by name in the report but who are available. Recommendation (m) is specifically about complementary and alternative medicine. It says:
We recommend that the Government seeks guidance from NICE on the cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies for cancer care to ensure consistency of provision across the NHS.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh that I differ from him slightly on that recommendation. The need to establish the cost-effectiveness of complementary or alternative medicine is not necessary in many instances. Many therapists offer their services for very little money and some are free. If we can find a way into that pool of available complementary therapists, we could obtain their services for little or nothing. We should not ignore that, because it is important.
As the Government try to tackle the problem of cancer, the additional resources available to them include about 50,000 complementary therapists—homeopaths, herbalists, phytotherapists and traditional Chinese medical practitioners. In addition—perhaps parallel to those therapies—there are about 50,000 healers who channel energy. I have had some experience of their work and seen them working with cancer patients. I know that some hon. Members may feel that the idea of someone making a difference by transmitting energy flow through their hands is off the wall—that is what some hon. Members thought about osteopathy in 1987. However, the use of healers will develop. More and more people are learning to heal and there will be a greater opportunity for its use in the health service.
Some years ago I had the great opportunity of travelling on a lecture tour with Dr. Rosie Daniel. Dr. Daniel ran the Bristol cancer health clinic. Many patients who could not be treated by conventional means or who had received conventional treatment but whose cases were not satisfactorily resolved would call on the clinic for help—

1277
I am sure that that still happens now. Complementary practitioners can often help those to whom doctors have been unable to offer a cure.
One of the ways in which the clinic helped cancer patients was to look at their diet. One of the ways of alleviating the problems of cancer patients is a greater insistence on the need for a carefully controlled diet. The Gerson diet is well known for offering relief to cancer patients. At clinics such as Bristol, a range of therapies are on offer. I hope that the Minister will respond soon to the Lords report and that we can move further towards an integrated health care system. It is to be hoped that it will not only be osteopathy and chiropractic that can come in from the cold, but we will find a much greater use of other disciplines, such as traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy and aromatherapy. I should like to focus on those three therapies.
I have some experience of traditional Chinese medicine. I have talked at length to representatives from Peking university who are pioneering their brand of traditional medicine in the United Kingdom. They believe that they can help cancer patients in two specific ways. I know that there are many distinguished doctors in the House and they can interrupt if they feel that I am misguiding hon. Members, but I do not think that I am. The first method is by using traditional herbs, which will boost the organs of the body, and the second is by using acupuncture. An experienced acupuncturist can dramatically increase the energy flow to different organs in the body. One aspect of Chinese medicine that I find fascinating is the way that internal organs are linked to different limbs. For example, the kidneys perhaps have some influence on bone repair, and energy can be increased through the kidney meridians. Traditional Chinese medicine has had and will continue to have a considerable success rate with cancer patients. I am suggesting not that it should be used as an alternative but that it could be used to complement other therapies.
Homeopathic remedies are also useful. I will not go into detail now because I am aware that time is short. I have just received a friendly note from a friendly Whip telling me to sit down and shut up. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that I do not need to read it because I know what it says. One does not need to be psychic when my hon. Friend is on the Bench. He has often helped me during my contributions, as all Lord Commissioners do. [Interruption.] Although my hon. Friend is not yet a Lord Commissioner, we look forward to the day when he will be, after we return to government.
Some of the complementary therapies that are classified by the Lords report as needing further research offer a lot to cancer patients. Aromatherapy can offer a great deal of relief. The use of simple oils can alleviate mood and have a beneficial effect, not least in preparing patients for operations.
Following the help from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I shall come towards the end of my remarks by saying that there is one other group of people who should be looked at with great care from the point of view of solving cancer problems. The healers or energy specialists—call them what you like—are trained to transfer, through their hands, energy of their own or from some other source. I have looked at healers at work in two prisons in Britain and seen how they can change the mood of dangerous prisoners. I have talked at length with
1278
healers about what they can do for cancer patients. They can provide relief for those who will not make it and perhaps extend their lives, and they can complement the work done by the mainstream profession, particularly after chemotherapy. They can change the mood and, apparently, increase energy levels.
There have been many trials on healing and there are always calls for more. The work of Matthew Manning was studied in great depth. Uri Geller, who is known for using energy to bend spoons, can also use energy to heal. There have been many reports showing that healing is an effective treatment. The Minister might want to take to heart the fact that many groups, including the National Federation of Spiritual Healers, do not charge at all. It is a free service and, when trying to square the circle of funding and resources for cancer care, I hope that the Minister will consider that. I hope that she will also bear it in mind when responding to the Lords report and in her winding-up speech today. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that, sadly, I will not be present for the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is again encouraging me to bring my speech to an end. He may have a word with me later in the Smoking Room—one never knows one's luck with a Whip. Complementary therapy has come a long way in 13 years. That which was right off the wall is now in mainstream use. There are many other disciplines that should be included in mainstream NHS provision, as many of them could help cancer patients. I have highlighted traditional Chinese medicine and the healing movement. I commend those practitioners to the House and hope that better use will be made of their services.
3.19 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: The report is concerned with the rational approach to cancer therapy and research, and that is meat enough for one discussion.
I am very proud to be associated with the report. I think that it is probably one of the most important Select Committee reports produced this Session—if not the most important. That is not simply because of the efforts of the members of the Committee, but because of the gravity and emotional impact of the subject. It is an authoritative and comprehensive report and a great deal of credit for that should go to the special advisers who helped us with it, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. If the Government have the wisdom to accept all our recommendations, they, too, will owe the special advisers a debt of gratitude.
In the very brief time left, I will have to cherry pick. I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We feel very strongly about the importance of a national cancer research institute and the central importance of its role. Although the Government have accepted the notion of such an institute in principle, I do not think that they have quite taken on board the degree to which we see it as essential to get proper co-ordination into the cancer research effort in this country.
We have seen how such co-ordination works in different forms in other countries. It does not have to be a mighty bricks-and-mortar edifice—that is not what we have in mind. We are not seeking to replicate Bethesda. However, the United States, Canada and other countries

1279
have a co-ordinating mechanism—even if they do not call it a national cancer institute—and it pays enormous dividends. It shows, in the long term, in their cancer survival rates, and that is the acid test. We have truly world-class, leading-edge, basic research, yet we have some truly appalling cancer survival rates compared with our neighbours. That gap must be bridged.
We see the national cancer research institute as the lead organisation co-ordinating the whole effort and strategy. We also see it as disbursing the money. I suggest that the amount of money that the Medical Research Council currently disburses for cancer research should be given to the cancer institute. When we took evidence from the MRC, some of us could not help feeling that there was a certain lackadaisical quality in its approach to cancer. We felt that it did not have the commitment to cancer that is really needed.
That is why we come back to a national cancer Act. It would be a political gesture but it would focus the effort on cancer and bind every party in the House to that effort. We have seen the American example, where the grand old party and the Democrats are committed to fighting cancer through their National Cancer Act and have virtually outdone each other to make sure that there are adequate funds. We were very impressed. On our visit to Bethesda, the Government's budget increase for cancer research in America was being discussed. They were in the middle of a five-year programme to double their spending on cancer research. The increase that they were considering and explained to us dwarfed our entire national cancer research budget.
I am not suggesting that we can match American big bucks or even that we should. One thing that British scientists have shown they can do, because they have had to, is to make the most of very limited resources. We have a history of cost-effective research, but that does not mean that we should not put more resources into research. We need to do so urgently because of the decades of under-investment, and we have to do some very fast catching up.
In recent years we have been deprived of taking advantage of certain new research technologies such as gene chip technology because there has not been enough funding available, and that has disadvantaged leading British laboratories. That cannot be allowed to happen in future. We need a commitment not just to match the charities' level of funding, but to do it quickly. It is a matter or urgency, as are other things. Our radiotherapy departments, for instance, have not had modern equipment for decades. Their equipment belongs to the stone age and that has a great impact on outcomes. So we need to act urgently.
We were very impressed, when we visited St. Mary's, to see the operation of a machine called a multi-slice CT scanner. That, in conjunction with therapeutic programmes, is fantastic. It can lead to realistic attempts to treat lung cancer and can revolutionise colon cancer therapy and detection. That involves a lot of such machines, and screening of at-risk groups can lead to a massive advance. The Government are interested in that technology but they still want to conduct research projects. Research has been done—it is all there, published in the literature. We must be prepared to use information that is in the literature, wherever it is.
1280
I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in agreeing with most of our report, but we want them to accept everything in the report because we think that it is right.
3.27 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: In the final few minutes available for Back-Bench contributions, I want to continue that theme. First, I refer to the computerised tomography scanner at St. Mary's hospital. These new machines are made in Britain by Marconi Medical Systems UK Ltd. and cost about £250,000. Marconi told us at St. Mary's that it was willing to help the Government to put those machines in place in the cancer centres.
At present, the machines are being used as diagnostic machines. By the time people walk into St. Mary's with lung cancer, for example, the cancer is far too advanced. The specialist at St. Mary's hospital asked to use the machines as screening instruments. The scanners scan a whole body, tip to toe, in about 15 minutes. Within another 15 minutes, the computer attached to the machine will give a three-dimensional picture of any organ in the body. It was absolutely fascinating for us to walk through the three sections of the colon or both lungs of a patient and observe whether they were clean of polyps and tumours, or observe the size of the cancer and where it was in the lung. Sometimes it blocked a whole lung, so the patient had only one lung. If only that could be done when tumours were small, they could be eliminated without the cancer putting out secondaries all over the body.
The other instrument that we saw in action was at the Royal Marsden hospital at Sutton. When radiotherapy is carried out on various parts of the body—on the neck and head, for example, or on colorectal cancer—healthy as well as cancerous tissue is damaged by the radiation. Irradiation of the neck can result in paralysis and if the rectum is irradiated, incontinence can result—that is not very nice for the patient.
At the Royal Marsden, we saw three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in action; that allows the operator to shape the zone of radiation to the shape of the tumour. In Finland, we saw intensity-modulated radiotherapy—IMRT—which allows the operator to vary the intensity of the radiation. Those techniques combined can hit the tumour with extremely high doses while avoiding the surrounding tissue. That is extremely useful in killing cancerous tissue.
I make two pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, please put in the money necessary to spread that new instrumentation across the cancer networks. Secondly, it is important that staff be adequately trained; radiotherapists will need retraining and there is in any case a shortage of radiotherapists. We need to train many more people to handle those state-of-the-art machines.
3.31 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I begin by congratulating the Select Committee on Science and Technology and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), on this excellent report and on the obviously exhaustive inquiries they carried out during its production. It is a testimony to them not only that Members of the House will congratulate them on their work, but that the perhaps far

1281
more knowledgeable body of people with cancer research expertise has congratulated them. The Committee has done a great service to the House.
I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have spoken during the debate. All but two of them were members of the Committee and had thus contributed to its work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who gave us a slightly different perspective on some of the issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who eloquently described the centre of excellence at Mount Vernon hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh gave a characteristically understated description of the reasons that had driven the Committee to begin its investigation into cancer and cancer research. In fact, the figures produced by the Committee and published in its report are quite horrifying. It is not merely that we do not perform well according to European standards on cancer survival rates; we are at the bottom of the league table, among the newly democratising east European countries such as Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia—way behind our north European neighbours. That clearly shows that something is wrong and that something must be done.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that he wanted Government spending on cancer research to match that of the voluntary sector. He may have missed the Prime Minister's announcement on 26 September 2000 when the right hon. Gentleman made precisely that pledge; it seemed extremely grandiose at the time. However, the Prime Minister pledged money that the Government had already announced. It amounted to additional spending of only £24 million.
In the context of public spending, Government spending on cancer research is relatively small. I repeat to the Under—Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the concern that I expressed during an intervention on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)—that a significant proportion of Government-funded spending on cancer research is allocated to NHS hospitals, where the distinction between research spending and the financing of general overheads and clinical service support is not always clear. We all realise that hospitals are under tremendous pressure, especially as they try to deliver the Government's newer targets for cancer treatments and the times for such treatments. Will the Minister tell us what she intends to do to ensure that the money allocated to hospitals for research is used for that purpose and not for the equally worthy and valuable, but quite different, purpose of day-to-day treatment of patients?
The report makes 48 recommendations. I shall address a few of them specifically and ask the Minister some questions. Recommendation (d) deals with screening. The Opposition have pledged that, if prostate screening has been demonstrated to be effective, we shall introduce it when we are in government. Can the Minister give the House a similar assurance? The Government response to the Committee report notes only that the Medical Research Council is considering a proposal for a prostate screening trial.
We are delighted that the Government are moving towards considering overall time scales—from initial referral to commencement of treatment—as the relevant milestone. I only wish that they would acknowledge that
1282
such time scales are relevant for patients throughout the NHS. The amount of time patients spend on waiting lists is not the key issue if they have already waited a year to get on to a list.
We are slightly surprised, however, that the Government persisted with their two-week target for urgent GP referrals to initial specialist consultation. Those who know much more than I do about such matters question the wisdom of that target. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Barry Jackson, said that
clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer … breast surgeons are coping, just, at the moment, but it could be at the expense of other things.
Dr. Joan Austoker, of the Cancer Research Campaign, said that
the two week rule has completely backfired. It has led to a waste of resources, and a waste of specialists time.
Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme, said:
New guidelines for urgent referral of patients with cancer are a waste of energy.
I entirely understand that the two-week limit is intended to reassure patients who have been told by their GP that they may have cancer. In fact, 90 per cent. of breast cancer referrals will be found to be clear of the disease. As physical resources are still scarce—although, hopefully, that will ease over time—does that limit really make the best use of them? Would they not be better directed towards speeding up the time between diagnosis and treatment rather then being focused at the front end of the process? I realise that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will review the guidelines in 2002–03, but the problem exists now. Hopefully, by 2002–03 the additional resources will be starting to relieve the problem somewhat.
Are initial figures available to show whether the two-week target for GP referral to consultation is successful for all cancers? Will the Minister do anything about the problem that beset the early stages of the breast cancer pledge? That guarantee applied only to referrals received by the hospital within 24 hours of being made by the GP; hospitals were counted only on their performance in dealing with that particular group of referrals—not on all referrals. From the point of the view of patients, that is quite unacceptable.
Who is actually seen when a referral is made? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that early referral helps, but much more to suggest that the degree of specialisation of the person who sees the patient has a far greater influence on the outcome. In the summer, I asked the Minister a series of questions—ending with one on 27 July, to which I received no answer—about the specialism of consultants who saw patients referred within two weeks. At the time, the Minister told me that it was not possible to distinguish consultants' specialisations from the data. Will she take steps to ensure that we begin to measure and record those specialisations? All the evidence shows that they are a more important determinant of a successful outcome than a simple time scale.
Will the Minister also acknowledge that, as long as initiatives such as the waiting list initiative distort clinical priorities in the national health service, cancer patients, along with all other patients, will suffer? I have in my

1283
hand a letter from the consultant urologist at my local hospital to the chief executive, copied to me, which refers to a particular case. He says:
You were fully aware of three other patients of mine who were admitted for major cancer surgery, only
for the surgery
to be cancelled three times, each within 30 minutes of being called to the theatre. These are but three examples of a long-standing problem. One year ago, I was put under pressure by the management to treat non-urgent, long-waiting patients instead of patients with cancer.
That is happening in hospitals throughout the country. Can the Minister do something about that problem by restoring proper clinical priorities to the national health service to ensure that patients who need cancer treatment do not get pushed out of the queue in order to achieve the Government's political waiting list targets?
The Committee made several recommendations in relation to prescribing and the way that NICE operates. It specifically identified a concern that the mere fact that NICE recommended that a drug be made available did not ensure that it would be made available, and that patients in the United Kingdom were being seriously disadvantaged by the low levels of use of the latest cancer drugs. The Government's response was simply that trusts
will be expected … to promote the rapid uptake of NICE's guidance,
but Cancer Bacup reports that more than 20 per cent. of health authorities are still not following national guidance for the drug treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. What will the Minister do to ensure that, once NICE has approved a drug as appropriate for a certain class of treatment, health authorities make that drug available?
I am not bashing health authorities; we know that some of them labour under very serious financial pressures and have deficits to pay off. However, will the Minister consider the solution that the Opposition propose: an exceptional medicines fund, which would take the funding of those expensive but efficacious medicines out of the local health authority budget? Patients throughout the country may then be assured of equality of treatment in the knowledge that a national fund is available to support treatment with proven, efficacious drugs that have been through the rigorous NICE appraisal procedure.
I shall use the last couple of minutes available to talk about the problem of data transfer and the cancer registries, which several hon. Members mentioned. I hope that the Minister can tell us specifically what solution the Government propose. It was not clear yesterday, on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, whether clause 59, on patient information, is intended to be the basis of the solution.
Will the Minister confirm, for the benefit of some of her hon. Friends who may not have heard this remark, that Lord Falconer advised the other place that the Data Protection Act 1998 presents no impediment to the transmission of data to the cancer registries, and that it is the GMC's interpretation of that Act that has proved to be the problem? I understand the difficulty of obtaining patient consent at a particularly sensitive moment—the moment of diagnosis—but I am sure that it will be interesting for the House to know whether the Minister believes that, to overcome this problem, some form of
1284
statutory compulsion in relation to the registration of cancer will be required. It would also help if the Minister could tell the House what arrangements she will propose—I understand that there was a commitment to do so in the new year—to finance and fund cancer registries. That will give some flesh to the statement in the national cancer plan, which says:
The public health benefits depend on the completeness of cancer registration in the population. The government is determined to secure the future of cancer registration and will take the necessary action to ensure this.
When we deal with something as important as cancer registries and the part that they play in the battle against cancer, it is vital that we do not allow the issue of transmission of confidential patient data to become muddied with other issues. Is the Minister aware that, during the recent Court of Appeal hearing in which the Department of Health initially sought to overturn the decision of the courts that pharmacists and doctors could supply anonymised patient data to drug companies, counsel for the Department admitted openly in court that the Department of Health's motive for wishing to deny the freedom to pass such Information, suitably anonymised, to drug companies was that it believed that it would increase the drugs bill? Will the Minister look into that question? I can assure her that, whereas we all want to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the cancer registries and the work that they do are protected, when the Government's own counsel openly admits that ulterior motives are in play, We become a little more sceptical.
I have asked plenty of questions and many issues have been raised today. We were already aware of a number of those, but we owe a debt to the Committee for having collated those questions and put them together clearly and coherently. I look forward to the Minister's speech and hope that she can answer many of the questions that have been posed.
3.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I join hon. Members in congratulating members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on their report into cancer research, and on today's debate. The report and the debate have been far-reaching on the subject of cancer, which is extremely important because lives are at stake. I congratulate the hon Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on his able and expert chairmanship of the Committee in complex scientific and medical territory, and on producing a well-informed and thoughtful report.
The Committee's deliberations, hearings and conclusions have contributed to the Government's developing work on cancer, particularly in the run-up to the publication of the national cancer plan. I believe that today's debate will also make a contribution, as it is an area where a considerable amount of work is under way.
The national cancer plan was published after the report and, for the first, time drew together as part of a single strategy work on prevention, screening, treatment, support for patients, palliative care and research. It is the first time that this country has had a national overarching strategy on cancer. We should not underestimate the significance of that because, although it does not sound like rocket science to draw together all those strands, it is fundamentally important, to improve treatment, care and

1285
research across the board, that we co-ordinate properly our work on cancer, which is one of Britain's biggest killers.
It is in the context of the national cancer plan that I want to reply to many of the issues raised today. The Committee's report makes it clear that we face a serious problem. Each year, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 120,000 die of it.
This country's strengths include research, children's cancers, rapidly developing prevention services such as smoking cessation, national health service screening programmes and palliative care, particularly as a result of the tradition of the hospice movement and the voluntary sector. However, the Committee and the House are right that some aspects give cause for concern. Survival rates for some cancers do not match those in the rest of Europe. We have huge inequalities in who gets cancer and who survives it. Those on low incomes are more likely to get cancer, and they are also less likely to survive it. The quality of care varies across the country and there is a long legacy of underinvestment in cancer infrastructure, equipment and staffing, which reduces the quality of care.
The national cancer plan aims to produce a turnaround—to build on progress that has been made so far but to go further and deliver the fastest improving cancer services in Europe, and to push our survival rates up to match the best in Europe.
We have already made considerable progress in cutting waiting times, in new international standards, new investment, new equipment and in bringing new services on stream, but it is absolutely right, and the Committee is right to say so, that we have much to do.
We have set out in the national cancer plan proposals for extra spending of £570 million on cancer each year by 2003, expanding capacity with 1,000 extra cancer specialists in the pipeline; new equipment; extra services, such as extending breast cancer screening; new prevention and palliative care services; new research programmes; reform of cancer collaboration to speed up care; and new national standards and guidelines to improve the way in which we provide services and raise quality, too. That is the greatest focus on cancer in the history of the NHS, and it provides a huge opportunity. Today's debate reflects the priority given to cancer in the House as well as by the public.
We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Rayleigh kicked off by referring to the importance of increasing investment and the importance of the National Cancer Research Institute. Concerns about the cancer registries were raised by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred to the importance of patient involvement and the geographical spread of research, and of ensuring that research takes place throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke in detail and with expertise about the work being done at Mount Vernon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has done much in the House to promote the debate on cancer, described articulately the need to improve cancer survival rates and to cut waiting times. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) referred to thy, importance of basic research and proper networks for research and cancer care.
1286
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) rightly referred to the excellent work under way in Birmingham, which I have seen for myself and applaud. She also raised concerns about the cancer registries, with which I shall deal later. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) spoke of the potential for complementary and alternative medicines in helping patients to deal with cancer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke in detail about the importance of the national cancer research institute and of further co-ordinating cancer research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to the need to spread new technology and to ensure that staff are properly trained to deal with it. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred in detail to a series of matters, including research on the cancer registries and treatment, to which I shall attempt to respond.
I shall deal first with research, as that formed the core of the Committee's report and has been referred to in detail today. Many forms of research are needed. Laboratory research helps us to understand the genetic and cellular changes. Genetics research is needed into who is at risk of cancer; epidemiological studies are required into the causes of cancer; and clinical trials are needed to find better ways of treating cancer.
This country makes a major contribution to all aspects of cancer research. We have world-renowned scientists, doctors and many others, working in centres of excellence funded by the Government, the cancer research charities and the pharmaceutical industry. Although we should be proud of the excellence in place across the country, three major concerns about cancer research emerge from the Committee's report: first, the research needs greater co-ordination and strategic direction, given the many different organisations involved; secondly, improved research infrastructure is needed; and, thirdly, there are concerns about the level of investment. I shall deal with each of those concerns in turn.
We very much recognise the need for greater co-ordination. The initial step in tackling that was the setting up of the Cancer Research Funders Forum in 1999. The forum includes the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Ludwig Institute and Marie Curie Cancer Care. It has been a considerable success in starting better to co-ordinate cancer research across the country. It has done a lot of work in developing the national cancer research network. We asked it to conduct a review not only of the gaps in prostate cancer research, but of the direction that should be taken in the key areas and the overall strategy for prostate cancer research.
That is an example of the potential to take forward research through the Cancer Research Funders Forum, but the Committee was absolutely right to say that we need to go further. That is why we set out in the national cancer plan proposals to create the national cancer research institute, picking up the Committee's work on the subject. Like the Committee and most of the charities and researchers, we agree that a single bricks-and-mortar facility would not be the best way to make progress in co-ordinating cancer research. However, it will be an organisation in its own right, with staff and the weight to

1287
work consensually with all the different organisations to develop an over-arching strategy and to ensure that all cancer research is properly co-ordinated.
The Government would disagree with the Committee in that all Government funding needs to flow through that organisation. We believe that the institute can co-ordinate the funding from the different organisations and that there are advantages—for example, for the Medical Research Council—in linking basic cancer research with other forms of basic research. For example, the human genome project will be beneficial to cancer research as well as having considerable benefits for other research.
The second concern that has been raised about research is the importance of improving the infrastructure. We strongly believe that we need to improve the clinical research infrastructure in this country. That is why we have announced the creation of a national cancer research network. Two groups will work together to achieve the overall aims. A consortium involving the universities of Leeds and York and the MRC clinical trial unit will concentrate on operating a network for controlled trials.
Professor David Kerr will lead the NHS contribution to early studies translating advances in basic science into promising new treatments for cancer through a network of centres. That research network will be integrated into, and work closely with, the National Cancer Research Institute. That approach has been broadly welcomed by the charities and represents a huge step forward, and we are putting an extra £20 million into it.
We strongly agree on the need to boost investment. That is why we are boosting the investment through the science budget by an average of 7 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. It is also why we are increasing the money specifically for cancer research. In 1995–96, £50 million was spent on directly commissioned cancer research from the Department of Health and the MRC. That spending increased to £73 million in 1998–99, before the plan, and it will be £105 million by 2002–03, doubling the direct investment since the election. Of course, as we set out in the plan, we are increasing the overall Government funding to match voluntary sector funding.
I shall briefly deal with the cancer registries. Clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill includes a regulation-making power, which will allow the Secretary
1288
of State to require information to be passed on for important purposes. That will provide a legislative solution to the problem of the cancer registries. It is important, however, that the cancer registries also recognise issues of patient confidentiality. That is why work is under way to consider the use of anonymised data and to develop technical solutions to the problems of linking records, which may help us to find alternative ways to deal with patient confidentiality. It is certainly true that clause 59 will provide a legislative solution, and there will be time to discuss that in detail in Committee.
Let me deal briefly with the other treatment and care issues that have been raised. We set new targets for waiting times across the board, not simply those to see a specialist, but those for diagnosis and treatment. Those targets are coming into place this year. There is a one-month target for the wait between diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge remains so opposed to the two-week target for the wait to see a consultant, does he plan to state in the Conservative manifesto that he would abolish it?
Mr. Hammond rose—
Yvette Cooper: I apologise for asking that question so late in the debate, but the hon. Gentleman needs to answer before the election, because that target provides patients with a lot of reassurance.
We are also providing investment to increase the number of oncologists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said. There will be an extra 1,000 new consultant posts, including hundreds of extra oncologists. However, our proposals are about not just extra investment, but reform involving the work of the cancer collaboratives, NICE and the new national cancer standards.
A huge amount of work is going on to improve cancer care in this country. It will take time; we must be realistic about that. It is about extra investment, but also about reforming the way we proceed—
It being Four o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
As amended, considered.
4 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, but you will understand why when I explain it.
I have just picked up the statement from the promoters in support of the consideration of the Bill, as amended. This is the second statement provided to the House about the Bill. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider what procedures should exist with regard to these statements, on the following grounds? The statement has been issued, but it was not possible to challenge it prior to its circulation to all hon. Members, so Members could not refute some of the information within it which I believe to be inaccurate and may well have influenced Members' decision whether to attend and participate today. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, examine the procedures whereby these statements are issued to hon. Members via the Vote Office, so using the offices of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a question of order for the Chair. Information has been supplied and, as the House knows, sometimes, from even more eminent sources, material is provided at short notice.
Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is not for any Member or for the House to impede the circulation of information to Members from whatever source. However, this statement has been provided to Members with a copy of the Bill via the Vote Office, in other words using the resources of this House, which, I believe, are provided for the facility of Members. If so, there must be a mechanism whereby the information contained in a statement can be challenged by other Members. It may be that a promoter should be required to give notice to interested Members in advance of a statement's circulation so that they can contradict elements within it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. We have a procedure for private Bills and the promoter can deposit material in the House. If the material is in question or debatable, the next three hours have been set aside for such debates to take place. There is no further point of order on that matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the ruling that you have just made, that there is no further point of order about the promoter's statement, is it not incumbent on the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) at least to start the debate with an explanation of the derivation of the statement, the accuracy of the information contained in it and the thinking behind it? Should he not let us know at what level this has been discussed by the City of London Corporation? As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has just explained, the statement is given, in effect, an official seal of approval because it is circulated along with official
1290
House of Commons papers by the Vote Office. If there are serious inaccuracies in it—that could not happen in a statement from a Government Department because it would be challenged—why cannot such a statement be challenged in the case of a private Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I do not know what contribution the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) may wish to make to the debate. He has hardly had a chance as the first two Members to catch my eye have been the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). These are not matters for the Chair, but they may be matters for argument later.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the right hon. Gentleman now wish to avail himself of the opportunity of the start of the debate to make a statement on the information that has been circulated and be allowed to have questioning and discussion on it, would that not be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot change the private Bill procedure to meet a particular point. Information has been provided, but that has nothing to do with the Chair. The Chair's responsibility in these circumstances is to follow the order of business before us and that is what I now propose to do.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
  New Clause 2

    STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
    '(). Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
    "'the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Many of the arguments relating to the changes proposed to the Bill were well rehearsed in this Chamber a year ago by myself and others, so I will not detain the House by repeating them, other than where it is necessary to put matters in context or to raise new matters with which I have become acquainted during the intervening period.
    It has not escaped my notice that we have a different Minister on the Front Bench. I welcome the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes); no doubt she has done her homework and read the debates of a year ago. I regret that the Government have acquiesced in this repugnant situation, although I prevailed upon the Minister on the previous occasion. I am a man who always has great faith and perhaps today, with a new

    1291
    Minister and after 12 months' reflection, the Government may have changed their attitude to my amendments and generally to the Bill.
    Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the Bill is that we are now into the third year of its examination? The inconsistency of representation on the Government Front Bench has meant that at different times there has been inconsistency of attitude towards the details of the Bill. Does he agree that that has been a major problem?
    Mr. Mackinlay: That may well be. I find it deeply disappointing that a Labour Government support extending the franchise not on the basis of one person, one vote, but to property voters. I am proud that the Attlee Government and others did away with the university vote. The Wilson Government did away with the very thing that we are proposing, in Derry and Londonderry. Here we are acquiescing in it. I do not wish to delay the House and I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would address my remarks to the amendments. Nevertheless because there is a new Minister present it is right to have said that.
    The House will no doubt divide upon this. Although it is a charade and fiction that the Government are neutral on private Bills, we shall see whether every Minister present will support the City of London and the promoters of the Bill. No doubt they will prevail on others to join them in the Lobby and I deeply regret that.
    A year ago I discovered the subject matter of my new clause while examining the Bill. I was instinctively opposed to the Bill, so scratched its surface and found that it was flawed in terms of our commitment to human rights. Either the Bill should be amended to meet our commitments under the human rights legislation or it should be rejected. If the Bill is passed, it must be improved in the way in which I have outlined in the new clause.
    This is a classic example of where, rarely in this place, we can examine legislation in detail, albeit on the Floor of the House. I hope that I might persuade the few who are present in the Chamber of my case. I know from informal discussions that I have had with Ministers and Officers of the House that the point that I outlined last January is valid.
    When we pass what are known as Government Bills, each one has on it a declaration headed "European Convention on Human Rights". For example, the Armed Forces Bill has printed on it:
    Mr. Secretary Hoon has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    In my view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
    We do that for Government Bills, but not for so-called private Bills, which have different Standing Orders for their consideration by this and the other House. That is clearly a deficiency. In Government circles—for example, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the office of the Leader of the House—it is accepted that this issue needs to be addressed. They have had considerable time in which to remedy it.
    1292
    One of the consequences of my noting this deficiency in the way in which private Bills are presented, and their deficiency in terms of human rights legislation, has been that I have applied the same objection to other private Bills, which have been frustrated. They are probably very good Bills, but I and other hon. Members have a duty as legislators to ensure that Bills that go through the House and reach the statute book are not flawed.
    The promoters of those other Bills had hoped that the Government would, through the usual channels, provide a remedy to the deficiency and allow their Bills to proceed. It was also hoped that the promoters of this Bill would recognise that they should either recommend that my new clause be adopted, or find some other way of ensuring that their Bill was compliant with our human rights obligations. We might hear from my hon. Friend the Minister whether any changes are to be proposed to deal with that matter.
    Mr. McDonnell: Just to clarify a point that I shall make at a later stage, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 clearly states that the Minister needs to make a statement with regard to the Act. That is not just a statement about compliance. A statement is also needed if the legislation does not comply, but the Minister wishes the House to proceed with it. That is the key issue. Information must be provided to the House either way—whether the Bill complies or not—which then becomes available as part of the consideration of the debate. That is not required for private Bills. The Act provides an informative power.
    Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend anticipates me to some extent. I have always felt that this Bill would not pass the litmus test of lining it up against our human rights legislation. I shall give my reasons for that. In the protocol to the convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as amended by protocol No. 11, which is appended to the convention, article 3 is headed "Right to free elections". It states:
    The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
    This is not a subject to which I referred in the debate a year ago: it is a new point. Article 3 makes clear the obligation to hold free elections.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves his examination of the convention, will he confirm that at no point does it give the right to vote either to corporations or to the buildings that house them?
    Mr. Mackinlay: Of course it does not, because that would be alien to the concept of democracy that is implicit and explicit in all our European obligations and conventions. The promoters of the Bill dare not accept the amendment because they would find that the Bill did not comply. The Bill is anathema to all that we are committed to under the convent on and other international treaties and obligations. It would also be hypocritical of the United Kingdom, when I and other hon. Members are expected to go round the world preaching democracy and the principles of representation, to pass a Bill that takes us in the opposite direction.

    1293
    4.15 pm
    I want to concentrate on the statement in article 3 that the elections
    will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
    In my interpretation, the word "legislature" applies to the City of London Corporation. That is because a legislature can be construed, in this context, as any law-making body, including a subordinate law-making body. The Court of Common Council passes legislation in the form of byelaws and it controls the police force which issues summonses and fines. The court also has a quasi-judicial role in dealing with planning applications, and so on. Article 3 applies in this case and the Bill therefore contravenes article 3 of the protocol of attached to the European convention.
    I reiterate a point that I made in the debate a year ago. Although the Government are not the promoters of the Bill, they ultimately have a duty to protect and defend the veracity of the United Kingdom statute book. There is no such thing in law as a private Act. Any Bill that goes through this process and receives Royal Assent becomes an Act of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Before my hon. Friend moves away from Britain's role as an exemplar in these matters, will he tell us whether there is any great move in, say, Frankfurt or Paris to adopt this peculiar British model? The model that we are considering today is clearly perceived as superior, although I am unaware of its currently being imitated anywhere else in the world. Does my hon. Friend know of any great move in that direction? Has a cry gone up in the bourse of Paris for a similar form of masonic—in the sense that it relates to masonry—representation?
    Mr. Mackinlay: That is not my brief, because I am addressing myself specifically and precisely to the amendment. However, my answer to my hon. Friend is no.
    The Attorney-General, not the City of London Corporation, would have to defend the veracity of the statute book in terms of this Bill, were it to receive Royal Assent and become an Act. I notice that article 52 of section 3 of the convention states:
    On receipt of a request from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention.
    The high contracting party is not the City of London Corporation, but the United Kingdom. We should have to explain why this Bill, after it became an Act, was compliant. The Attorney-General—who, unfortunately, is not a Member of this House—would be straining to show that the Bill was compliant.
    I promised that I would not detain the House. There are sufficient anoraks in this place who will have read and absorbed last year's deliberations. I hope that the Minister has read them. She will remember that Ian Smith introduced similar legislation with regard to the franchise and the meritocracy in Rhodesia, and we found that repugnant. However, that is what the Government are proposing. They should reflect on and reconsider the matter.
    1294
    I am modern—
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Modern?
    Mr. Mackinlay: I really am modern. It is not just a label—the test is in the eating.
    It is deeply conservative, in every respect, to defend the existing franchise arrangements of the City of London Corporation and to compound that perversity in the Bill. I hope that the Minister wants to make a name for herself and shock us by leading us into the Division Lobby in favour of the new clause. Perhaps she will invite the promoters to pause and reflect on whether the Bill should proceed.
    Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend gave us an idea that discussions might have taken place elsewhere. I do not want to compromise the confidences that he has entered into, but will there be any shift on the matter in the near future with regard to private Bills?
    Mr. Mackinlay: I shall not betray confidences because there are none to betray. I detained the House on this matter a year ago and have had informal discussions with Ministers. As someone who is interested in the rubrics of this place, I have also talked to officials. The Human Rights Act 1998 means, for example, that Secretary of State Hoon puts his certificate on the Armed Forces Bill. However, everyone recognises that the Act is flawed and Parliament was foolish in not providing comparable arrangements for so-called private Bills.
    I have been frustrating the progress of other private Bills for a narrow reason, not because I believe that the motives behind them are repugnant—I have no reason to think that—but because the promoters have told me that they have been banging on the Government's door and received assurances that the matter would be remedied "over the summer." In addition, in response to parliamentary questions that I tabled, the Minister has said that the issue was being considered.
    The problem is not with me, but with the failure and lethargy of the system, and the slow way in which things crank along in Whitehall. That is why an amendment has not been proposed to our Standing Orders and/or discussions have not taken place with the Bill's promoters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is a delightful colleague, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he will not accept the new clause, other than the fact that he and the promoters know that the Bill would have to fall because it would not be human-rights compliant.
    Mr. Pound: While my hon. Friend is in such a henotic mood, will he allow me to imply a slight note of criticism of his use of the word "anoraks"?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to what we are discussing.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I think that it was taken in the spirit in which it was meant. Anoraks, train-spotters or people who stand outside Heathrow airport to watch planes—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to compound the felony.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    1295
    Some people are interested in the way in which Parliament is run, and they have turned up today. Some people who watch us on television are also enthusiastic about our proceedings. That was the parallel.
    I have finished. My case is made. I want to hear the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who speaks for the Bill's promoters, say whether he will accept the new clause, and if not, why not. I also look forward to hearing the Government justify their deeply conservative attitude to the Bill.
    Mr. McDonnell: I hope that the failure of Opposition Members to rise to speak means that they accept the principle of the matter.
    I should explain that I have just returned from visiting my family in Tanzania. I received a message a short time ago that my father-in-law has gone down with malaria, the symptoms of which are a cold, aching bones with the flu and the shakes. I feel a cold coming on and have aching bones, but I do not have the shakes. However, if I do get them, you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I might withdraw from the debate. [Interruption.] It is not contagious.
    Let me be clear about the new clause. Concern—almost anger—was expressed when we discussed the issue previously. I have raised the matter on, I think, eight separate occasions as points of order or in debate. The Human Rights Act should be acknowledged as the determinant of our practices in the House. That is why we debated it in November 1997. The discussion ensured that, by endorsing the Act, every aspect of our governance, in terms of legislation and administration, would be compliant with it; otherwise, we would seek the necessary derogations to ensure that we could justify, at least with our international partners, any variation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend finishes his point on derogations, is he aware of whether any such application was made during the negotiations either for establishing the European convention on human rights in the first place or, more recently, for introducing it to British law in respect of local government?
    Mr. McDonnell: I expected the promoters of the Bill at least to indicate that there might be a need, if the Bill is enacted, for a derogation to be sought in the future. Since the Human Rights Act has been implemented, the Government have made no attempt to seek a derogation under the convention in local government legislation, statutory instruments or administrative orders. That puts this legislative proposal in context.
    When we debated the Act, it was clear—I remember the ministerial statements—that we wanted to find a mechanism that would allow us to advise others in our society about human rights abuse and adherence to human rights measures, and to ensure that Parliament, as a legislative body, complies with it. That is how section 19 of the Act came about.
    4.30 pm
    Section 19 was debated, and the Government and others made the obvious point that when legislation comes
    1296
    before the House someone should make it clear that it is compliant. I remember that debate clearly, and it was pointed out that legislation might not be compliant for a number of justifiable reasons. There might be conflicts with individual national sovereignties or a conflict within the hierarchy of human tan rights. I believe that this is such an instance, which is why the new clause is so important. Section 19 was drafted in such a way as to enable a Minister to come to the House and say either, "The legislation is compliant," or "The legislation is not compliant, but we would like you to proceed with it and enact it for the following reasons."
    I have not been party to any private discussions or confidences, as hon. Friends may have been. At no stage during the debate or section 19 was the view expressed that not all legislation should be covered by the Human Rights Act. If that had been an issue at the time, specific reference would have been made to it in that debate, and the Act would have excluded individual elements of the legislative process. The issue was never raised in any of the debates or during any of the consultative processes. I shall give way to any Member or Minister who wants to point out any reference in a public debate or a consultative paper to the need for legislative exclusions from the Human Rights Act.
    At an early stage the possibility of a problem with private Bills was identified, for which I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). However, by that time the Human Rights Act had been passed and it would have been difficult to amend it or to introduce further such legislation, but that will have to happen. We have said that we will ensure that all our legislation and administrative practices are compliant with the convention rights. We have taken on responsibility for enforcing human rights, which means dealing with people who abuse those rights—through physical or administrative abuse —yet we have failed to ensure that all our own practices are compliant. Previous debates have highlighted that issue and I am deeply disappointed that the Government have made no proposals for private Bills. More specifically, I am disappointed that they have not taken action on this Bill to enable it to be amended so that it would comply with the Human Rights Act before it was enacted.
    Despite everything that my hon. Friend has said, I have problems with the new clause. Although I support its spirit, in practice it is faulty and I regret that I may have to vote against it. My arguments concern the importance of legislation being compliant. I have previously raised the question—I have not laboured the point—of Members' liability in failing to comply. I do not believe that we are covered by privilege in the case of human rights legislation, as the Pinochet case has made clear.
    We are now into the third year of proceedings on the Bill, and having raised these points for two and a half years I would like clear answers from the Minister or the sponsor. Why are private Bills, and this Bill in particular, different from other legislation? Why are they not covered by the Human Rights Act? A similar new clause was tabled at an earlier stage. The case for it was eloquently made, and it gave the Government a way forward. In some way, it would have made the Bill comply with the Human Rights Act just before its enactment or, at least, before its implementation.

    1297
    The case for that new clause was that section 19 of the Human Rights Act refers to a Minister being responsible for legislation and making a statement about its compliance, and in the earlier debate it was argued—these proceedings descend into farce at times—that no Minister is responsible for a private Bill. That is ludicrous because at every stage of the proceedings on the Bill, a Minister has led for the Government and advised the House on the Government's attitude to the Bill. That can be construed as a Minister being responsible for a Bill. If that is not the case, why are Ministers present during the debate at all?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising an interesting point, but it is completely outside the scope of the new clause before us, and I would be obliged if he returned to that subject.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the argument about human rights legislation is relevant because the Government's Law Officers are responsible for the passage—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to challenge my ruling.
    Mr. McDonnell: I do not seek to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to clarify why I am making this point. The new clause is important because it would mean that a Minister would become responsible for the Bill. It says:
    Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect
    that it is compliant with human rights legislation. There is a contradiction between the Government's attitude in the past and the appropriate practice I believe that there has been ministerial responsibility for private Bills, because the House has been advised by Ministers. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State would eventually have responsibility, if only in the narrow matter of advising on enactment.
    I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I abide by it, but I simply make the point that if we passed the new clause Ministers would have to be responsible for private Bills, and that would make them liable for their advice. The Secretary of State would be responsible for making a formal statement, but to whom would he make it? Where would he make it? What purpose would it serve? What responsibility would the House then have to act? Who, at that stage, would have any opportunity to do anything? Or is the advice to the Crown? Would the statement constitute advice to Her Majesty not to sign the Act because it was not compliant?
    Mr. Mackinlay: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and he has invited us to consider a scenario. If my new clause was agreed to, and if the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General or the Law Officers considered the Bill not to be consistent and compliant with our human rights legislation, that would be communicated to Parliament, presumably through a statement in the Bill, as with Government Bills. The high contracting party—the United Kingdom Government—would then have to use their payroll vote to defeat the Bill, should the promoters persist. That is the point: Her Majesty's Government would have to say where they stood.
    Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, although I agree with the principle that he has
    1298
    established—at some stage, a Minister would become responsible and, under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, make a statement—such a statement should have been made when the Bill was published. I shall come to that point later. A Minister would make a statement, but the House could not then consider the Bill and there would be no procedure whereby it could be republished, considered in Committee, amended and ratified. I am willing to be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any other Member on that.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Such a Bill would be defeated.
    Mr. McDonnell: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says that the Bill would be defeated. My view all along has been that the House should either amend it to make it workable or defeat it and throw the thing out. I still think that we have to try to make it workable and I am willing to accept compromises over the role of the City Corporation.
    Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman said that the City offered him a meeting. Has he taken up that offer?
    Mr. McDonnell: That is a difficult question.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: It is a straightforward question.
    Mr. McDonnell: I cannot tell hon. Members why it is a difficult question because it is a matter for advice. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I met the City Corporation to discuss an appropriate amendment, but I do not want to take the discussion beyond the new clause.
    Mr. Mackinlay: We should consider the point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), my way. I would not discuss those matters outside the House with the promoters, other than to make clear what I said a year ago. This year, however, I was not invited to the Lord Mayor's show.
    Mr. McDonnell: We have all been regularly invited to the Lord Mayor's show. However, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, I should confirm to my hon. Friend that I met the City Corporation to consider an appropriate compromise amendment. At that stage, it was not acceptable to me. I was extremely concerned about elements of the discussion, but I shall deal with that elsewhere and perhaps in private.
    I support the principle in the new clause, but my main argument concerns process. The Secretary of State's responsibility would be established, but there would be no procedure to enable the Bill to be considered on the Floor of the House. I am willing to take advice on that at any stage. I say to the promoters that I would support such a new clause if they made proposals that would enable us to undertake such consideration.
    I move on to the other arguments, one of which I want to place on the record. The debate is intensely frustrating because the matter could have been resolved so long ago. The Minister argued that the Bill is a private Bill and therefore not subject to consideration by the House in

    1299
    respect of the Human Rights Act. That is ludicrous. The Bill is printed under the auspices of the House and is being considered by the House.
    Mr. Mackinlay indicated dissent.
    Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend shakes his head. The printing may have been paid for, but the Bill is printed on House of Commons paper and under the auspices of the regulations of the House. It is being considered in the Chamber. It may be a private Bill, but as soon as it becomes a matter for debate it is our Bill. That point was made earlier, but not sufficiently clearly. We have ownership of the Bill. It is no longer the City of London Corporation's Bill, but ours. We debate it here. Should we enact it, it would become legislation signed up to by the House. Therefore, it is ludicrous to say that it is nothing to do with us, but is some private matter to which the human rights convention cannot apply.
    4.45 pm
    It was also argued that, to comply with the principle of the new clause, the private promoter could make a statement guaranteeing or assuring the House that the Bill is compliant. During a previous debate, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that the City Corporation had taken advice and considered the Bill to be compliant. He also assured the House that, because the Attorney-General had not made a statement, the Bill was compliant. I am afraid that the tacit consent of the Attorney-General is not good enough. As far as I am concerned, a statement has to be made. It is noticeable that that legal advice has not been published. During the previous debate, which informs this debate, I made the specific point that any legal advice should be published in order to stand up.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded us of that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) can clarify the point. During our debate a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the corporation had taken legal advice and that the Bill was compliant. We pressed him on the nature of that advice. Will he publish it, as my hon. Friend asks, and was it the advice of counsel? I think that it was the advice of the corporation's jobbing solicitor. I have great respect for that good person, but his advice is not exactly that of counsel.
    Mr. McDonnell: I shall make no reference to jobbing solicitors, but let me say that I did not make the point about publication to challenge in any way the veracity, honesty or integrity of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—far from it. Under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, a written statement—not just a statement to the House—must be made and must
    be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
    We asked for the promoters' statement to be put in writing to enable us, in a considered fashion, to take our time and receive advice on it. In my view, a ministerial statement, a signature and a sentence in a Bill is inadequate. That happens for other Bills, but the arguments should be made and the justifications set out.
    1300
    The promoters made it clear that they had taken legal advice. My understanding was that it was detailed and that we could consider it closely and, if necessary, hold discussions with them. That takes me to the other point about meeting the corporation. If that advice had been published, I would have been happy to meet it to consider the details and, if necessary, lose the argument. However, it has never been published. That is why I believe that it is not acceptable to allow the individual promoter to be responsible for publishing the statement on compliance. Such a statement should be detailed.
    The argument about the statement itself is that a Minister makes a statement about compliance and is then accountable to the House for the office that he or she holds and the advice that he or she then receives from the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor or whoever. Not agreeing to the new clause and leaving it to the promoters to say yea or nay on compliance may be acceptable to the consciences of some of us and may be perfectly practical.
    Mr. Corbyn: If the Bill goes through in its current form, with an enormous unresolved question about compliance with the convention, at what point, in my hon. Friend's view, will it be in conflict with our Standing Orders?
    Mr. McDonnell: Given the complexity of the Standing Orders of the House, I do not completely understand what point we have reached in the procedure. If the Bill is enacted and its legality in relation to the European convention on human rights is challenged, who will contest the challenge? Obviously, it must be the United Kingdom Government, even though the Minister never accepted responsibility for the Bill. What would our role be at that point? We would have abided by our Standing Orders, followed our existing procedure and complied with the human rights legislation that we had enacted, but we would have erred in the result.
    We produce a result in legislation that is not compliant with human rights legislation because we are hidebound by our own Standing Orders, and the Government will not shift and will not amend human rights legislation to apply to private Acts. Although the new clause is ingenious, it still does not resolve the situation concerning the responsibilities of the House.
    I return to the matter of accountability, to make it clear why I consider it so important. The promoters may well make a statement on compliance, but they are not in the House. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster may be their advocate on earth, but he is not formally the promoter of the Bill. I am open to advice on the matter, but the promoters are not accountable to the House for the Bill, and are not accountable for the advice that they provide. Only a Secretary of State advised by the Government legal officers can be responsible. That is why the new clause is key.
    Mr. Corbyn: In the case of normal Government Bills, the speech made by the Minister promoting the Bill on Second Reading can be quoted in a court of law, as my hon. Friend knows. If a case were taken through the British courts and ultimately the European Court of Human Rights against the City of London Corporation because of its failure to comply with the European

    1301
    convention on human rights, it is unclear who would be quoted as the authentic voice of Parliament's wishes in the matter.
    Mr. McDonnell: We are getting ourselves into a state of total confusion about responsibilities. The matter could easily be resolved by the new clause, slightly amended, but it is too late in the game for that. We may have to return to it on another day.
    The entire process has been frustrating. I have raised the matter eight times on a point of order, so there has been time to address it. It was not for the Chair, but for the Government, to undertake that.
    The other argument advanced was that compliance with human rights legislation did not seem particularly important in the case of this Bill. At one point—I will defer to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is present—the statement was made that the human rights aspect of the Bill was not considered by the Committee because that was not a matter raised for the Committee. However, as I demonstrated in previous debates, the issue of compliance was part of a petition, so it is relevant to the residents of the City of London, who raised it in their petition to the Committee.
    I am concerned that the Committee, having received such a petition, at a time when the human rights legislation had just been enacted, was never advised that it should consider the matter. That did not reflect a lack of responsibility on the part of the Committee. I attended a number of its sittings, and at no stage was the Committee advised by the relevant officers.
    Who was there to advise the Committee? The only people who seemed to take an interest were the promoters. We are told that there was no Minister responsible, so the Committee worked in the dark. If a petition challenges the proposed legislation's compliance with the Human Rights Act, I would expect the Committee to consider the matter.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having had to dart out of the Chamber for a moment. I was at the Vote Office, because my attention was drawn to two Bills that have recently been deposited in another place, which are relevant. They are the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill and the National Australia Group Europe Bill. The first of those Bills, under the heading
    European Convention on Human Rights,
    states:
    In the view of Barclays Bank PLC the provisions of the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
    The second Bill goes further. Again, under the heading
    European Convention on Human Rights,
    the Bill states:
    Jane L. Shirran, Senior General Counsel to National Australia Group Europe Limited, the promoter of the Bill, has made the following statement on behalf of the company:
    In my view, the provisions of the National Australia Group Europe Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
    I intervene for two reasons. First, those examples show that promoters are making such statements—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister knew that—and, secondly, they emphasise why the promoters of this Bill should do so.
    Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that I had intended to raise later. In
    1302
    virtually every other sphere of operation of private legislation—private Members' Bills or those of private promoters—we adhere voluntarily to section 19 of the Human Rights Act, but the promoters of the present Bill have not done so. That strengthens the argument for the new clause.
    If voluntary approaches to compliance with section 19 are not made in a form that is open to examination—that is, in the Bill as published—which allows dialogue after publication, there must be some force of legislation to ensure compliance. That is why the new clause, in principle, meets the objective of a longstop.
    I do not want to use cricket metaphors while you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the new clause contains a proposal for some form of longstop for legislation going through the net if the other promoters—Members or promoters outside the House—refuse to comply.
    That applies not just to the Bill under discussion, but much more widely. A Member whose name comes up in the ballot will choose the legislation that he wishes to promote, then seek a meeting with the Clerk of the House and the legal officers to see whether the legislation will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 because, in the spirit of the legislation that we endorsed in November 1998, section 19 should apply.
    It would be useful to have an undertaking from the promoters that they will publish such a statement. I should also like to see the legal argument that backs it up.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wantage has left the Chamber. When he chaired the Committee, he contested the assertion that the issue of human rights was a key issue. The matter was forcefully raised by Mr. Malcolm Matson in his petition. He argued very coherently that in his view the proposals effectively disfranchised a number of residents and would therefore not comply with human rights legislation. Mr. Matson continued:
    "Your Petitioner and his rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 95.]
    At that stage, the Committee should have sought a statement from the promoters on compliance with human rights. It failed to do that and failed to address the issue. There was then a debate on the Floor of the House and, again, all that we had was a oral statement from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
    5 pm
    I am concerned, as we are dealing not with minor legislation but an issue that goes to the heart of the Human Rights Act. The new clause, faulty though it is, is about the only the chance that we have to ensure that we abide by our human rights responsibilities. I shall not go through it in detail but, as hon. Members have said, article 3 of the European convention on human rights made it clear that there should be free and fair elections. How would individual Members debate, discuss and identify whether the Bill complies with legislation on free and fair elections?
    Obviously, we would do that as part of the process of debate, but we would also want to be informed by the Law Officers of the Government, and perhaps other specialists who deal in democratic procedures—especially

    1303
    in local government—whether or not the proposals in the Bill afford free and fair elections. In normal circumstances, I would expect that point to be addressed early in Committee, based on the advice both of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which, with the Home Office, is responsible for electoral arrangements, and of the Law Officers of the Government. At no stage in any discussion before the Bill was introduced was any advice offered on whether it would result in free and fair elections.
    There is therefore now a new clause that, as I said, will provide the longstop of having the Secretary of State at the end of the process—not during it—to say whether the Bill will result in free and fair elections. I have to say that, throughout the debate, the Government response to that proposal has been embarrassing and, at times, farcical. First, we were told that there were no powers in the legislation to ensure compliance with human rights legislation. We have tabled an amendment to enable those powers to be introduced, but still the Government cannot support it. We were told that section 19 of the Human Rights Act was a right, not a requirement on the Government to challenge interpretation of compliance in a private Bill. Fair enough: section 19 excludes private Bills. Again, in the past, the Minister tried to tell us that the Government would intervene as of right, not as a requirement.
    At no stage have we been told that the Government will intervene. We have not been told that the Government will look at the Bill and, if necessary, will intervene if they find that it does not comply with human rights legislation. We have never been given that assurance, although we have asked different Ministers and Law Officers for assurances that the Government should act, identify the problem and suggest the remedy. I do not understand what is so complex about assessing the Bill against the conditions of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, which we endorsed. If the new clause is not acceptable when, possibly, we debate the Bill further, that may give the Government an opportunity to introduce their own proposal.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now getting the very clear impression that the hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. I put him on warning; otherwise I shall apply Standing Order No. 42.
    Mr. McDonnell: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I am trying to argue that the new clause has been tabled because there has been a negation of the Government's duty to act in relation to compliance with human rights legislation. There is a duty to ensure that all legislation and, indeed all actions within the state, are compliant. That duty falls on the House and the Government as well as the promoters. Unless we accept the amendment, we shall be conspiring to make sure that we avoid our obligations under human rights legislation. It is interesting that, at various times, the Government have said that there should be a have-a-go morality: when we see a potential illegality, we should have a go. I am not arguing that the Government's Law Officers should wrestle the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the ground or anything like that. However, the Government should at least take the responsibility proposed in the
    1304
    amendment to ensure that, at some stage, they can intercede. At this point, I believe that there is also a duty on the House, which we cannot avoid.
    Finally, I agree with the amendment in principle, but I find it difficult to support it. The statement in the Bill is meant to assure Members that it complies with human rights legislation. If that assurance comes after the debate, but before enactment, the House will not have been informed and it will be too late to amend the Bill. The House could be led into illegality, and what would happen then? Would the Bill be enacted, and would we be liable? Would Royal Assent be an illegal act? I am not asking for the Queen to be banged up, or anything like that. However, we are reading ourselves into a situation where, even if we accept the amendment, we will have gone through a process that concludes with a Bill that is not compliant with human rights legislation.
    If the amendment is put to the vote, I do not think that I can support it. Again, I ask the Government at least to reconsider the principle of the matter and, before the end of the passage of the Bill—if it is enacted at all—introduce a practical proposal that ensures that the Bill and all private Bills, all private Members' Bills and all privately promoted legislation comply with the Human Rights Act; otherwise, we will be forced to redress the matter at a later date, possibly after the general election. Even if the amendment is carried, I still worry that we will not have acted reasonably. I want to put it on record that, at every stage of debate on the Bill, I have made it clear that it is an abuse of the Human Rights Act. I accept no responsibility for the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, if at any point in time, others are held liable, I will not be.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in our interesting debate. I was a little crestfallen at the lack of a wholehearted welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) earlier. He and I share a particular political interest, and we are both working hard on it in our respective positions. I have great regard for the work that he is doing. I know that his comments were not meant personally; none the less, he knows me well enough now to know that I would not come to the Dispatch Box unless I was on top of the issue. I am not sure whether that means that he will get the shift in position that he wants, and I hope that he accepts that.
    I am speaking earlier than I had intended because it is clear from listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that they are not aware of a Government statement made earlier today. It may be helpful if I inform all Members in the Chamber of the current position. Today, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council answered a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in which he asked what arrangements she intends to make to inform the House of the compatibility of private Bills with the European convention on human rights. I should like to give the House my right hon. Friend's answer in full:
    Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to Private Bills. However, like all legislation, any Act resulting from the passage of such a Bill can be judged in the courts, either in the UK or in Strasbourg, for its compatibility with the ECHR. In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked to

    1305
    undertake a full assessment of the compatibility of their proposals with the ECHR and to make a statement setting out their conclusion as to whether the Bill is compatible or not. A Minister in the Government department within whose policy responsibilities the subject matter of the Bill falls will make a formal statement saying that he believes that the promoters have undertaken a full assessment and that he does not (or, if necessary, that he does) see any need to dispute their conclusions.
    That does not, of course, mean that Ministers are accepting responsibility for private Bills, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. My hon. Friend's argument about that was spurious and flawed, as the Government are not accepting responsibility for private Bills.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome the news given by the Under-Secretary and am grateful for her kind words, which I reciprocate. The announcement is a major step forward and, to a large extent, I have been asking for such an announcement for the past 12 months. She rightly stressed that the arrangement was for the future and that only legislation deposited in either House in future would be dealt with in the manner described. In that spirit, it would be fair and, more important, prudent for the Government to discuss with the promoter of the Bill whether the arrangement could be applied now. It is the Bill before us that is contentious, so perhaps the test should be applied now, even though the current process is under way.
    Ms Hughes: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal with his point in a moment.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I echo the welcome given by the hon. Member for Thurrock to the written answer. I hope that it can be repeated in the House, so that more hon. Members will be aware of it. Many hon. Members of all parties have argued for the sort of change that it announced. However, I seek some clarification. Was the President of the Council speaking only about guidance that will bind members of the current Government, or will the Government seek to introduce the arrangement as legislation?
    Ms Hughes: I shall have to leave it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to give greater clarity on the detail of her statement and on how the arrangements will work. I have at my disposal only the text of her answer. I hope that both the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will understand that I cannot pre-empt the further details that my right hon. Friend may want to give.
    Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend is superb in dealing with her briefings and I understand her difficulty. We are discussing a major statement that was made at a late stage in the Bill's passage, so I understand her problems. However, I have a question that I should like her to take on board, although I do not expect her to respond today. When the Secretary of State or relevant Minister makes it clear that he or she has no dispute—that is the word that was used—with regard to the advice given by the promoter to the general public and the House, what element of liability for that advice will fall to the Government? Will the Government be taking
    1306
    responsibility for compliance in respect of such legislation? I do not expect an answer today, but at least to consider the point, so it can be addressed later.
    Ms Hughes: As I have made clear, the question of liability and compliance is ultimately for the courts. I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition that I cannot deal any further with that question today.
    I should like to proceed with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
    Mr. Davey: Before the Under-Secretary proceeds, will she answer another question about her previous comments? She told us that she was not sure whether the arrangements described in the written answer would be introduced in legislation. Will she ask the President of the Council whether she will make a full statement to House about the matter? I believe that it is of such substance that it is worthy to be the subject of such a statement.
    Ms Hughes: I am sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will be drawn to the comments made during today's debate. I shall undertake to ensure that she is aware of them.
    Hon. Members who have been present at the Bill's other stages will know that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) assured the House that it is the promoters' opinion that no contravention of the European convention on human rights arises from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council made it clear in her written answer that the requirement for a Minister to give a formal statement to the House in the light of the promoters' assessment applies only to Bills to be introduced in future.
    5.15 pm
    If, however, the promoter and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster wish to submit the assessment to me, I shall, in the spirit of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and of the Government's clear future direction on the matter, be happy to consider the assessment with a view to making a statement on Third Reading. The statement would deal with whether it had been properly carried out, in my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Subject to the views of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, that should not further delay today's business, which is to consider the amendments and to make more progress on the Bill.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome news about the future compatibility of private legislation. I imagine that such an arrangement must be introduced through a change in our Standing Orders. She seemed to say just now that she had received advice on the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and with primary legislation. She appeared to think that there was no variance in that respect. Will she confirm that impression, or have I misunderstood her words? I believe that there is a clear distinction between the right to independent, free and fair elections and the proposals in the Bill.
    Ms Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to put on record my hon. Friend's misunderstanding of my

    1307
    comments. I have received no such advice. I have read the Hansard record of previous debates on the Bill and the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as well as the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is present today.
    Mr. McDonnell: Again, I do not seek a response today, but I should like my point to be considered and dealt with in a further statement, perhaps on Third Reading. Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that any statement by the promoter on human rights compliance will be published, made public and made available for examination by all hon. Members? Of course, hon. Members may themselves want to seek legal opinions. If such an assurance cannot be given now, will my hon. Friend ensure that the matter is considered by the President of the Council?
    Ms Hughes: I am sure that that is part of the detail in respect of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will want to consider the need for further explanation in the House. I do not feel that I can go further. I have made the Government's position clear in relation to future private Bills. In the spirit of my right hon. Friend's answer, I have made an offer to the promoters; if they want to make their assessment available to me and to the Department, we will make a statement on Third Reading.
    Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are in the Chair, and are therefore responsible for protecting the rights and role of the House, I ask you to ensure that the statement made by the President of the Council in her answer is examined. I believe that a statement of such importance for the Bill should have been circulated previously, and made orally to the House, so that we could have taken it into account.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to determine how information is imparted to the House.
    Ms Hughes: My right hon. Friend has made the position on future Bills clear in the proper manner, in answer to a question asked by an hon. Member. That information was put in the public domain before the start of the debate. My reference to it today was not intended to be a statement and did make the information available for the first time. It has been in the public domain for some time today.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: The debate on human rights in relation to the Bill has already been the subject of a three-hour debate, almost a year ago, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said when the House divided on a new clause that he had tabled. I do not propose to repeat all that I said then in response, but I can provide the Official Report references. Given the level of interest that this issue has generated, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the actions taken by the promoters following last January's debate, and in response to the speech that the Minister has just made.
    1308
    As hon. Members would expect, the promoters reviewed the issue of human rights in the light of the debate a year ago. In addition, they referred the Bill, the text of the debate and a copy of the Home Office's guidance to Government Departments on the Human Rights Act 1998 to specialist leading counsel for an opinion. That opinion confirms that the Bill's provisions are compatible with the convention.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but I do not guarantee that I will answer the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what I am about to say.
    Mr. Brooke: That is why I put in that caveat.
    Mr. Corbyn: It is called getting one's rebuttal in first.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill has been referred to leading counsel, and that they have examined and considered the applicability of the Bill to the convention and the legislation. He has just made an important and significant statement. Would he undertake to publish that advice and to place it in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Brooke: I can answer that question. I have not made an important statement, and I referred to the City as having taken legal opinion in the debate a year ago as well. I shall respond to the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question in my speech.
    It is for Parliament to decide the procedural requirements for the disclosure of working papers. In respect of Government Bills, the requirement of section 19 of the 1998 Act is for a statement of compatibility. In her written reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock on last Session's Local Government Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions stated that the Government do not normally publish their legal advice. That has a certain resonance for the question that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) just asked me.
    The City would be hesitant to embark on a course of action that would take its approach out of line with that adopted for the mainstream of business brought before the House.
    Mr. McDonnell: Even though the legal advice by Government Officers, which supports ministerial statements, has not been published, when a Minister makes a statement there is confidence that the legal advice is based on relatively sound advice that has been generated over a period. However, the non-publication of legal advice by a private promoter of a Bill, whom we can have no knowledge edge of or confidence in, is in a different category. We can have no full understanding of the depth of that advice. It behoves the promoters to publish the advice that they have received openly and transparently.
    Mr. Brooke: I shall repeat what I said a moment ago. The normal provisions have been set out by the

    1309
    Government, and it is not for the Corporation of London to be involved in expanding the law of the land beyond where it currently reaches.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Was the advice given to the Corporation of London from counsel or was it obtained in-house—I do not mean that disrespectfully? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, during the long summer recess, the promoters of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill and the Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury PLC (Transfer) Bill approached me and begged me to let their Bill advance. They offered to provide counsel's opinion and to publish it. That is the point. Other promoters are quite willing to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has asked, unlike the promoters of this Bill.
    Mr. Brooke: On this occasion, as on a previous occasion, I use the words "leading counsel" to mean what they say. The City of London consulted leading counsel. In one of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, he referred to a common or garden local solicitor, which is somewhat derogatory to leading counsel, if I may say so. It is not for me to cast aspersions on other promoters of other Bills who have decided to be trailblazing and go beyond the requirements of the 1998 Act. That is for them. That was an act of generosity on their part, but it was voluntary, and in the process they were trailblazing.
    Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying no to the yes or no question that I put to him a few minutes ago. Will he explain to the House what on earth the Corporation of London wants to protect or hide by not publishing the advice it has been given on the human rights compatibility of this legislation? Anyone outside would find this legislation odd, if not peculiar, to put it at its politest. Why on earth will the corporation not publish the advice that it has received?
    Mr. Brooke: I have already said that the promoters will be happy to fall in with what becomes the convention, and I am sure will be happy to participate in the dialogue that the Minister is offering. The Bill was deposited—to go back to the words used in the statement—long before the Human Rights Act was on the statute book. When it was deposited there was no such obligation on the promoters, and everything that has been done since has been done in the spirit of the Act.
    I shall not prolong my speech by reiterating what I said at column 93 of Hansard on 24 January 2000 about the role of the Attorney-General in this process, which the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Thurrock will be perfectly well aware of because they took part in that debate. The Attorney-General did not choose to intervene in the Committee when suggestions were made that the Bill may not be compatible with the Human Rights Act. He assented, by silence, that it was compatible.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he be clear with the House? Is his
    1310
    advice that the Bill is totally in line with human rights legislation, or at variance with it, or are there questions surrounding it?
    Mr. Brooke: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical statement that leading counsel, having examined the Bill and the convention, said that it was fully compatible with the convention.
    I hope that the three hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for my position. I should emphasise that everything I have said up to this point was prepared prior to the Minister's announcement, of which I had no prior knowledge; nor, I suppose, did the corporation. We have therefore had no opportunity to consider the consequences of the Minister's statement, but I will draw her comments to the promoters' attention—they are within earshot of our debate—and ask them to take stock, in the light of today's news. It would be unreasonable of hon. Gentlemen to press me further on the next steps that may be taken, for the same reason as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was prepared to give the Minister the benefit of not answering any question on the spur of the moment. I say diffidently that the Minister had the advantage of knowing about the statement, which I did not.
    Mr. McDonnell: At the risk of being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not want to be, may I ask him whether, as the Member identified with the Bill—I shall put it no stronger than that—he will advise the corporation to comply with the procedure suggested by the Government, and if necessary go further and publish the legal opinion?
    Mr. Brooke: As the Member in charge of the Bill, I shall continue to advise the promoters on the state of play in Parliament, exactly as I have done throughout.
    The promoters have sought to replicate the requirements of section 19 so far as practicable by placing on record their considered opinion and that of leading counsel that the Bill complies with convention rights. Members will have seen on today's Order Paper the motion on Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. The promoter will of course co-operate fully with the Committee in any inquiries that it may wish to pursue relating to procedures for private business.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock, who added to what he said a year ago—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—alluded to article 3 of protocol 1 of the European declaration of human rights, which states:
    The High Contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
    The City's franchise is not in breach of that. Elections take place annually, and a secret ballot is in operation.
    5.30 pm
    If I am to be intellectually honest, I must say that the corporation might have been vulnerable in this regard before the changes to the alderman system. Aldermen were entitled to sit for life, but that is no longer the case, and the corporation is satisfied that the franchise reforms are wholly in keeping with the requirements of the convention.

    1311
    Article 14 of the declaration states:
    The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I may refer to the news that the Minister has given us later, but let me say this now.
    No doubt the Attorney-General and others will read the report of our deliberations in Hansard. Let me respond to what the right hon. Gentleman has said by pointing out that the legislation would be tested against European norms, and that European norms mean one person, one vote—unimpeded by a property franchise. That is where the legislation is flawed, and I think that the Attorney-General, or whoever else is involved, will note the new test announced by Ministers today.
    Mr. Brooke: As there appears to be no evidence of the corporation's discriminating against the various groups named in the declaration, it would appear that what opponents are getting at is the property qualification—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—and the award of additional votes to properties with high rateable values.
    It should be noted, however, that the entitlement is awarded to the company, and that any one individual will be allowed to vote only once. No extra power accrues to any one individual as a consequence of these reforms. Of course individuals will have the power to appoint voters, but the manner in which they do so will be governed by the Bill, which will ensure that votes are allocated so that the electorate reflects the work force of the company rather than individuals who can be trusted to vote in the way preferred by the owners. In any case, all City elections are conducted by secret ballot, and there would be no way for the company owner to check how his work force has voted.
    I have referred to the opinion of leading counsel on this matter. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that the promoters would not dare to accept the new clause, because the Bill would not meet the human rights obligations. That statement conflicts with the fact that the City obtained an opinion from leading counsel—whose credentials I have described to the hon. Gentleman—which confirmed that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. I stress that that was said by leading counsel, not a common-or-garden solicitor.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rights of voting for people in the City of London, may I make this point? He is talking, in effect, about people having a second vote. The vast majority will not be resident in the City of London. The equivalent does not apply to other people in the country. Somebody who lives in my constituency and works at Ford in Dagenham has no right to vote in local elections in Dagenham; that person can vote only in local elections where he or she lives. What provision in line with the convention allows superior participation for a certain number of people who happen to work in companies based in the City of London?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman absorbed my observation that no one would have more
    1312
    than one vote. The fact that the Corporation of London still has a business vote was determined by the Labour Government of 1969, which granted a particular status to the City when they abolished the business vote elsewhere.
    This Bill is not the only private measure in regard to which the question of compatibility with the Human Rights Act has been raised. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will recall having raised it in the last session, on Second Reading of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill. The promoters of that Bill provided an assurance through a statement by its sponsor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), on the Floor of the House, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington accepted, withdrawing his objection in the process. That assurance was not stated to have the backing of leading counsel's opinion.
    I simply observe that, given that the promoters have secured that backing there is even greater reason for hon. Members to take the same approach this time, and to accept the assurance that I have given.
    Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brooke: I will, because I quoted the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McDonnell: My reason for withdrawing my objection was based not just on an assurance, but on the fact that I had examined the Bill in detail myself, and had no doubts about compliance. Now, not only do I have doubts about compliance; I am certain that the Bill does not comply with human rights legislation. That is why I want written assurances that at least advice has been given to the corporation, and some written advice from the Government. Perhaps the new procedure will make that possible.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has one view; leading counsel has another. There is however still time for the practice that we are discussing to be pursued.
    I know the hon. Gentleman to be a pure-minded and open-minded man. When it is proved to him that this is compatible with human rights legislation, I am sure that he will accept that.
    I am aware that there is some discourtesy to the hon. Member for Thurrock, but I think we have covered the business encompassed by the proposal. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Will the Serjeant-at-Arms investigate the No Lobby? It has been 14 minutes since the start of the Division.
    The House having divided: Ayes 99, Noes 18.

    Division No. 49]

    [5.36 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Beggs, Roy

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bercow, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Blunt, Crispin

    Beard, Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    1313

    Brady, Graham

    Lansley, Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Burstow, Paul

    Letwin, Oliver

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Clappison, James

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Collins, Tim

    McNulty, Tony

    Colman, Tony

    MacShane, Denis

    Cotter, Brian

    Maples, John

    Cran, James

    Merron, Gillian

    Cranston, Ross

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dowd, Jim

    Page, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Paice, James

    Emery Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, Nigel

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Flight, Howard

    Prior, David

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Randall, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fowler Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Gale Roger

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Garnier, Edward

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Green, Damian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Greenway, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hammond, Philip

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Touhig, Don

    Heppell, John

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Walter, Robert

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Wilkinson, John

    Jenkins, Brian

    Willetts, David

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wilshire, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Khabra, Piara S

    Mr. Peter Bottomley and

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Mr. Divid Amess.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    McWalter, Tony

    Banks, Tony

    Pike, Peter L

    Barnes, Harry

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Connarty, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Stunell, Andrew

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McDonnell, John

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Mr. Stephen Pound.

    It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question had not been decided in the affirmative.
    Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the debate will now continue, would it be possible for the statement made by the Government earlier today by means of a parliamentary answer to be copied and circulated to all hon. Members engaged in the debate?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is unnecessary. The statement will be available in the Library.
    Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have been a victim of the closure motion had the Bill's sponsor been able to muster 100 people to vote, because I would then have been unable to reply to the debate. I am grateful to the House.
    The House's disinterest in this matter was reflected in the Division on the closure motion. Bearing in mind the fact that a coalition that included the Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman did not succeed in stopping my right to free speech, is it not time that the Bill's promoters got the message that there is no mandate for this legislation in the House?
    Madam. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that all hon. Members will have heard it. The debate will now continue.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased that the House has decided to allow the debate to continue, particularly as I was one of the two signatories to new clause 2 and amendment No. 11. The fact that I am now able to contribute to the debate leaves me a much happier Member than I was a few moments ago.
    Mr. McDonnell: Perhaps my hon. Friend would expand on why so few Members were willing to turn up to support the Bill, thus giving him an opportunity to continue the debate.
    Mr. Corbyn: I have had an interesting few minutes standing outside the No Lobby considering such matters. It seems to me that the Bill has run its course and run out of time. This is the third time this Parliament that we have discussed the Bill and, on the human rights issue alone, the sponsor is unable to convince the House of its compatibility with human rights legislation. That seems to me to send a clear message. If only 99 hon. Members can find their way into the Aye Lobby to vote for a closure motion when there is an all-party coalition in support of a Bill, that Bill has clearly run out of time and run out of supporters. I hope that the Bill's promoters will think about that and about the sense of promoting legislation about which many people have the deepest possible misgivings.
    The new clause and the amendment deal with the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and the legislation that has been passed by the House to enshrine it in United Kingdom law. I invite the House to think about that for a moment. We passed the Human Rights Act 1998 because we believe in the rights of people to enjoy free elections, to have independent access to judicial decisions and to enjoy their rights as citizens. Yet the House is proposing to pass legislation which, in effect, runs against the spirit of everything that we understand as free, fair and independent elections. It is promoting the idea of election by corporation, by big business, by buildings and, to some extent, by the persons who happen to live and work in those buildings.
    The sponsor of the Bill was questioned quite closely on this matter in his contribution: it seems strange that the Labour party, having for its entire existence campaigned against the business vote and the way in which the business men of yesteryear could vote at their home and place of business, is promoting that principle in the Bill.

    1315
    The promoters' statement says that considerably more people will be entitled to take part in elections in the City of London. That may be true, but the principle is fundamentally flawed and undermined—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing the debate on new clause 2. He is straying rather wide of that.
    Mr. Corbyn: I understand your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but new clause 2 is about the compatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by this Parliament. The convention clearly states that the principle of independent, free and fair elections based on the principle of one person, one vote, is to be the norm for legislative authorities throughout the contracting countries, of which this country is one. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that respect. It runs contrary to that principle by providing votes for people at a place of business, and for businesses themselves, rather than for those who are ordinarily resident in the area.
    Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend address what is at issue with regard to the new clause? Is he arguing that if the clause is not adopted and at no stage is there a statement by a Minister about compliance with the European convention on human rights, that will be taken as the Government's tacit support for the Bill? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has argued that the lack of a statement by the Attorney-General in Committee means that there is tacit support for the belief that this legislation does not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998.
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. We are considering a Bill which, to be fair to the promoter, was introduced before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by Parliament.
    Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it has been argued time and again that the Bill was introduced before the 1998 Act was enacted. It has been two years since that enactment; we are now into the third year of the legislation. At no stage has the Corporation of London given any indication that it would comply with section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend outspeeds me in thought in this matter, and I congratulate him. I know that he has doubts about the new clause. My point was that, at the time of the Bill's deposition, the 1998 Act had not been passed—it was not part of British law. It now is part of British law. My hon. Friend is right that there has been ample opportunity for the Bill's promoters to come up with a definitive statement. The Bill's sponsor gave an oral statement this evening but has unfortunately declined to publish the evidence on the basis of which he made that statement. Therefore, the debate is still on.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I take my hon. Friend's point, but at the time when the Bill was promoted we were signatories to the European convention on human rights. Although there may have been no formal legal
    1316
    obligation to have a certificate under the European convention, surely that issue should be addressed when considering important legislation of this nature.
    6 pm
    Mr. Corbyn: Absolutely. The matter must be addressed. This country has been a signatory to the convention from its inception, so the convention has been part of British law in the sense that British citizens have ultimately had the right to go to the European Court if they want to do so. The convention is now part of British law and all legislation must be compatible with it, as the Minister has confirmed today. The question is: why on earth are the promoters not prepared to publish that evidence? What is the Government's responsibility in the matter? In the event of citizens taking out an action against the City of London Corporation—because they believe, for example, that its electoral procedures are incompatible with European law, the case would ultimately end up in Strasbourg. What would be the position of the British Government then?
    Mr. McDonnell: May I take my hon. Friend back to his previous statement? He alleged that the City of London Corporation had not published the evidence on the basis of which an oral statement was made in the House to the effect that the Bill complies with the ECHR. The argument in the clause is extremely specific: the Government should make that statement. Under the new procedure suggested by the Government in their parliamentary answer, the onus is still on the promoters of the Bill to make the statement—a written statement. So far, we have been given only an oral statement, with no evidence to back it up. The Government's procedure would at least elicit a written statement; at some stage, I hope that the procedure will elicit the publication of the legal advice endorsing the statement.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The Minister made a series of important points in her speech. She pointed out that the rule that, in future, compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 has to apply to all Bills, including private Bills such as this, was an important and welcome step forward. My hon. Friend may recall that, when I intervened on the Minister, I had misunderstood her statement. I thought that she had said that the Government had examined the Bill, and that their Law Officers had okayed it in respect of human rights legislation. However, she specifically and categorically said that that was not the case, and that the Government had not necessarily endorsed the Bill as compatible with the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. It is therefore important that the House should reconsider the Bill's compatibility. As we continue our debate on new clause 2 and on amendment No. 11—
    Mr. McDonnell: I apologise for again referring to an earlier statement made by my hon. Friend, but we should not exaggerate the import of the Minister's statement. Of course, I welcome it but the written answer itself—which I have only just gratefully received from the Minister— states:
    In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked—
    there is no duty: promoters will be asked—
    to undertake a full assessment.

    1317
    A Minister will then make a statement. The promoters will be asked to make a statement; there seems to be no legal duty—unless the Minister wants to intervene on that point. Private Bills will continue to fall outside the procedure.
    Mr. Corbyn: I understand that point. However, in the Minister's defence, I imagine that she would reply that the Government could do no more than ask the promoters to provide a certificate of compatibility because at that stage Ministers would have no power to secure compliance. I believe that the procedures of the House will have to be changed to ensure compatibility with the convention. Those who have been Members of this place for longer than me may confirm this: it could not be done by ministerial request, because then is a separation of ministerial and parliamentary powers. Although I welcome the Minister's view and her intention, one would assume that the Government's support for a private Bill would be dependent on that request having been met. That is all that the Government would ha re the power to do; they would have no power to enforce the request or to require it as a duty—only to make it. It would be incumbent on the House to alter its own procedures in that matter.
    Mr. McDonnell: Before anyone is misled on this point, let us be clear about the fact that the Government are asking the promoter to comply. If the promoter does not comply, there is no power of enforcement—no action can be taken to prevent the promotion of legislation in the House; it would still be for the House to decide whether it went ahead. All that we shall receive is a statement from a Minister to the effect that the promoters have refused to adhere to the procedure; there is no duty—it is only a request.
    Mr. Corbyn: As the Minister would be making a request—I take the burden of the parliamentary answer that we have received to be that the Government are now making that request of the promoters—in the event of the promoters' not acceding to that request, it seems to me incumbent on the House to refuse the Bill and to support the new clause, which would require that degree of compatibility.
    I return to the point that I was trying to make earlier. There is a problem in relation to the compliance of the Bill with the human rights legislation. That problem arises from the proposed electoral system and method of voting proposed. The Bill would give corporate entities an unfair advantage over individual citizens, whereas the convention specifically says that the basis of any democratic process must be the individual person, voting secretly in a free and fair election. I am not convinced that a vote given to a corporation, albeit in some cases shared among the head office employees of that corporation, amounts to what one would consider to be a normal free and fair election.
    Many of us who live in the boroughs surrounding the City of London believe that it would be much better if the whole thing was run in the same way as a normal local government body.
    The Bill is a throwback—
    Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree, as someone who represents a constituency on the borders of,
    1318
    or in close proximity to the City, that at each stage the City has rejected amendments that would have enabled the citizens of the surrounding boroughs to vote—even though the City has an influence on some of the services that those boroughs provide?
    Mr. Corbyn: Not only does the City have an influence on local services by virtue of its proximity, its planning decisions and all that goes with them, such as traffic generation and employment, but, following the break-up of the Greater London council, the City has enormous influence on large parts of London through its housing policy and the estates that it owns or the large areas of open space—such as Hampstead heath—that it manages on behalf of the people of London. There is a question there of wider accountability.
    The Bill is fundamentally flawed. In a sense, the House has already expressed a view on the question of compatibility with human rights legislation because, by refusing to pass a closure motion, it has enabled the debate to continue. Thus it is essential that the debate go its full course; that we hear from the promoter of the Bill, if he may speak again, about the concerns about applicability; and, above all, that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock should have an opportunity to address the House once again in reply to the debate.
    The House has had a long record of electoral reform. The great Reform Act of 1832 was designed to get rid of the non-existent voters. Subsequent pieces of legislation all moved in the direction of the individual secret ballot. We have here the opposite of that: the canonisation of the idea of the business vote. I am worried that, if we pass the Bill in its current form, we shall end up promoting the idea of a business vote in future. Any other local government area that had a mind to do so could then promote that principle by means of the private legislation procedure.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that my hon. Friend is not naive enough—I know that he is not—to believe that it is possible that this gang of people in the City will accept the idea that the Bill has got to be compatible with the human rights legislation, and will say, "Oh dear, oh dear; we have just heard that we must make it fit and proper and in accordance with human rights." The last thing that these people, who are fiddling the vote left, right and centre, will do is say, "We had better incorporate human rights legislation." It will be done only by getting rid of the Bill and telling them exactly what they have to do.
    Mr. Corbyn: In my view, the compatibility of the Bill with the human rights principle of one member, one vote would be as extraordinary as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. The suggestion that there is anything democratic about the proposals is ludicrous. I say to my hon. Friend that the convention is our defence of free and fair elections, as it is a way of trying to change the Bill. I am sure that he would agree that it is important that the House look again at the principles behind the Bill, and that new clause 2, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, gives us the opportunity to do so.

    1319
    I do not want to detain the House too long on this matter, because other hon. Members have spoken at some length on it, and the Bill's sponsor made an lengthy intervention.
    Mr. Skinner: In trying to get the question of the human rights compatibility within the ambit of the Bill, my hon. Friend has not mentioned that there is a body of people—I think it is called the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—whose job it is to spend a lot of taxpayers' money trotting around the world, telling eastern European countries how to get democracy in the future. Has he told any of its members that their work is being undermined? Has he called on them to say, "Look here, this Bill is not compatible with human rights, but you're going across there, telling them what a wonderful set-up we've got in Britain."? We have got democracy coming out of our earholes in the House of Commons; we have got none in the Lords, and we have now got the business vote in the City of London. Frankly, I am not against undermining the foundation's work, because it is a great big junket, but how on earth can the Government say that they are teaching the east Europeans how to be democratic, while pushing through this tinpot Bill, which is not even compatible with human rights legislation? There are four questions to answer.
    Mr. Corbyn: I understood that there were rather more than four questions to answer. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not trying to undermine the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—nothing could be further from his mind than that. However, for £1.80, it could go to the City of London and examine the process, or it could come into the Chamber to do so. That would represent the cheapest possible examination of democratic procedures anywhere in the world.
    There are some important points in what my hon. Friend says, one of which is that if the House were to pass the Bill and if it were enacted, any citizen could object and take out a case concerning his or her denial of human rights or the discrimination in favour of corporations under the Bill. They would take their case through the British courts and, ultimately, to Strasbourg. At that point, the Attorney-General, as the Government's chief Law Officer, would have to decide the Government's position because he or she would have to represent the British Government in that process. What possible defence could they offer for the Bill? How would they explain the curious nature of events in which, as a result of an accident of dates, even though this country was a signatory to the convention, because the Human Rights Act 1998 had not been passed, no statement of compatibility was proposed? The Government have said that they will request compatibility in future. It is presumably up to the House to change its Standing Orders to ensure that all legislation, including private Bills, must be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
    The Bill's sponsor said in an intervention that he was confident that the leading counsel's opinion he had received was that the Bill was compatible. I do not know who that leading counsel was. I have no idea what were the terms of the request made to the leading counsel. Apparently, we shall not be told of the content of leading
    1320
    counsel's opinion. The very least that the House can do is to support the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, perhaps for no other reason than that those hon. Members who support the Bill are not prepared to explain in detail in the House how they can say that they believe the Bill to be compatible with the convention.
    Mr. McDonnell: The reason for supporting the new clause is surely that it would place the onus on the Government; it involves a requirement, not a request. All we have been offered so far is a simple request to the promoters—a feeble solution. The new clause would specifically place a requirement on the Government's broad shoulders.
    Mr. Corbyn: It would indeed put the requirement on the Government, but it would also provide them with a defence for the future. If they were called to Strasbourg to defend the Bill in future, they would at least know what they were defending. At the moment, they do not know that, because we have no idea how on earth the sponsor manages to conclude that the Bill is compatible.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover intervened earlier, he made the serious point that we are keen on sending delegations all around the world to talk about democracy and independent, free and fair elections. How on earth do we explain to an audience in the Czech Republic that this is the mother of Parliaments and the centre of democracy if we pass legislation that represents the opposite of those principles?
    Mr. Skinner: I am trying my best to fathom why the promoters have not seized on the incorporation of this new Human Rights Act. Is it perhaps because this Bill started on its journey before that legislation was passed?
    Mr. Corbyn: No.
    Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says no. Is it possible that it would be better for the Bill to be dropped completely? Then, if it did come back incorporating the human rights aspect—none of us wants it to come back—at least the promoters would be on firmer ground? I do not want to give them any opportunity to do that, but what does my hon. Friend think? Is that part of the explanation?
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has put several points to me. I recall his Herculean efforts over the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Bill. There is a strange procedure in the House that if Government legislation has not passed through all its stages by the end of a parliamentary Session, it is lost. If by the end of a Parliament, and surely we are moving towards one, all legislation has not been passed, that is the end of it until it is reintroduced. We lost the Criminal Justice Bill before the 1992 general election and then it came back. I rather wish that it had not, but it did. The peculiarity is that private Bills, provided that they have had a successful carry-over motion before the dissolution of the Parliament or the end of a Session may continue. That seems absolutely bizarre. This Bill has life after death.
    Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Corbyn: I will give way in a moment.

    1321
    My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolsover asked why there was no compatibility certificate. A year ago there was a whole day debate, which I did not attend, on the compatibility or otherwise of this legislation with the convention and the Human Rights Act. So the promoters have had fully one year to examine its compatibility and return with an appropriate certificate.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Corbyn: I give way to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to report that on the Division on the closure the numbers reported in the Aye Lobby should have been 100, not 99. May I personally say that I am sorry for the mistake? The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has kindly said that he joins me in my apologies?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with the point of order first. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to continue?
    Mr. Bottomley: No, I have concluded.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: May I ask the Tellers please to resume their places?
    In the circumstances reported by the Tellers for the Ayes I now direct in accordance with precedent that the numbers be corrected in the Votes and Proceedings. Furthermore, I now have no alternative but to put the question.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will understand my dismay and irritation. I explained earlier that I would be one of those who would suffer if the closure motion was passed. Ninety-nine people were reported to the House as having voted Aye, but you have just had a further report from the Tellers. May I draw your attention to the fact that during the Maastricht debate there was a reported drawn vote? On that occasion, the Government Whip was subsequently found to have erred, but that was or the following day and that fact allowed people to examine the written word. That is what I would call a Florida ballot. We have not been able to do that in this case, and I think that this Division is premature. I want to place on record my view that there should have been, at the very least, a re-calling of that disputed Division. We have here a travesty of a Parliament that has been rumbled by the inefficiencies of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no alternative but to take the word of the Tellers on this matter. Despite the
    1322
    precedent to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the precedent that I am using has been used on many occasions.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be placed on record that there were 99 Aye votes in the first Division—then there was either a hand recount or something else. It sounds to me as though those votes represented 99 bodies and a dimpled chad.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I am accepting the comments of the Tellers.
    May I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
    The House having divided: Ayes 22, Noes 90.

    Division No. 50]

    [6.18 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Banks, Tony

    Linton, Martin

    Barnes, Harry

    McDonnell, John

    Burstow, Paul

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    McWalter, Tony

    Pound, Stephen

    Chidgey, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Cotter, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Dismore, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mr. John Cryer and

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Heppell, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Baldry, Tony

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Beggs, Roy

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Bercow, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Boswell, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Jenkins, Brian

    Brady, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lansley, Andrew

    Collins, Tim

    Letwin, Oliver

    Colman, Tony

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Cran, James

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Cranston, Ross

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Dowd, Jim

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Duncan, Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    McNulty, Tony

    Evans, Nigel

    MacShane, Denis

    Flight, Howard

    Maples, John

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Merron, Gillian

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Gale, Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garnier, Edward

    Norman, Archie

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Paice, James

    Green, Damian

    Pike, Peter L

    Greenway, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Grieve, Dominic

    Prior, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Randall, John

    Hammond, Philip

    Robathan, Andrew

    1323

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Tyrie, Andrew

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Walter, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Spring, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wilkinson, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Willetts, David

    Syms, Robert

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Touhig, Don

    Mr. Peter Bottomley and

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mr. David Amess.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the events of the 25 minutes since the previous vote was recounted, may I ask that some formal report be given to the House on the events that took place, how they occurred and how the situation can be rectified in future? I believe that yet another discrepancy has occurred: 99 or 100 hon. Members voted for closure, and suddenly the number voting has dropped to 90. There should be a precise analysis of what occurred today.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The explanation is that I made a mistake.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has had the answer to his point of order.
    Mr. Pound: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I associate myself with the comment of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)? There were two of us telling. If mistakes were made, they were made by both of us.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
    Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps when we undertake an investigation into the events that occurred tonight, we should consider how we can overcome the levels of fallibility that have been identified and what mechanism we can put in place to address the problem.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard from both hon. Members who were Tellers, and they have explained to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington how the mistake occurred.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who confessed to having made a mistake. In fact, 100 hon. Members made a mistake. When we count the Division list tomorrow, as I intend to do, line by line, Florida-style, we will see all those on the payroll, all those on the Opposition Front Bench, all the people who line up with the undemocratic Corporation of the—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but I and the House have accepted the verdict of the tellers.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An interesting situation has developed. The House
    1324
    heard from the Minister that the Government would in future request certification under the Human Rights Act, yet the House has specifically rejected consideration of the applicability of the Act to the Bill. Where does the Bill stand in respect of legislation already passed by the House—the Human Rights Act?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate on new clause 2 has been concluded and a vote taken. We must now proceed to the rest of the business of the House.

  Clause 2

    INTERPRETATION
    Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
    "'business electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
    "'employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d) with responsibility for electing the employees' voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
    No. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to second 'a' and insert—
    'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by'.
    No. 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' in line 34 and insert—
    'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'.
    No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    '(d) is a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.'.
    No. 58, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    '(1A) the business electoral college shall reflect the range of business activity within the City, and shall comprise relevant business operational constituencies for which a qualifying body must register based upon its principal business operation; and the proportion of voters to be elected from a business operational constituency will be determined in proportion to the number of qualifying bodies registering for a particular business operational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
    No. 57, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    '(1B) the employees electoral college shall reflect the range of occupations operating within the City of London, and shall comprise relevant occupational constituencies for which an employee must register based upon his/her principal occupation as defined under the DfEE Standard Occupational Classification Major Groups; and the proportion of voters to be elected from an occupational constituency shall be determined in proportion to the number of employees registering for a particular occupational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
    No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    '(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'.

    1325
    No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    '(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'.
    No. 59, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
    '(2A)—

    (1) For the election of voters to represent the business operational and occupational constituencies within the electoral colleges, each vote in the poll shall be a single transferable vote.

    (2) A single transferable vote is a vote—

    (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and

    (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give a prior choice to the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.

    No. 29, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert 'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.
    Mr. McDonnell: The amendments are complex. Bearing in mind the evidence of the fallibility of hon. Members this evening, perhaps we should investigate the amendments in detail, so that the House will understand and be able to follow the debate.
    Amendment No. 7 is a proposal to introduce a business electoral college.
    Mr. Skinner: A what?
    Mr. McDonnell: A business electoral college. I accept that the proposals offend some hon. Members. I shall come on to the justification for them in due course. At this stage, I simply want to put the detail on the record and explain it to hon. Members. If they have difficulty calculating to 100, they will have more difficulty understanding the complexities of my proposals.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend propose to describe the amendments one by one in order, or will he go through them all generally and then go back through them in detail? Several Members want to hear about them in detail, especially the first one. Will my hon. Friend deal with the others first, or come back to amendment No. 7?
    Mr. McDonnell: As semantic issues are at stake, I should like to go through the amendments in order initially, return to the explanation of their import, and go on to the justification for them. If my hon. Friend is happy with that approach, I shall proceed, but if he can suggest an alternative one, I shall proceed with that.
    Mr. Dismore: That approach is a little confusing. When my hon. Friend introduced the amendments, he said that he would talk about a business electoral college. I thought that the group of amendments would create an electoral college from a series of different functions. Would it not be better for my hon. Friend first to describe in principle what an electoral college is about before talking about the mechanics of which bits go where?
    Mr. McDonnell: Okay, we shall start with that approach, if my hon. Friend is happy with that, and then return to the detail of how the legislation is affected.
    Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps it would be better if my hon. Friend explained all the amendments, as there is clearly a jigsaw that has to be put together.
    Mr. McDonnell: I am tempted to put the matter of the approach to the vote. However, given that we probably would not add up the votes correctly, I suggest that we proceed with the approach that I originally proposed.
    1326
    Amendment No. 7 introduces a proposal for a business electoral college, comprising voters appointed with responsibility for electing voters who will represent the business community in the City of London Corporation.
    Mr. Skinner: I know that my hon. Friend has been meeting the promoters and that he is strong-willed on the issue, but is he telling me that the business college will be based on the model of so many trade unions? Will there be a bloc vote? Is that where we are going? That is the only sort of college vote that I am acquainted with. The business of fitting in with demands sounds a bit dodgy to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will not disappoint me, or will at least make me feel a bit better about the matter. He has not been meeting the promoters too often, has he?
    Mr. McDonnell: I assure my hon. Friend that I have had one meeting with the City of London Corporation, at which an offer of an amendment was made. I subsequently declined that offer—or, rather, did not respond to it.
    Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the particular electoral college of which he is aware. However, the one that we have all seen most recently is in the United States, and it has produced an appalling travesty of democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend's proposals will not reflect in any way the electoral college procedures and systems that operate in the United States, albeit with a different breakdown.
    Mr. McDonnell: I accept that there is a similarity in the concept of an electoral college. The Bill is into its third year and I have sought to amend it for two and a half years. The principal element of introducing a full democratic vote based on one person, one vote has clearly been rejected at earlier stages. In addition, when we tried to introduce the concept of one person, one vote based on a residential vote plus the vote of the workers themselves, that was rejected. This is my humble and simple attempt—no, I mean my humble but complex attempt—to try to reach a form of compromise.
    The attempt is to seek amendments—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will enjoy this statement—allowing all the stakeholders in the City of London Corporation to be actively engaged in, and have rights and responsibilities to engage in, the political processes in the area covered by the corporation.
    Mr. Skinner: I knew it. My hon. Friend has fallen for all this jargon. Stakeholders? Come on. What is the next phrase? New deal?
    6.45 pm
    Mr. McDonnell: Given the lateral thinking in which we have had to engage when constructing the amendments, I have tried to suggest that the Bill should be entitled the "New City of London (Ward Elections) Bill".
    Mr. Eric Forth: New city, new Labour.
    Mr. McDonnell: Exactly. By following the philosophical trend that has been developed under new

    1327
    Labour to ensure that, in accordance with the Will Hutton approach, all stakeholders participate in arrangements for their areas, I have devised a compromise proposal.
    Mr. Skinner: There are other words that should now be used, apart from "stakeholders". Has my hon. Friend turned his attention to words such as "clients", "customers" and "products"? It is not only stakeholders. This new language is about different things altogether. If my hon. Friend wants to move away from ordinary, run-of-the-mill, one-person-one-vote arrangements, he must think in terms not only of stakeholders, but of clients, customers, products, inputs and outputs. Has he turned his mind to such terms?
    Mr. McDonnell: It is that form of synergy that I am seeking to address.
    Mr. Dismore: I am a little concerned that the amendments do not address those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a good point. We are considering a proposal for an electoral college that, as I understand it, includes businesses, residents and employees. Where are customers represented? We are told time and again that the City is the powerhouse of the economy and has customers throughout the world, and not only locally. Are not those customers represented in some of the City's work? The college does not seem to provide for such representation.
    Mr. McDonnell: It is true that the recipients of City services are not provided for. I tabled an amendment to ensure that any business voter who was elected to represent a business was chosen on the basis of a vote by shareholders or by members of the organisation in question. Unfortunately, that amendment was not selected for consideration. To overcome that, I have tried to ensure that the definition of the business college and the employees' electoral college ranges across the many organisations that provide such a variety of services in the area, as well as those who create the wealth—the workers themselves. I have sought to reflect all the different trades and professions and have proposed the best compromise that I can offer. Hon. Members will know that I always seek to ensure such compromise.
    Mr. Dismore: I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friend, but I am concerned about his remarks. As I understand it, in order to vote, employees must work for somebody who holds a City property, the value of which is above a certain rateable level. Many people in the City will not be in such a position, including those who travel about delivering things or who work from market stalls. Would such people be excluded from the provisions? I cannot imagine a market stall having the required rateable value.
    Mr. McDonnell: That is why the proposal is a compromise. It attempts to offer the corporation some movement and does not seek to flood its operations with a work-force vote that will overcome all the vested interests that meet in various masonic lodges within the corporation area. It is a compromise that would introduce a system in which all interests in the area would be represented.
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend obviously listened carefully to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the
    1328
    Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in his intervention, but I am still anxious about whether people who work in Westminster as street vendors, newsagents or street traders, or who do other jobs in that sector, are to be excluded. Will there be an opportunity for further discussion with such people? A right to participate in the peculiar elections that are proposed should apply to everybody who works in the City, irrespective of whether they happen to be employed by a big business.
    Mr. McDonnell: I shall not be set up as class traitor of the month. My position is clear. Under my original proposal, the electorate would compromise the residents and workers. Basically, the proposal was formulated on the Petrograd, Soviet model. It was as simple as that, and I do not know why it was rejected. I think that that rejection was unreasonable and that the proposal would have worked. It would have put us in a revolutionary situation in advance of many other cities in the world. However, it was rejected, and this is an attempt at a compromise. I accept that some petty bourgeois elements will not be represented in the electoral college because of their lack of stakeholding in the community, based on rateable value.
    Mr. Dismore: I am concerned about what my hon. Friend has just said. I assume from his definition of "employee" that people who are self-employed will also be excluded. There is a great trend in the City for people to work on a self-employed, consulting basis, and they are not included in the definition. Is my hon. Friend attempting to exclude the self-employed as well?
    Mr. McDonnell: My view is that the self-employed would come within the business electoral college. They would have a say over the eventual voters in the corporation area. That would give them their conduit into the democratic processes of the corporation. However, I accept that the issue potentially involves social inclusion based on the high level of rateable value set in the Bill. Again, that is a compromise. I have taken the original figure of £200 proposed by the corporation. I am happy for amendments to be tabled on that.
    Mr. Dismore: Another group of people would potentially be excluded by the definition of "employee", and that is office holders. For example, police officers employed by the City of London police are holders of the office of constable but are not technically employees. The rateable value of their police station may be more than £200, but although they are City workers they would be excluded. Other office holders employed by the City in mediaeval positions are not technically employees but work in the City. Where do they fit into the picture?
    Mr. McDonnell: The Bill refers to office holders in their occupation of individual premises in the City. Assurances were given by the corporation in the previous debates that office holders would be included. Clause 2 on interpretation refers to
    "occupation", in relation to any hereditament—
    we have discussed how hereditament should be pronounced, and I go for the early French version—
    or part of a hereditament, means occupation by personal physical presence there and, in the case of a qualifying body … through a holder of any paid or unpaid office for the performance of whose functions.

    1329
    Therefore, office holders are included, and would be under my business college definition because of the definition in clause 2. If I am mistaken on that, the corporation's representative, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), could advise us. Office holders would become a qualifying body and be part of the business electoral college.
    Mr. Dismore: May I get the position entirely clear? As I understand it, that definition relates to business premises, and my hon. Friend just said that office holders would qualify as part of the business college. My question was why they do not qualify as part of the employee college because, to all intents and purposes, they are employees, not businesses. I take his point about self-employed people coming under the business definition, although some of them may question that. I do not see why people in the category that I have mentioned should be classed as businesses rather than employees.
    Mr. McDonnell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The employee definition enables people to be nominated if they are employed by a qualifying body. The office holder who is employed by the qualifying body could come under the employees electoral college. That is my understanding of the amendment, but I am open to further discussion and clarification, and perhaps amendment at a later stage to define that.
    There was a discussion at a previous stage about not excluding organisations, such as voluntary organisations and churches, that had office holders located in the City. In my view, they would come under one of these electoral colleges, either as office holders or employees. Office holders in that instance would be part of the business college, but that is open to definition.
    Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend seen a copy of The Times today? There is a big article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that in the new era of politics things will not be centralised as they were in the past. According to him, some of the old establishments will fade away, and there will be a lot of voluntary work and so forth. Apparently, there will be an army of 100,000 volunteers.
    Has my hon. Friend been far-seeing enough to think about that when he has thought about the electoral college? Has he thought about the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Women's Institute? I am sure that those organisations want to play their part, and if we are moving into this new era he cannot afford to leave them out.
    There should also be a section—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is quite a lengthy intervention.
    Mr. Skinner: There should be a white van man section.
    Mr. McDonnell: Perhaps I should have begun with the detail and gone on to the principle.
    Mr. Dismore: I said that.
    Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend was right. I shall take his advice in the future.
    1330
    I think my definitions of the various electoral colleges are flexible enough to enable voluntary organisations to come under what could become a business electoral college, but will probably—and more importantly—be a section of the work force comprising volunteers, which will therefore be an employees' electoral college.
    Before we engage in a grand debate on the principles, let me say something about the technical details of the amendments. Apparently an attack was made on "white van men", many of whom live in my constituency.
    Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was fighting for their rights.
    Mr. McDonnell: I accept that. I am referring to the alleged attack by me. There is no one who will not defend the right of white van men and women to vote for members of the City of London Corporation. Indeed, many who operate in the City live in my constituency.
    Mr. Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend considered the role of contract workers employed in the City? An army of people working there leave before the office workers arrive—those who work for contract cleaning companies. Many have pretty poor working conditions, and I think that their rights should be recognised.
    Mr. McDonnell: I think that contract workers would come under the definition of employee, but I would be happy to tighten that definition to ensure that they are referred to specifically.
    I understand the problem. A particular section of the work force is vulnerable because its method of operation is open to exploitation, and it therefore requires representation more than those in more stable professions.
    Mr. Dismore: I question my hon. Friend's assurance. It seems that, according to his definition, such people would qualify for the employee category only if the employer was based in the City. Employers' base of operation—this certainly applies to many contract cleaning companies—may be some distance away; they may bus people into the City in order to keep down their overheads. Effectively, my hon. Friend's amendment is disfranchising the army of workers referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. McDonnell: That can be easily remedied by a further amendment, which I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and with the corporation. That simple amendment would enable an employee to be defined by the rateable value of the agency with which the contract had been taken out. In other words, employees who served a particular firm, when the contract was with that firm, would be enfranchised by its rateable value.
    I accept that there is a problem, and I am open to suggestions; but I will go to the wall to defend the principle of the electoral college in this context, especially given my experience of the electoral college in the election of the London Mayor, which proved so fruitful at the end of the day.
    Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend mentioned the electoral college in the context of the election of the Mayor.

    1331
    Will the same electoral college be used for the election of the Lord Mayor of London, who, of course, is someone entirely different?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are straying rather wide of the amendment.
    Mr.McDonnell: Let us be clear. The basis of my proposals is to establish electoral colleges, which will then enable the election of the City Corporation. In turn, through some form of divine guidance, a mayor is appointed, so it will be a form of representative democracy.
    It being Seven o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
    Bill to be further considered on Thursday 18 January.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  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.Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 48, 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.'
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April,11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That—
  the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
  this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and the following Standing Order be made:

  (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Commitee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

  (2) The Committee shall consider—

  (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

  (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

  (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

  (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

  (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

  (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

  (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

  (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

  (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

  (c) that the order should not be approved,

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

  (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

  (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

  (7) The committee shall have power—

  (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

  (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

  Hon. Members: Object.

Gas and Electricity Supplies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Touhig.]
7 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Like most people, I have always despised rip-off salesmen, whether it be the person who persuades people to part with money for something that is not worth what they hand over, or one who gets people to buy when they do not want to buy, or when it is not in their interest to buy. I have always been wary of the door-to-door salesmen or the street-corner seller, but many consumers are not. All too often, those rogue salesmen prey on the most vulnerable and poor sections of society. For as long as there have been markets, there have been rogue salesmen. They have always been seen as a menace but, these days, we expect the authorities to stamp out that activity, difficult as it is.
Mis-selling is bad enough for any goods or services, but when it happens with the essentials for life, such as gas or electricity, the power sources for every home in the land, it is unacceptable. Given the history of salesmanship, we should have expected mis-selling once gas and electricity supply became open to competition. It is happening.
I highlight some of the evidence that my constituents have brought to me and that I have discovered. Towards the end of last year, I identified some 17 cases in my constituency, in little more than a couple of weeks. The most common trick is the unsolicited telephone call, after which, whatever the consumer has said, he discovers some two to three weeks later that his gas or electricity supply has changed to the new company under an alleged oral agreement.
I give the example of one pensioner who wrote to me at the end of October:
Can you help me please? Some time ago a company rang me and wanted to supply my gas as against my then supplier British Gas. To get rid of them I said I would look at their offer if they sent me all the details, then forgot all about them. Two weeks later I had a letter from my supplier regretting that I left them.
That constituent was transferred to NPower without his knowledge or consent.
Another elderly constituent had the same experience with PowerGen, even though he had told the caller that he was definitely not interested. Another 83-year-old man, too deaf to engage in a proper telephone conversation, told a sales representative that he could not hear and asked for some papers to be sent, so that he could read about the offer. He was switched to PowerGen, again without his permission or knowledge.
That constituent's daughter made a number of calls to complain, but was told that the switch would go ahead as authority had been given on the telephone. Eventually, after I got involved, an apology was sent by the company. In fact, I learned that, just two days ago—I suspect after the existence of this debate became known—the gentleman received some £250 from PowerGen and two free videos. Whatever else the debate achieves, I hope that it has achieved something for that constituent.
The worst case that I came across involved an 84-year-old man with a couple of hearing aids and several illnesses. He was visited by a rep from Southern Electric, who asked whether he could read the meter. He then
1334
asked whether he could sit down and fill in the rest of the meter-reading form, and asked several questions. Finally, he asked my constituent to sign to say that the meter had been read. He did. Of course, he later discovered that he had signed a contract to switch his supplier. Thankfully, that salesman was dismissed by Southern Electric.
Another type of scam that I have discovered involved a constituent who bought a property in Leicestershire for use by her student youngster. She wanted it to be supplied by British Gas because of its terms and agreed that supply be transferred to that company from the existing company. A few weeks later, she learned that British Gas was not going to supply her because someone had transferred the property to another company. British Gas did not know who had done that, but later told her—off the record—that it knew about the scam. It said that a salesman would watch for empty properties and then fill in a transfer form, using the name of the previous owner. The gas supply is then transferred to the new company. When my constituent contacted Ofgem, she was told that supply to the property had been transferred to NPower. That company said that it had been transferred in error.
I put something in the local press about these complaints to alert my constituents to the problem, and the story achieved good coverage. However, I was eventually approached by another man—not a victim of mis-selling, but a salesman for NPower who had seen activities such as I had described being carried out. He could not stand it any more, and he wanted to blow the whistle. He gave me an insight into how such companies worked.
My informant was able to confirm all the tricks that I have described, but he also told me of how salesmen target low-income areas, where lots of people have pre-payment meters. Salesmen are not supposed to sign up people on such meters, and no commission is offered for such business. However, many people with pre-payment meters are the easiest to convince that they should change supplier.
I was told that salesmen would not tick the boxes on the application form that ask potential customers about pre-payment meters and preferred methods of payment. They fill in the rest of the form and get the resident to sign it. When they have left the property, they tick the box for quarterly payments.
Commission paid to salesmen cannot be clawed back after 60 days. Salesmen rely on the fact that residents are unlikely to discover that they have been transferred to the new company for quarterly payment until they receive the quarterly bill some 90 days later. Residents will have been paying by pre-payment card for that period, and are very angry when they receive a bill in addition. However, the salesman involved by that time will have got away with the scam.
Representatives of Ofgem told me this morning that the company did not see how that could happen. However, I checked with my informant and he assured me that salesmen working for his old company are involved in that scam, and that they are earning commission in that unlawful way.
Salesmen also give the impression that people who buy from NPower are buying directly from the generator, and therefore saving money. No comparative rates or prices are given to customers, and they are not quoted in the presentation pack. Sometimes, salesmen know that customers will pay more if they change suppliers.

1335
The commission structure used by some companies merely gives salesmen the incentive to sell more deals, rather than solid deals. They get £7 a deal if they sell four or five contracts a day, but £12 if they can get the number of deals up to nine or more. Many salesmen are employed through an agency, which means that there is less control and a greater likelihood of sharp practice.
My informant told me that he attended training sessions, at which he could see that all the members in his group knew what was going on. That included the supervising managers, some of whom had been recruited from door-to-door salesmen. The managers are paid by means of a huge commission, which encourages them to reach a certain target every week. Some of them do not care how that target is reached. It is clear that, in some cases, managers collude with corrupt salesmen to make victims of customers.
The best proof that salesmen know what is going on emerged when the manager of the group of salesmen operating in my locality saw the local press coverage of the problem. He took the article to the next sales meeting and told the salesmen to stay away from Lowestoft for a few weeks until the MP settled down.
There is a culture of mis-selling, and salesmen have their own language. Apparently, the term "one-legger" describes a contract that is signed as easy as pie on the doorstep, and for which the salesman does not have to supply any information because he has one foot in the door. The term "blagging" is used to describe a salesman saying anything that he likes to secure a contract. In fact, when I was doing the research for this debate, an Officer of the House told me that his wife had recently been told on the telephone that British Gas had gone bust. The caller asked whether she would like to change her supplier. That must be an example of blagging.
What is being done to tackle the problem, and what more needs to be done? Is Ofgem effective in that respect? I met representatives from Ofgem this morning and listened to what they had to say. As I said in my introduction, for as long as there have been markets, there have been rogue salesmen. Therefore, as soon as the supply of gas and electricity was open to competition, we should have expected this. It is astounding that the previous Government put so little in place to protect the consumer when gas was deregulated in 1996.
It is not surprising that in 1998 Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council received 45,000 complaints from the public about the transfer from one supplier to another. That figure comes from the National Audit Office report of May 1999. At that time, the NAO was concerned about doorstep and telephone selling techniques. By that time, electricity had been deregulated as well and some companies were selling both. The greater the scope for a bargain, the greater the scope for the rogue salesman. We know that new licensing conditions to include rules covering markets were introduced by the regulator in 1998, but the 1999 NAO report found that little monitoring of compliance was carried out.
As my constituents' complaints show, the problem is still alive and kicking. I learned from Ofgem this morning that complaints against companies had halved last year and that they represented only a small percentage of the new contracts signed. I believe that Ofgem is
1336
underestimating the complaints because some people complain directly to the companies and some go elsewhere. Whatever the figure, it is not much consolation to those who are tricked or inconvenienced.
I heard today from Suffolk county council trading standards office that it is still very concerned at the scale of mis-selling in Suffolk. I have no doubt that Ofgem takes complaints seriously and investigates them thoroughly as, no doubt, will the new organisation Energywatch. However, it seems to be involved in reactive monitoring. Notwithstanding the enhancements of the rules announced yesterday, I should like to see stronger measures in place. I should like to see a standard established to ensure that Energywatch responds to complaints urgently.
In taking up my constituents' complaints and studying their correspondence, I have found that the utility companies and Ofgem are often slow to respond and lacked urgency. Every salesman should be obliged to provide in writing the free telephone number of Energywatch and should point out to customers that they can obtain comparative information on prices before they sign the contract. We should insist on a written contract before the supply is changed. There should not be oral or telephone contracts because it is not like buying a concert ticket with a credit card.
There should be conformity of sanctions against rogue salesmen. Some companies take action, whatever that might be, and some retrain them. I believe that, in all cases, dismissal should be the norm and that further sanctions should be applied where necessary. There should be a blacklist. I was told of four NPower salesmen who were sacked and simply joined Eastern Electricity. All companies should conform to enable all customers to get a quick reversal when they realise that they have been tricked. There should be a standard minimum amount of compensation for each victim of mis-selling. When I discovered that my constituent got £250 from PowerGen, it made me think what might happen if everybody who complained received £250. It might focus the minds of the utility companies.
I wonder whether the order to give Ofgem the power to fine offending companies, which needs to be made under the Utilities Act 2000, can be introduced as quickly as possible. If companies know that tough new measures are coming in, they usually clean up their act in advance. That has not yet happened in all cases. Tougher action is needed. It is clear that the regulator has not yet brought all companies under proper control and that not all companies have their management and salesmen under proper control.
I am pleased that one of the companies I have mentioned today is being taken to task in a major way. Ofgem needs to set targets for a reduction in mis-selling complaints. During my meeting with Ofgem representatives this morning, they seemed reluctant to do that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can encourage the regulator to set itself a target for reducing the number of complaints year by year until they are eliminated.
As I said before, the worst aspect is that the salesmen prey particularly on the vulnerable and the elderly. In the 1980s there were the double-glazing salesmen; in the 1990s there was mis-selling of pensions and mortgages. At the end of the millennium, in the past few years,

1337
we have seen the mis-selling of utilities. It is the same type of villain and the same kind of menace to ordinary people in each case. They must be stamped out, and I hope that this debate will help that process a little.
7.15 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing the debate and on raising these very important issues. I also congratulate him on his success, because his constituents are already seeing the benefit of his activity on these matters. I will ensure that the regulatory authority, Ofgem, receives a copy of his comments so that it can take into account the sound common sense contained in his speech.
I share my hon. Friend's disdain for rogue salesmen. Sometimes the rogue salesman is regarded in this country as a bit of a lovable Arthur Daley figure when, in reality, he gives Arthur Daley a bad name. I feel strongly about mis-selling. Indeed, I began my ministerial career dealing with the mis-selling of personal pensions. I discovered that there is nothing quite so powerful as publicity. My hon. Friend has gone a long way this evening to drawing to the attention of consumers the activities of some companies.
I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about rogue salesmen, but my disdain is even greater for their managers. The existence of rogue salesmen means that people managing companies either knowingly fail to get a grip on what is going on or do not have the competence to know what is going on in the company's name, thereby blackening its name and reputation.
I am aware of continuing instances of company representatives using unacceptable sales practices. I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about the existence of such practices. I join him in the campaign to ensure that such practices are stamped out. Indeed, because of the Government's concern about such practices we introduced the Utilities Act 2000 to enhance the powers of Ofgem and give it a primary duty to protect the consumer and establish a new, stronger body—the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, or Energywatch—to represent the consumer interest. That made a major change in the regulation of the energy sector in this country. Previously, the shareholder was all. To those who think that the shareholder should take precedence over the consumer, I say that consumers are shareholders, too, and vice versa. Any company that cannot look after its consumers will not fare well in today's aggressive, competitive business environment.
My hon. Friend asked when the order under the Utilities Act to give Ofgem the power to fine is likely to be introduced. That serious power will be vested in the regulator. I assure him that the necessary consultation period that was promised in this House before such a serious measure is introduced will begin within days. We will be in a position to lay the order very shortly. I know that he will wish companies to recognise that it is for them to pull up their socks and behave responsibly, rather than to have those powers used against them.
Resolving these issues is a difficult task and it will require a concentrated effort by Ofgem and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had difficulty in getting timely responses from
1338
Energywatch. I am sure that that will be noted by its new staff and new chair and that they will ensure an improvement in those targets. I shall certainly keep an eye on the situation—as indeed will the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
In mitigation of the present circumstances, I point out that, since the introduction of supply competition, 5.7 million customers—29 per cent. of the totalߞhave switched their gas supplies from British Gas; 4.4 million—18 per cent. of the total—have switched electricity supply from their local public electricity company. Transfers continue to run at a high rate—280,000 gas transfers per month over the six months to September 2000, and 450,000 electricity transfers per month over the same period.
My hon. Friend has exposed some extremely nasty practices, but in September 2000 complaints about gas transfer process—including sales practices—stood at three per 1,000 registrations. That sounds like a small figure, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were one of the three, I am sure that you would feel deeply aggrieved. Constant pressure must be exerted to ensure that those complaints are reduced.
Complaints about electricity were running at two per 1,000 registrations. The message is clear: there is a continuing problem, and we take it seriously, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a competitive marketplace has meant significant benefits for consumers—in choice and in lower energy bills.
My hon. Friend referred to people with pre-payment meters. My anxiety is that such people have been less able to benefit from the price reductions. As we learned recently, in too many cases they still pay more for their electricity and gas because they cannot afford to set up direct debit arrangements, standing orders and so on to gain access to the reduced tariffs. I am well aware of those difficulties and was troubled to hear about examples of mis-selling to prepayment customers.
Although there is not much evidence that the situation is getting worse, my anxiety is that it is not getting better. We must constantly push for real progress. I agree with my hon. Friend that not every dissatisfied customer complains to the consumer bodies or to the regulator, but it is difficult for us to find out when complaints have been made to companies.
The regulator and the consumer council have the necessary powers to set conditions governing sales practices; Ofgem has taken those powers as part of its marketing licence conditions. It applied specific conditions to individual companies that failed to resolve problems in parts of their operations. However, one of the most powerful means of ensuring that companies behave themselves is to expose publicly what has been going on—as my hon. Friend has this evening—so that hon. Members and all members of society can make choices based on their knowledge of the practices of those companies.
Under the Utilities Act, there will shortly be powers to fine companies. Indeed, the GECC has the power to obtain and publish information about the quality of service, which it will use to encourage best practice; it will go back to my old favourite—naming and shaming poor performers. Those and other powers were the subject of intense scrutiny before and during the passage of the

1339
Utilities Bill, in which my hon. Friend took quite an interest. Ofgem and the GECC have the tools, the resources and the commitment to do their job. Their powers go beyond those available in other sectors, because the provision of energy is so central to us all.
My hon. Friend makes the important point that when a light is shone on companies they improve their performance, but we must make sure that their performance continues to improve over time. Consumers must have knowledge of the redress available to them. That is a responsibility for Ofgem and the GECC, but a good company that is concerned about its consumers will ensure that they know how to complain and obtain redress; it will take those complaints very seriously indeed. Ofgem and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council will be working with the companies to promote this enlightened self-interest, because that is what it is. It is about best practice—best standards in sales practices. This enlightened self-interest should be promoted by improving a range of the aspects of company performance, from sales practices to administration. I believe that that will benefit all consumers.
I know that my hon. Friend has already had, today, a meeting with the regulatory authority. I know that he has made his points to it very forcefully, because I have had a read-out of that meeting. However, unlike the dreadful cases that he has outlined today, there is much that is good in terms of ensuring that those who can least afford to pay for their energy get it at a more acceptable rate.
My hon. Friend has worked well with his trading standards department, because trading standards officers play an important role in seeking to resolve many of these issues.
1340
I am in no way complacent about the scale of the difficulties that are to be encountered by consumers confronted by mis-selling practices. Through this House, I call on the industry to raise its game. I know that many of the responsible companies and managers in the industry recognise that there is a significant difficulty that affects the good name of the entire industry, and that it must be improved. I want the full panoply of conditions and constraints to be used to raise the game in relation to doorstep and telephone mis-selling.
It is important in general to get across the message that, under trading standards legislation, where there is doorstep selling, consumers have a seven-day cooling-off period when they are buying goods or services worth more than £35 during an unsolicited home visit or, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a telephone call. It is one of the blights of modern society—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, like myself, probably discover that every time you want to put a meal on the table the telephone rings, and it is usually someone trying to sell you something that you already have. The seven-day cooling-off period is not just for the temper of those whose dinner has been ruined; it is also to allow people to step back from any contract that they may have sought to sign.
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He has raised many very important issues, which the Government are aware of and concerned about. The Utilities Act contains new powers that allow the regulator and the consumer council to tackle these matters, but the ultimate responsibility must be with the companies to ensure that they have a standard of service that is second to none, because informed consumers will make their choices about where to buy their energy, based on the quality of the service that they get from the company to which they are contracted.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Non-Food Crops
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms. Quin.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government warmly welcome this opportunity to debate energy and other non-food crops. This is an important time to discuss those crops and their uses. As I hope to be able to explain, they have great potential to contribute to sustainable development.
Last month, I was pleased to launch the report of the food chain and crops for industry foresight panel, which had made recommendations to unlock the potential of non-food crops. I also recently launched the report of the European Union-funded Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications study on those crops, which has been prepared by our Central Science Laboratory. It contains many interesting findings and recommendations and is available in the Library, both as a report and in summary form. Furthermore, I am considering appointments to the Government-industry forum on non-food uses of crops.
Linked to such initiatives is a range of activity in a number of Departments. In the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we opened the energy crops scheme for business last October. Non-food crops are an important element in our overall strategy and the rural White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Minister launched with the Deputy Prime Minister, includes crops for energy and industry.
The Department of Trade and Industry is considering how to meet renewable electricity targets. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on the use of money from the new opportunities fund to develop renewable energy applications. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is studying transport fuels following the Chancellor's green fuels challenge, which he announced in the pre-Budget report. I firmly believe that non-food crops can make a major contribution to all those initiatives. With all that activity taking place, the debate is timely.
I am conscious that matters that may be raised in the debate will relate to the work of a number of different Departments. For that reason, I undertake that I will refer such matters to the relevant Ministers and Departments. I will also refer this debate to the aforementioned new Government-industry forum.
Mr. James Paice: First, I apologise for missing the first couple of words uttered by the right hon. Lady. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased that the Minister intends to refer points raised back to other Departments. Has she been fully
288WH
briefed by those Departments? If she has come without adequate briefing, it will detract considerably from the debate.
Ms Quin: I am certainly not saying that I have not been briefed by other Departments. Indeed, as is always the case in such debates, as the Minister I have come armed with a tremendous raft of briefing material. Moreover, in addition to written briefing, I have met officials from all the Departments concerned in advance of the debate and at the time of some of the initiatives that I have mentioned. All the Departments mentioned, together with the Treasury—with the existence of the green fuels challenge—are working closely together in this area.
Having had a number of briefings on the issues, I am aware of the enormous potential number of uses for such crops and some of the technicalities that are attached to their possible development. Although I take a keen interest in them, I do not pretend to be a scientific expert in the many different technologies that are involved. If, for understandable reasons, I cannot supply information immediately, I shall undertake to obtain it for hon. Members. I shall also ensure that the other Departments involved are fully aware of the points raised during the debate.
Let us consider some of the benefits that the sector can generate. We know that products from plants can be used in a variety of ways as renewable and sustainable raw materials. I shall give some examples later in my speech.
The development of non-food crops can help with agricultural diversification, which is particularly important at present, and it can also help to create rural jobs. The crops help to support our overall objectives of sustaining and enhancing the rural environment and assisting the development of competitive industries.
In addition, the Government have climate change commitments to meet, and non-food crops can contribute in various ways. Energy crops can be used for electricity and heat generation in substitution for fossil fuels, thus helping to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, we may need to look at new crops. Oilseed rape is a comparatively new crop in the British countryside. We can probably all remember when the fields suddenly turned bright yellow—we were not used to that. In other cases, there will be an opportunity to use existing co-products for new purposes—for example, the use of wheat straw to produce bioethanol.
The debate is very much about new commercial development. Market opportunities are especially welcome in agriculture at a time when farmers are under severe pressure. They are occurring at a time when manufacturers are looking for ways to green their products. The development of biodegradable packaging for fruit and vegetables is a good example of what can be achieved.
Without support, however, progress will be haphazard—after all, it is an infant industry that needs encouragement to get to critical mass. That is why the Government are committed to providing encouragement, strategic direction and financial assistance, where it is needed and where it is felt to be most worth while.

289WH
Although we are discussing recent developments in the sector, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been involved in its background, having conducted initiatives under the previous Government as well as under the present Administration. The Ministry set up the agri-industrial materials section in 1994—when it was known as the alternative crops unit— to stimulate interest in non-food crops and bring together farmers, researchers, industry and Government.
When set-aside was introduced into the common agricultural policy, the United Kingdom Government pressed for—and gained—agreement to use it for the production of non-food crops. That mechanism helped non-food crops to compete with other subsidised agricultural activities. The Ministry attends agricultural shows, has organised seminars and workshops, has developed a comprehensive research programme and used a dedicated website to promote non-food crops.
Finding uses for set-aside land, however desirable, is not in itself an adequate motivation: there has to be a focus on the market, and the development of non-food crops depends on the readiness of industrial users to incorporate crop-derived materials in their production processes. Therefore, we seek to focus further on the needs of the market. The potential is considerable and I shall cite some of the measures that the Government are undertaking to unlock it.
There is nothing radically new about using plants for non-food purposes. Although we think of agriculture as a producer of food, we also take for granted plant-derived fibres, oils, dyes and medicines. Modern technology has certainly expanded and continues to expand the range of non-food applications of crops. For example, the production of plant-derived oral vaccines is being studied by a number of companies. A fully biodegradable thermoplastic material can be produced from corn, wheat and potato starch, and can be used to make "plastic" bags, disposable blister packaging, packaging pellets and casings for ballpoint pens.
Oilseeds are already used to produce erucamide, a slip agent for plastic films, lubricants and industrial oils. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the use of linseed oils in paints and varnishes. Natural fibres can be used in paper, fibre boards for the construction industry and interior automotive panels. The contribution that the fibre sector can make to the automotive industry is an interesting example and one for which there seems to be increased potential. The woody core of hemp can be used to produce horse bedding and chicken litter; oil from hemp seeds is used in paints, varnishes, soaps and shampoos.
The energy crops with considerable potential are short-rotation willow coppice and miscanthus. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has seen these crops growing. Miscanthus or elephant grass is a very attractive crop. I have seen it growing in Cambridgeshire. I have discussed with people there its ability to supply the Ely power station. Short-rotation coppice is being grown in a number of different locations. Some farmers in Yorkshire have short-rotation willow, which is being linked in with the Project ARBRE power station that is being commissioned at Eggborough in Yorkshire.
290WH
Short-rotation willow and miscanthus can be used to produce both heat and power. Other crops can produce higher-value raw materials for niche markets. Borage provides gamma linolenic acid for use in health foods and nutritional supplements. Crambe produces oil in the form of erucic acid for use in slip agents and lubricants. Indigo is extracted from woad for use as inks and dyes.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned willow coppice and elephant grass. Does she agree that there is a vast untapped potential from hardwoods on many Welsh farms, which are not managed in any way? If we could get the right technology to those local markets, the chipped hardwoods could be used in biomass, and it would be a great boost to certain types of agriculture, particularly in some upland areas.
Ms Quin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is important to consider all opportunities. I also think that it makes sense not only to look at this within MAFF. Obviously, the devolved Administrations are looking into the application of non-food crops in their areas and I am keen for that to be studied on a regional basis in England. There are variations between different parts of the country. Elephant grass is more suited to southern and eastern England. It is therefore important to have a regional and sub-UK perspective on the issue and for available opportunities to be considered in partnership. In other words, the regional development agencies, the agricultural industry and wider industries need to come together to consider the potential that these crops and products may have for their economies.
It certainly would be a mistake to think of non-food crops as a fringe activity. Non-food crops already contribute to several of the Government's key policies and there are serious commercial prospects. Many examples will be given during the debate.
We have incorporated non-food and energy crops into the agricultural strategy because of their potential importance to farming, to the wider industry and to the economy generally. The strategy is a framework providing opportunities to help industry to become more competitive, diverse, flexible and responsive to consumer wishes and more environmentally responsible.
The Government have published the climate change programme. We know that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have identified a range of measures to achieve a reduction, including the development of the energy crops sector. Transport fuels have a significant impact on the environment and liquid biofuels can reduce emissions. As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently issued the green fuels challenge, which gives industry the opportunity to make the case for environmentally friendly fuels to receive major duty reductions. Obviously, the challenge covers biofuels. Its aim is to allow the Chancellor to make an announcement on successful projects at the time of the Budget.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responded to the challenge of non-food crops with resources and with a range of activity to help to develop the non-food sector. We are ready to give support,

291WH
especially when there is a real demand or need for those crops. We must recognise the importance of market pull and policy issues such as our commitment under climate change.
We are seeking to publicise and disseminate information about our efforts. Our agri-industrial materials section has extensive contacts with industry. We organise workshops and run a dedicated non-food crops website. In the past year, we have increased the number of staff to develop the new energy crops scheme and run the non-food crops forum, which is being set up following publication of the report into the non-food crops sector by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. I welcome that report, which has some worthwhile points and was a serious contribution to the debate about the development of the sector.
We have a research and development programme on non-food crops and spend more than £1 million in that sector, partly through a dedicated LINK programme. We are keen to highlight our support for the sector as part of our overall agricultural strategy. The Government announced their approach for a new direction for agriculture more than a year ago. The UK is one of the European Union countries that is most keen to exploit the opportunities under the new rural development pillar of the common agricultural policy. Our reforms of the CAP are aimed at switching CAP funds away from production aids to support for the broader rural economy. Our rural development programme for England and the similar work being done in Scotland and Wales is part and parcel of that. It recognises the multi-faceted nature of agriculture, both as food producer and custodian of so much of our natural environment.
We are keen for non-food projects to access funds under the rural development programme. That is why we introduced the energy crops scheme. Previously, there was limited support for planting short rotation coppice under the woodland grants scheme. However, we judged it insufficient to move the solid biomass sector forward and under the new scheme we paid grants for planting short rotation coppice and miscanthus and can also pay up to 50 per cent. of the set-up costs for producer groups in that sector.
Occasionally, concern has been expressed about the environmental impact of these crops, which must be taken into account. No one would want to repeat past mistakes over forestry policy—for example, when insensitive, dark green geometric stabs of trees were imposed on a heath or moorland landscape prominent for wide sweeping views, which could be spoilt by the insensitive plantations. We therefore designed a scheme that would subject each application to rigorous assessment of the environmental impacts. Applications will be listed on a public register and statutory authorities will be invited to comment and suggest improvements. We are also developing codes of best practice to help farmers develop their knowledge of new crops.
Funding of £30 million has been allocated to the scheme over the life of the rural development programme. That should enable us to support planting of about 22,000 hectares. Energy crops could be used for small-scale heat applications, combined heat and power schemes, as well as large-scale power generation. We
292WH
have already seen early expansion of the heat market, for example, with the wood-fired system at Weobley school in Hereford and Worcester—an area that I visited a couple of days ago. The development of the market in this sector is important.
In framing national agricultural policy, it is impossible to ignore the influence of the common agricultural policy. Traditionally, it has been a mechanism for supporting existing industry through production aids rather than stimulating the development of new industries. Many critics of the CAP view it as a backward-looking or ossifying policy—ossifying existing patterns of production and failing sufficiently to look ahead to future markets.
Successive CAP reform has moved support for different crops towards alignment with the cereals rate. That is a good thing overall if it enables farmers to get their signals from the market rather than from the CAP, but it has entailed a lower subsidy for crops such as linseed, flax and hemp, much to the concern of those involved in those sectors. While I understand the concerns, the sector's future will be served better by a new direction for the CAP rather than by going down the old route of subsidised crop support, which tends not to solve the sector's problems.
I am keen to respond to any questions about that issue, but I want to flag up two pieces of news for flax and hemp growers. First, they will benefit from agrimonetary compensation totalling more than £1 million. Secondly, because we are aware of the consequences for farmers of severe weather and flooding, we have secured a derogation that removes the harvesting requirement and protects farmers' rights to aid. I hope that that demonstrates the Government's commitment to the fibres sector.
The Central Science Laboratory has, with EU funding, created the Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications. I commend its summary report, which is in the Library, because it examines the potential for non-food crops throughout the European Union. I am glad that such co-ordinating work is being carried out in the United Kingdom and I pay tribute to the efforts made in pursuing it. I am also glad that this work has been recognised, a second tranche of EU funding having recently been agreed to develop it further.
A direct result of the IENICA and House of Lords reports is the new Government-industry forum on nonfood uses of crops, which we hope will start work shortly. It will tackle issues raised by those reports and consider the recent work of the foresight panel task force on unlocking the potential of industrial crops. The forum will provide strategic advice and keep under review technological developments and market opportunities. It will make recommendations on policy affecting non-food uses of crops and on research and development priorities. It will also produce an annual report to chart the sector's development. The forum has an important job to do and we will ensure that it is in place for as long as necessary.
We want the forum to make a difference. My Ministry is leading the initiative, with support from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I assure hon. Members that Ministers will take a

293WH
personal interest in the forum's work and will make an announcement shortly about appointments to the forum. It will help to maintain momentum in the sector and will continue to engage the key players.
In essence, the Government share the vision set out in the foresight report. We consider it essential to harness the benefits of scientific research to make the transition from technological development to commercial exploitation. All hon. Members are concerned about that all-important process.
The development of renewable sources of energy is an important policy objective of the Government as a whole. Perhaps I can refer in my concluding remarks to the work being done on that, which is led by other Departments. The Government are committed to developing renewables as a key part of our wider approach to climate change and as one of a range of initiatives to support the development of a more sustainable approach to energy use. Our objective is to stimulate the development of the renewables industry, so that it can provide a continuously growing contribution in the competitive energy market.
Hon. Members will know that we have proposed placing a legal obligation on all electricity suppliers to secure a specified proportion of their supplies from renewable sources. We have also proposed the target of supplying 5 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2003, rising to 10 per cent. in 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. The detailed proposals were set out in a consultation paper published last October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
We anticipate that significant contributions will be required not only from more established sources, such as landfill, gas, hydro and onshore wind, but from previously less well developed sources, such as offshore wind and energy crops. The Government's commitment was underlined by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in October that a total of £50 million would be made available from the new opportunities fund for that purpose, in addition to the £39 million allocated by the DTI to offshore wind. Several Departments have shown our commitment to renewables.
There has been much interest in liquid biofuels, particularly biodiesel. We recognise that biodiesel and bioethanol have the potential to contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Competitiveness, however, is an important issue. Many processes need substantial subsidies at different stages of production. That is why the Government have a responsibility at least to analyse the sectors that seem to have higher energy yields with lower chemical inputs and that are capable, economically, of being the most viable. I hope that the green fuels challenge will help to identify promising projects.
Non-food crops have the potential to be good for UK farming, the rural economy, user industries and the environment. I look forward to hon. Members' contributions to the debate, which I hope will be seen as a step towards ensuring a wider recognition of the important developments, which I am sure that many of us welcome, that are taking place in the sector.
3 pm
Mr. James Paice: I, too, welcome the debate. As the Government initiate these Thursday debates, I am grateful to them for having introduced it and look forward to exploring a fascinating policy arena that covers a great range of potential crops.
Although the Minister has been courteous and interesting, she has shown remarkable complacency about what the Government have achieved in the area, as I shall demonstrate. She referred briefly to the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, dated 25 November 1999. A debate on the subject was also held in the other place on 3 March 2000, referring to the interesting statement on page 30 of the Select Committee's report:
We have been unable to identify a co-ordinated approach across all relevant Government departments that might enable the potential of non-food crops to be realised.
That is a pretty damning statement from a Committee that took evidence from a huge range of parliamentary and non-parliamentary bodies and individuals, and it demonstrates considerable complacency on the part of the Government. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued a consultation document on the energy crops scheme early last year. It deals with crop husbandry research and development. Paragraph 33 says:
Measures to promote new energy outlets such as smaller scale combined heat and power units will fall to other Government Departments.
That is an off-hand dismissal of any MAFF interest in the subject.
The Government are supposed to have seen the light and recognised the importance of the market, yet virtually everything we have heard from the Minister—with a few exceptions, which I shall address—has been to do with the research into growing such crops. That research is essential but the Minister is wrong to suggest that it is something new. Research into innovative crops has been going on for many years. A company with which I was involved before entering Parliament grew crops such as fenugreek and borage for commercial purposes in the mid-1980s. It was also researching the conversion of straw into paper. Farmer-based innovation has been around for a long time and the husbandry side of many such crops has largely been cracked, although in others, much work has still to be done. Much of the technology has also been cracked, particularly in the energy sector. What has not been cracked is the market. That is the key point.
On biomass, the Minister rightly referred to short rotation, coppice and miscanthus. Forestry waste is another relevant material, although not directly because it is not a crop. As I am sure all hon. Members present know, one cannot create matter, which means that the carbon emitted from the burning of a crop can be no more than the carbon absorbed in the growing process. That is a great advantage and a considerable environmental benefit. In that respect, the process is neutral; only the energy used in growing, harvesting and converting that plant material into the combustion process affects that balance. That is the down side.
It is widely recognised that burning biomass for energy generation has huge potential, as demonstrated by the ARBRE project in north Yorkshire to which the

295WH
Minister referred. The House of Lords report states that the process costs £20 per dry tonne of biomass, and that over 25 years it will cost £630 million, with electricity selling at 8.65p per kWh—compared with less than 3p, which is the rate for the conventional systems of generation that generate the vast bulk of our power. That includes the non-fossil fuel obligation of £55 million to £60 million over 15 years. She referred to the Government's target of generating 10 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2010. If that were to be achieved purely through burning biomass—I appreciate that that is not so—20 to 25 such power stations would be required.
The Minister said that £30 million is available for the establishment of short-rotation coppice, and helpfully translated that into 22,000 hectares In fact, more than 100,000 hectares of short-rotation coppice would be required in order to make a significant contribution to the Government's 10 per cent. target.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Has the hon. Gentleman taken the use of forestry waste into account in his calculations? That is a great source for generating energy without any extra planting.
Mr. Paice: No, I have not. Although forestry waste has immense potential—I was involved in it before I came to this place—considerable costs are involved in gathering, harvesting and transporting it. The material is often produced a long way from the national grid and from power stations, and it is expensive to transport it in any form to a suitable site for combustion in a power station. It has a huge role to play, but it is not the automatic alternative that the hon. Gentleman implied, nor is it cheaper.
The Minister mentioned the 31 MW straw-based power station at Ely. In fact, it is a few miles outside Ely—unlike Ely, it is not in my constituency. Other examples include the poultry waste facility on the Eye airfield in Suffolk, and several more are up and running or in development. However, the Government will have to do a lot more. In the past 24 hours, I have received a letter from the Country Land and Business Association saying that
the very welcome MAFF funding for establishment of biomass crops contained in the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) is on course for failure.
The accompanying briefing note concerns the lack of action by the DTI in recognising the need to support that development.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman setting out an additional spending commitment whereby the Opposition, were they to be in government, would greatly enhance the amount that they commit towards bringing the technologies that he describes to market?
Mr. Paice: That is a puerile intervention in a debate that, as the Minister said, aims to take a constructive approach to dealing with the problems. I shall come to firm propositions during my remarks.
The Country Land and Business Association clearly does not believe that expansion of biomass is likely. Energy Power Resources Ltd., which runs the power
296WH
station near Ely, told me that the industry urgently needs agricultural support equivalent to 2 to 2.5p per kWh to enable it to develop and to make the contribution that the Government expect of it. That is because of the huge cost of generating power from biomass, whether straw, miscanthus or whatever. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that the first commercial deployment of a power station using energy crops for fuel would require an electricity price of 6.8p per kWh, when, according to the DTI, the value of electricity in 2001–02 will be between 1.8p and 2.5p per kWh. Support of 3p per kWh is available under the non-fossil fuel obligation, leaving a gap of about 2 to 2.5p per kWh before it would be commercially viable. It is all very well developing the technology and husbandry, but if there is no satisfactory market to use the material, the research is useless.
Ms Quin: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is reading a speech that he wrote before he had heard my speech, throughout which I referred to the importance of market opportunities. The Government's response to the House of Lords report in setting up the forum was precisely to cover that point.
Mr. Paice: The right hon. Lady regularly referred to market opportunities, but said nothing about development or what the Government are doing or will do to develop that market. She referred repeatedly to the need for market opportunities, but there was a dearth of information about what was being done. I shall refer to the forum, but it is not sufficient for the Government to use it as an explanation for what they are doing to create a market.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman omits to mention my comments on the work of IENICA and its analysis, which we supported, to identify market opportunities. He overlooked the number of contacts between Departments and industry to identify the most promising market opportunities.
Mr. Paice: I am referring to biomass, on which the Government have not done enough. The DTI subsidy to which I referred leaves a huge gap between the cost of producing electricity using biomass and the amount that will be paid to generating companies. Unless that gap is bridged, there will be no encouragement to develop biomass power stations and improve the technology.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to the Government and what we are doing. Surely he accepts that the Chancellor's green fuel challenge, which operates on a short time scale, is a speedy measure.
Mr. Paice: As I understand it, the Government's green fuel challenge relates to liquid biofuels—I shall apologise if I am wrong—not to biomass. If it relates to biomass, I look forward to the result of the challenge. I intended to refer to it in the context of liquid biofuels and I shall do so now.
As the Minister said, there are two biofuels: ethanol, which is produced from starch-based products, and biodiesel. On ethanol, there is no doubt that this country is considerably behind many other European countries, in particular France, where production of ethyl tertiary

297WH
butyl ether, the derivative of ethanol, has risen dramatically. It was expected to be 1.2 million hectolitres last year, with a long-term aim of expanding production to 4 million hectolitres. Only a year ago, the French Ministry of Agriculture announced two more ethanol plants to move towards that. Other countries such as Holland, Italy, Sweden and Spain have all developed plants.
There is no doubt that the use of ethanol has considerable advantages in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, as well as reduced output of nitrous oxides and other particulates. The European Union allows up to 15 per cent. of this derivative ETBE in road fuel and it has recognised the French exemption from the tax on petroleum products—equivalent to a subsidy of FF3.3 per litre on the ethanol component of ETBE.
Biodiesel comes from oils—primarily from rapeseed production. Again, that is a proven technology that has been around for a long time, although it is obviously advancing all the time. Austria has gone far down that road and there have been trials in this country. Many years ago, Reading borough council ran its buses on RME for a period. It was satisfactory as an alternative fuel and I understand that there were no problems, except that the city smelled of fish and chips as a result of the burning vegetable oil.
The right hon. Lady rightly referred to the energy balance and to the point that I mentioned earlier, namely that that balance is not particularly good as regards biodiesel. The energy cost of growing, harvesting, cutting and converting the crop is considerable, so the carbon dioxide savings are not as high as they are with ethanol or other forms of energy production. Nevertheless, even the energy technology support unit, the Government's own research facility, recognises that there is a considerable improvement, as referred to in the report from the House of Lords. It reckons that 'the energy balance ratio may be 1.5: or even 2:1. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils believes that those figures are inaccurate and hon. Members will see in the evidence given to the House of Lord's Select Committee that it says that the energy balance is much more favourable than ETSU calculated. Even if ETSU is correct, a considerable benefit can still be achieved in terms of output. It shows a saving in carbon dioxide emissions that we should be seeking to achieve.
As we all know, oil prices have moved a lot in the past few months in both directions, as have cereal prices. Any set of figures showing the actual cost of producing either biodiesel or ethanol change almost weekly because of the relative costs in one case of the input and in the other of the comparator. Even if oil prices fell back considerably or oilseed rape prices increased dramatically—there seems to be little evidence that either is likely to happen—there is still a case to be made.
As the right hon. Lady said, the previous Government introduced variable taxation to encourage the use of green fuels. That was applied to unleaded petrol to begin with and then to diesel—a policy that has been reversed—and the use of a road gas, to cover the two different alternative gases that are available.
The present Government have continued with most of that policy and, indeed, in what can only be called the emergency announcement in the autumn, they extended
298WH
it to ultra-low sulphur fuel. Again, the concept is favourable tax treatment to encourage a change of attitude to fuels that are more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging. The Government must move faster on that.
The right hon. Lady referred to the green fuel challenge. She intimated that, come the Budget, the Chancellor might have something to say on the matter. I hope that he does, because it would be a considerable step forward. However, why was it necessary to go through the paraphernalia of the green challenge? A tax reduction to the same rate as liquefied petroleum gas would encourage the use of renewable sources of road fuel, such as biodiesel or ethanol. Plant-derived fuel is more environmentally friendly than gas, which is a fossil fuel. The Government have rejected that idea and, before the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) jumps to his feet to say, "He's made another spending commitment," I shall inform him that I have not. We announced that policy months ago and we will go further, by reducing the tax on liquefied petroleum gas to the recommended minimum rate of 10p per kilogram, which is 7p per litre. We would also tax biofuels at the same rate. That concession would be sufficient to create the market to which I referred, which would encourage the dramatic development of ethanol and biodiesel for environmental purposes.
Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting figures to the Opposition's promises. What is his estimate of the annual cost of that reduction?
Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman sat and thought for a moment, he would realise that one cannot produce an annual cost because the fuel is not available. In year one, the cost would be virtually nil; in year two, it would be much more; over the following years, it would gradually extend. If he can tell me the percentage of road fuel that will be based on plant derivatives in five years, I can tell him the cost. These are policies that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet have developed for a considerable time and they are built into our spending plans.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman has made a spending commitment that will cost nothing in the first year. Am I right in saying that he does not know how much it will cost in following years?
Mr. Paice: Obviously, it will cost nothing in the first year, unless son Leone miraculously produces a significant source of biodiesel or ethanol. A small amount may be imported, perhaps from France, but the cost in the first year will be infinitesimal.
The Government have already imposed huge costs on industry through the climate change levy, which we shall repeal and replace with a system of tradeable permits. There will be sufficient money in the system, either through savings to industry from the abolition of that levy, or alternative potential savings relating to the cost of pollutants emitted by fossil fuels. Those savings will offset the tax reduction. It is arguable whether that is a subsidy, but it is clearly a tax reduction to facilitate the development of a new market. In the long run, that is more productive than pouring money into production in the hope that that will create a market. As the right

299WH
hon. Lady said, we have learned that, as with most agricultural products, simply subsiding production does not necessarily generate a market. It is better to work the market end of the chain and supply will follow.
Dr. Whitehead: The problem with ethanol is not that there is no supply; the world is awash with potential or actual bioethanol. For example, Brazil produces a considerable surplus that could be imported immediately. However, if one introduces a tax break to allow cars to run on bioethanol one would have fundamentally to re-engineer the engine of each car. There would be no market until that had been done, so the hon. Gentleman's prediction of a zero spending commitment over a number of years would prove correct.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in helping me to answer the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I was aware of the point that he makes and he is perfectly right. However, I am not sure that he is right about the extent of the re-engineering.
Dr. Whitehead indicated assent.
Mr. Paice: Well, information from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology suggests that many engines would be able to cope with fuel consisting of a 15 per cent. ethanol element. The same situation arose with unleaded petrol. When the previous Government introduced the tax concession on unleaded petrol, very few road vehicles were capable of burning it. The engineering had to be developed, but as we know, that happened in what proved a verb short time. However, unless it proves economically attractive for the manufacturer to provide ethanol because the consumer wants it, things will be rather different. If it does not prove cheaper to abandon conventional fuel and run a vehicle on ethanol, or fuel with an ethanol component, consumers will not want it.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Is it not true that most cars built since about 1995 can run on a fuel mix consisting of 85 per cent. ethanol? For example, the new Ford Focus can be engineered to do that. When the Swedish Government procured the Ford Focus for their own fleet, they insisted that it run on an ethanol mix. That capability could prove of great benefit to Bridgend, in Wales, which manufactures the Ford Focus, and to the manufacturing industry in this country.
Mr. Paice: I do not want to be forced to arbitrate between two hon. Members on whether cars can burn ethanol, but my understanding is much closer to that expressed in the previous intervention. I believe that many cars could burn fuel with an ethanol component of 15 per cent.—although not necessarily 85 per cent. That is why, if such fuel became available, there would be an uptake.
I am conscious that I have spent a long time discussing energy crops, and I want briefly to talk about other non-food uses of crops to which the right hon. Lady properly referred. She mentioned hemp and flax, but miscanthus can also be used as a fibre base, as well as an energy source. As we know, those crops can be used for many purposes—as textiles for conversion to
300WH
paper, and, as she said, for the manufacture of resin-based car panels. Mercedes-Benz is already heavily involved in such developments.
I welcome the Government's move towards agrimonetary compensation and a derogation for this harvesting period, and it would be ungentlemanly in any way to decry that help. That is clearly a step in the right direction, but the right hon. Lady will accept that it is not particularly significant. Much more significant, particularly in terms of encouraging the growing of hemp—probably the most important crop for fibre-based use—would be the removal of the £300 licence fee that each hemp grower must pay. The House of Lords Select Committee to which I referred called for the deregulation of hemp and the removal of the licence fee. Even though that suggestion was rejected by Lord Carter, who responded to the debate, I hope that in the intervening period the right hon. Lady has considered the case for deregulation.
The right hon. Lady referred to various industrial uses of linseed and oilseed rape, which are already grown on much set-aside land. There is considerable potential for that, in terms of speciality chemicals, lubricants, biodegradable packaging and so on. We should also consider pharmaceuticals, the development of cosmetics, other nutritional uses, and dyes. That shows how the wheel turns full circle. When we think of woad we think of William Wallace charging over the Scottish countryside with his face plastered in it. Yet here we are talking about woad as an important source of pigment for industrial purposes. That shows that there is a lot to be learned from the past and that our forefathers were perhaps not as ignorant as they are often portrayed.
There is a need for further development of crops such as borage and evening primrose, which have immense potential. Again, I welcome Government and independent work to develop the husbandry and harvesting of those crops and the technology. Ultimately, however, it will all be led by the market. I do not suggest that the Government can do much to influence the market for industrial, pharmaceutical and other uses. That will come in its own way. The Government's role is to try to do whatever they can to ensure that the industrial use of these crops is placed on the same playing field as the food use of some of these crops so that they can compete.
The Minister rightly referred to the need for further reform of the CAP. Support should be moved away from production subsidy so that the use of the crop for a more multi-use approach is more fairly balanced than at present. It seems odd that if one grows oilseed for human consumption one gets a significant subsidy, but if one grows it for industrial purposes one gets only the set-aside payment.
During my research it seemed to me that the situation was not quite as optimistic as the Minister has led us to believe, particularly in relation to Government action on energy crops. The Select Committee in the House of Lords spoke of its inability to identify a co-ordinated approach. The Minister referred to the Government's decision to respond to that with the setting up of the industry-based forum. Indeed, Lord Carter said:
We intend to consult interested parties on the setting up of such a forum and, if the response is positive, to bring it into existence later this year.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 785.]

301WH
Yet here we are more than nine months later and the Minister can still say only that she hopes to announce shortly the composition of that forum. That hardly gives the impression of any great speed.
I want to emphasise my arguments about developing the market as much as the supply side of the equation. Yes, the technology and the husbandry research are essential, but they would happen anyway, if the market could be generated and developed. The ARBRE power station, to which reference has been made, demonstrates that. Once the market was set up and the Government provided the necessary assurance that there would be a long-term demand at a fixed price for the short-rotation coppice, that side of the equation was filled. The coppice was planted and the plant is, or shortly will be, in production.
My final point also stems from the House of Lords report. It strongly recommended much more of what it described as full life-cycle research into energy crops. As I said earlier—I think that hon. Members on both sides appreciated this—we have to look at that energy balance. We must not just be taken in by the fact that the crop itself is carbon neutral; the energy involved in producing it, harvesting it and converting it has to be taken into account. The general feeling that the House of Lords Select Committee got from its research was that there is insufficient life-cycle analysis to make final judgments.
I have tried to set out a number of proposals that would help to develop the market for this product, a number of areas where the Government could have acted more quickly and a number where we will, on taking office, make imminent changes that would develop the market and therefore develop the supply.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make a longer speech than I intended. I apologise for that, but it is an important topic with immense potential for environmental benefit and for helping agriculture in its present difficult circumstances. Most important for me is the long-term benefit to the environment that will be achieved if we can make the shift in farming techniques, management and cropping that the policies will generate. However, we are a long way from the policy framework that will enable that to happen.
3.35 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her statement, which was useful and pointed us in the right direction. My speech will relate mainly to my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, although I realise that her Department will not make a final decision about the plant in my constituency.
When mention was made of the House of Lords Select Committee, I was reminded that, in 1989, I served on the House of Commons Select Committee that looked into forestry. We made several recommendations about biomass. My recollection is that the then Government did not take up any of our recommendations. I remember going to Sweden to look at the coppicing of willow trees. It was not a very attractive process, but I suspect that the countryside where it was taking place was not very attractive
302WH
anyhow. The issue was whether the wood should be transformed into energy near the site or taken a great distance to a larger power plant. The decision taken, not only for environmental reasons but also for local employment, was that the coppiced wood should be burned in a power plant as near to the site as possible.
The Minister said that mistakes had been made in the past, and she mentioned forestry plantations. Those of us who live in Cumbria have only to look at pictures of Ennerdale valley, which was one of the most beautiful valleys in Lakeland before the forestry plantations: that valley was spoiled. We have to be very careful. Biomass may be a good idea but if we get it wrong we can bring it into disrepute, as happened with the forestry plantation scheme.
The Minister did not mention wind turbines and her view may differ from mine. I find the wind turbines on the hillsides of Cumbria visually polluting. I realise that they produce clean energy, but they do a great deal of damage to the landscape, and we should be careful how far we go down that road. Perhaps biomass might help us to reduce the number of wind turbines.
A company called Border Biofuels plans to build a large power plant near my constituency; actually, it is in the constituency of Penrith and The Border. I take great exception to the proposed plant. It is not that I disagree with the process involved: it is correct, and uses forestry waste. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that that was a difficult and expensive process, but the company is suggesting that process and it seems a good use of the waste.
My objection is that a decision has been taken to build a large power plant in an urban area on the edge of my constituency and to transport the waste timber over a radius of 100 miles. The logic of that on environmental grounds is lost on me. We are talking about 200 heavy goods vehicles a day coming down the motorway—that is the best part of the matter—and along many rural roads on to the busiest road in my constituency. That will not only pause congestion, but will necessitate a new giratory traffic scheme that will cost more than £1 million and will destroy the quality of life of many of my constituents—all so we can say that we have a green energy policy. It will bring the policy into disrepute.
There is great concern in my constituency about the extra pollution that the vehicles will cause, bearing in mind that HGVs do about eight miles to the gallon. There are three primary schools on the route and the road is the busiest in Cumbria; it is even busier than the motorway. Hon. Members will therefore understand my reservations.
Unfortunately, the city council did not have reservations; the first act of the newly elected Conservative city council was to give the proposal planning permission. It was probably the worst decision of any council in Carlisle since reorganisation in 1974 and I am not sure why it was taken. A similar plant was designed and planned for Wales at Newbridge-on-Wye, where the local authority took a different stance. It did an environmental impact study and consulted the locals; after more than a year of deliberation, the authority came to the conclusion that the environmental impact of the plant was greater than the benefits and turned it down.

303WH
In Carlisle, planning permission has been given. However, the proposal is unlikely to go ahead because of my opposition and that of the residents, and because the county council is making it plain that the plant should not be built. We should take it as a warning that these schemes may appear very good but there is an element of fashion about them, which the city council officers were guilty of following. They thought that it would be good to have the first major power plant in the area and they rushed to grant planning permission. I hope that we will be able to stop it from going ahead and I find it difficult to accept that the Government are giving the plant massive subsidies to be built. My constituents know that it will affect their quality of life, as there will be a continuous plum e of steam hundreds of yards into the air that will he seen for miles around; people are also worried about pollutants from the plant. Several years ago, the local Conservative Member of the European Parliament was part of a consortium to build a similar plant fuelled by chicken litter rather than wood waste, and there was great alarm among the residents about it.
I welcome the Government's policy. I do not like making "not in my back yard" speeches, but I believe that the policy has wider implications if we get it right. Power plants should be built in the rural community; the transportation costs are lower and, more importantly, there is employment where the product is produced. For that reason, I hope that the Government go ahead. However, they should be careful about the larger plants that have massive transport costs and pollution implications.
3.43 pm
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the Minister on securing this timely debate and on much of what she said. This country has come late to many of the issues; we have not established the priorities that might have led to some of the technologies being introduced earlier.
There are worries that it has taken time for the Government to establish a coherent approach between Departments and there is evidence that the issue has not yet been successfully concluded. The Minister's remarks showed that there is commitment, but there is work to be done to make that commitment a reality. My purpose is to encourage the Minister in her proposals and perhaps encourage her and her colleagues to go further on some issues.
The programme is an important development for the agricultural industry and for the wider community. Why do we need those technologies to come on stream? First, our commitment to renewable energy is important and, secondly, they provide carbon neutral fuels for transportation and other energy nerds. To take a wider view, increasing the crop coverage provides for carbon sequestration. Although that has been a difficult subject in recent international discussions, we should bear it in mind.
Thirdly, there is capacity to reduce pollutants and particulates, especially in the biofuel element of the business, and that is a worthy aim. Fourthly, there are opportunities for new uses—pharmaceutical or industrial—introducing more and more recyclable materials. That also has an environmental effect. Finally,
304WH
not to be forgotten are the effects on local communities and on the difficult circumstances of many people who are engaged in agriculture. The scheme provides opportunities for diversification away from sectors that have been in serious trouble in recent years and for developing the rural economy. Those are worthy objectives.
As other hon. Members have said, a wide variety of crops is involved. We have talked about short-rotation coppice willow—withies, as we call them in Somerset; although we generally grow our withies for different purposes—and miscanthus. When we have these debates, whatever crop or sector we are discussing, I can always tell the Minister that I have examples in my constituency. Today is no exception, and I am indebted to my constituent, Archie Montgomery, who is a great advocate of the virtues of miscanthus, which he is presently planting and sees as having enormous potential benefit. Oil-bearing plants have their uses, either as biofuel or industrial chemicals, as do fibre plants; we had reason to discuss the hemp and flax regime recently. I thank the Minister again for her efforts on behalf of the hemp and flax growers in my part of the world and for her announcement today about the application of the agrimonetary compensation and flood relief. Lastly, there are starch-producing crops.
From the growers' point of view, what are the requirements for the industry to prosper? I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The first and most important requirement is a market. Growers need to be sure that there is a viable destination for their produce. Nothing is assured in this world—certainly not in the world of agriculture—but growers must be reasonably assured that they will find a market for what they produce.
Secondly, there are issues of capital investment. Biomass involves start-up costs, certainly for the power production plant. Individual growers also face capital costs when re-establishing a new crop, setting aside and preparing land for it and planting and maturing it over the initial years. The Minister readily understands that one cannot simply plant crops, forget about them and then find that they are ready within the first year. A degree of commitment is required and the grower must be assured that the commitment is worthwhile financially.
Thirdly, the need to secure an income stream for the grower has not been sufficiently recognised. The start-up costs are one thing, but the grower needs to know that the cash flow will continue for the first few years of growth. I shall return to that in a moment because although it is important, it has not been addressed so far in the programmes that have been introduced.
The grower also needs encouragement that the systems introduced by the Government have a degree of flexibility. There is nothing worse than too rigid a protocol which discourages innovation in agriculture and the use of new crops for several reasons. As the Minister said, the climate varies throughout the country, and some areas are much more suited to one crop than another as a result of their temperature, rainfall and soil type. I certainly would not suggest that miscanthus, for instance, was the answer for some northerly parts of the country. Willow is probably not

305WH
the answer for the drier parts of the country—if such places exist any more. Most of the country looks suitable for willow at the moment.
We should not be too prescriptive about plot size. Why should that make a difference? Let us remember that substantial capital costs are involved in growing willow, which is particularly vulnerable to rabbit problems and therefore requires fencing. Small plots and rabbit fencing are not cost-effective on a relatively small income. Those issues must be considered.
I do not argue with the 25-mile limit on the distance from the generating station, because it is sensible. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, a local generating capacity for locally produced biomass is terribly important in maintaining the tightly drawn environmental equation. If we start to produce large quantities of plant material, it will be nonsensical to transport them vast distances across the country to burn them.
Producers are keen to see the Government-industry forum on non-food crops properly established and carrying out its work. A principal reason is their frustration at the Government's apparent lack of joined-up thinking on the issue. Producers go from one Department to another, receiving variable degrees of encouragement but not seeing links being made. The forum will have the opportunity to inform Government and enable Government to take a more coherent view in response to the points raised.
We all know the difficulties that the climate change levy has produced in some sectors, not least the horticultural industry. As everyone knows, we have had long and hard discussions—the outcome is certainly better than the position from which we started—but there are still problems. The Minister may be aware of a glasshouse company on the Isle of Wight. The combined heat and power company that was associated with it and integral to its system has recently gone bust, and the glasshouse company has suddenly been left without the option that it thought it had. We need flexibility in the system to allow for such an event.
As far as growers, environmentalists, residents and everyone else are concerned, I am a great believer that small is beautiful. I believe that for a number of reasons, not least because of what the hon. Member for Carlisle said, but because that approach is a sensible way of developing the technology. We do not need enormous generating stations.
The argument is similar to that about waste disposal. The assumption is often that we should have landfill sites—which I abhor—or large incinerators, because they constitute the only cost-effective method of waste disposal. I suspect that the answer is, in fact, much smaller-scale anaerobic digesters, attached to a small community, where the transportation distances between production and use are much more limited. The same applies to energy production. As some countries have grasped, we should look for much smaller units of production, much shorter travel distances and much more local use of the energy produced.
What do we wish the Government to consider in terms of what they have already produced? There is a commitment to a 10 per cent. renewables percentage by
306WH
2010. On my party's behalf, I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important that percentage is and the need not to slip from that commitment. There may be a tendency to do so as we approach that date. I am determined, as are many others, to press the Government to continue that commitment.
We need the headroom within the renewals obligation to enable those technologies to develop. Simpler options such as wind generation and other forms of renewables are important contributors to the non-fossil fuel production of energy, but we also need the headroom that enables technologies such as energy crops, which are not as mature in this country, to develop as viable alternatives through either a banding structure—as was debated at length in the Committee of the Utilities Act 2000 and rejected by the Government—or simply other forms of encouragement. It is an important issue in terms of the long-tern prosperity of the industry.
On price support, I shall not repeat the figures quoted by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire but it is important that there is a clear commitment on the issue. Those who are tempted to invest as growers or producers of plant must know that they are investing on a firm basis in tern s of capital support, the costs at supplier level—so that they are assured of a market for the energy produced—and cash flow so that there is a guaranteed income stream in the early years of production. There are a variety of ways in which that could be done.
At the moment, one cannot start growing such crops and getting Government support for that unless one has a commitment to a local energy producer within the 25-mile radius. Is it not possible that that scheme could be modified so that, for example, support for the grower could exist and if a buyer for the crop were not found, a claw-back mechanism could be introduced at a later stage? Otherwise one would have a one-way system. At the moment, one has to have the plant in place before one can start growing, but there is great capacity for co-operatives or groups of growers—particularly in my part of the world—to develop the crop and then to attract someone to use it effectively so that the circle is squared. That is a more attractive option and there are ways in which that could be done without the Treasury ultimately being the loser.
I ask the Government to maintain their commitment to research. The Minister said that there are exciting new areas, such as the polycarbonate fibre mix that she mentioned which uses miscanthus or wood chip. That is a tremendously exciting way of finding a new end use for a crop and encouraging more recyclable material for hard uses, which I hope will develop in this country. I also hope that we will have medicinal and industrial use of the new dyes.
I share the view of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that it is extraordinary that we are talking about woad those of us from the Celtic fringes welcome that wholeheartedly. That development shows that we should never discard technology. New ways of using materials can often enable materials to become effective again. Hon. Members who read a recent book on the history of mauve will know of the great breakthrough when an analogue dye was first produced by industrial means, replacing the previous agricultural means of production. As the hon. Member

307WH
for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we have now come full circle and we see the merits of agricultural production complementing industrial uses.
Marketing is also important. The Government have a role to play in finding domestic and potential export markets. We also need underpinning fiscal measures, particularly for biofuel, and I welcome the Chancellor's comments. I suspect that the timing of his anticipated Budget announcement is no coincidence, but so be it. That is politics. The most important point is that we establish the fiscal encouragement for people to use biofuel and biodiesel. I suspect that that will happen, and I welcome it.
As with many other things, these crops give rise to potential dangers in terms of public attitudes and the future market. We have talked about the possible effect of monoculture, and that danger should be resisted. There is also a risk of overstating the contribution of energy-producing crops. Some hon. Members have suggested that they are the answer to all our climate change concerns, but I do not believe for one moment that we can cover the country with hem. However, that does not mean that they cannot make an important contribution.
There is a further danger of a new dependence that is just as corrosive as the dependence that has built up in recent years through commodity support processes in the CAP. I do not want to see a new subsidised sector. Nor do I want viability—whether economic or environmental—to be miscalculated, so that people are led down an investment route, only to find that the sums have been changed and the whole process is deemed to have gone down the pan.
As the Minister knows, the National Farmers Union has advocated a new sector in the CAP for non-food crops, but I am not sure that I entirely accept that argument. Like her, I want total reform of the CAP, not a new subsidised sector. Nevertheless, this is an important component in a move towards environmental and social support, rather than price and commodity support. I hope that the Government will pursue the matter in that way, and that they will be given every encouragement to develop this exciting and potentially valuable sector.
4.2 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I will not make a constituency-related speech. I shall instead concentrate on biofuels, and biodiesel in particular. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has already referred to their importance in achieving our objective of reducing global warming.
So far, this Government have a useful record in using fiscal incentive to encourage alternative, environmentally preferable road fuels. Obviously, they include compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, which I have been heavily involved in promoting. More recently, the Government have cut excise duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel, and they have shown signs of extending their commitment. Through the green fuel challenge, the Chancellor has invited industry to develop practical proposals for alternative environmentally friendly fuels. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the Chancellor hopes to provide some incentive in the next Budget, in the form of duty rates, for the most promising of these fuels.
308WH
I want to say a few words in favour of the green fuel challenge, which hon. Members are wrong to rubbish as a publicity stunt. I have introduced representatives of business to Ministers in this House and the other place. They appreciated this example of joined-up government, which involves the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions working together. They enjoyed the chance to put the case for their own fuel to the Minister, face to face. I should like to see more of that, not less.
The liquid biofuels bioethanol and biodiesel are excellent candidates for consideration. The major source of liquid biodiesel is rape seed oil. Its production could therefore help many of Britain's farmers, especially in the eastern region surrounding my constituency. I have discussed that with the NFU. Biodiesel is renewable, sustainable and safely biodegradable. The development of a United Kingdom production base for this non-food crop could make a significant contribution to British agriculture and the rural economy.
The previous Administration imposed a duty on biodiesel equal to that on finite fossil fuel-derived diesel. Consequently, biodiesel was priced out of the market, and remains so; it is around twice the price of fossil diesel. A reduction in the rate of duty for liquid biofuels would involve only a hypothetical loss of revenue to the Treasury, because at present no duty is raised from them. Other countries, having recognised the environmental credentials of the fuels, have introduced tax incentives and therefore have established markets.
Biodiesel has a sound environmental record. Total emissions of greenhouse gases from the biodiesel life cycle are at least half those from fossil fuels. As a fuel, it far outperforms fossil diesel on a net carbon basis, because the growing plant that produces the raw material itself recycles carbon. Life cycle emissions for carbon dioxide are only around one fifth of those from fossil fuels. Biodiesel does not contain any sulphur and does not even need to undergo the process required to make ultra-low sulphur diesel. It is a net producer of energy; for every unit of energy that is put into the process, around two units are produced. The contrast with fossil fuels is marked. They are a finite resource, major producers of the dreaded CO2 and other pollutants and require energy for their production.
The positive aspect is that the technology to produce liquid biodiesel is commercially viable and readily available. Industry is ready, willing and waiting to start its production; all that it requires—this is a note to the Treasury—is the appropriate fiscal incentive. Countries such as France, Germany and Austria already have established markets in the fuel.
In the short term, 33 per cent. of the diesel and petrol markets could be supplied by biodiesel and bioethanol respectively. The necessary farmland is available. Indeed, in 1999, the oil seed from around 120,000 hectares was exported from the UK to France and Germany primarily for the manufacture of biodiesel. In the longer term, more than 5 per cent. of road transport fuels could come from our farms. We are missing an important opportunity. The potential prize for British agriculture and British farmers is significant, because the crop could be grown on land that might otherwise be

309WH
idle under the wretched set-aside. The United States Government have allocated $150 million a year in capital grants for farmers wanting to produce biodiesel.
In contrast to other road fuels, biodiesel does not require expensive engine modification or special storage, because it has a very low flashpoint. It is safe and easily biodegradable. I have concentrated on the production of liquid biodiesel from rape seed oil, but the potential exists to manufacture it by recycling cooking oil. That would help to deal with the problem of how to dispose of waste congealed cooking fats.
I thank the Minister and the Government for this opportunity to debate non-food crops. All hon. Members have made valuable contributions. I conclude by asking the Minister whether she agrees that the production of biodiesel represents an opportunity for British farmers—especially in the eastern region, with which I am concerned—to make a major environmentally-friendly contribution to the nation's diesel fuel supplies.
4.9 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate a matter that, in 10 or 15 years, will be a much more important feature of agriculture in the United Kingdom and western Europe. We are on the threshold of a bioeconomy that will change the way in which we generate much of our power, run many of our engines and cars, and go about our daily business. That is a prize worth reaching for. It is gratifying to have this debate and to hear that the Minister is prepared to listen to ideas for other Ministries. I do not know whether shorthand is among her talents, but I have a few ideas that I hope she will take down.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has demonstrated awareness of the issues during the past few years, but we cannot say the same of all other aspects of the Government's policy, which is not as joined-up as it could or should be. I hope that that will change, not only with the fuel challenge from the Treasury, but with ideas from the DTI and support for the industry. We must work with the market to encourage the bioeconomy, but the infrastructure is not yet fully available.
I have a strong constituency interest in the matter and I chair a biomass working group in Ceredigion to examine how to develop biomass in my constituency. It may be useful if I explain who is represented on that working group, because it is not a fringe interest group on agriculture, environment or energy. It includes representatives of the two farming unions in Wales; Antur Teifi, a local development agency; the Welsh Development Agency; the local authority; the private sector, through British Biogen; various forestry interests, including individual contractors; and Ymlaen Ceredigion, which is a voluntary group for sustainable development in Ceredigion. We have a private, public and voluntary sector partnership and I hope that the Government agree that the way forward is at local development level.
We have had a frustrating year with a commercial project, which I shall not name because it is commercially sensitive. We have tried to get it off the
310WH
ground to deliver biomass energy from Welsh hardwoods and forestry waste through local processing of agricultural produce. Every hon. Member who has spoken today has referred to the need for local biomass energy production. One reason for our frustration is the funding gap—I support the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on that—and the DTI should examine whether that gap can be bridged.
With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), farmers in Ceredigion who might be persuaded to diversify into energy crops need about £40 a dry tonne to compensate for the sheep subsidies that are available for a similar acreage. That is way above the £20 or £25 a dry tonne that they can receive. How can that gap be bridged? Efficiency will improve and that £40 will come down, but we need a funding system now that will attract farmers to grow such crops a id provide sustainability for 10 or 15 years.
When the sums are added up, a little is missing, including the renewables incentive of 1p or 1.5p per kilowatt hour, and we need a little more effort from the Government to push us further along the line, so that we can take full advantage of the proposals that the Minister has set out today. The agricultural side is almost there, but the infrastructure and trade and industry side is not. The Treasury side will be in the Budget, but we shall have to wait a few weeks for that.
The great prize is to create a more sustainable, environmentally friendly bioeconomy in the UK, where heat and power from agricultural products can be utilised to create local jobs and keep people in agriculture; albeit growing a different type of crop. We must move out of the carbon economy and into the hydrogen economy which may well exist in 20 or 30 years. Hydrogen is only a carrier of energy; it is not an energy source. The question is how to get the energy into the hydrogen fuel cells of the future, which may power our cars in the next five years. We want to maximise energy from renewable sources, so we must get the non-food side of renewables up and running. Yesterday, the Institute for Public Policy Research announced that it is about to embark on in-depth research on a low-ca -bon initiative programme, which I hope the Government will be part of. We should all pay attention to that and feed ideas into it.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the example of north American agriculture, which produces 1.7 million gallons of biofuel each year. British production lags far behind that total. Small plants and co-operatives produce the majority of north American biofuel, so the cost of transporting raw materials or biofuel over long distances is irrelevant; we can make it in local plants. One million American cars can run on E85 fuel, which is the 85 per cent. ethanol fuel that we discussed earlier. All cars built after 1995 can run on E10, and there is scope for new cars to run on E85, but only if we ask the manufacturers to modify their engines.
On Tuesday, the Government rightly made great play of asking manufacturers to improve vehicle security. They should also ask manufacturers to improve the ability of engines to run on those fuels. In addition, they should start a procurement policy, which would involve the Government buying these fuels and cars that are capable of running on either biodiesel or E85.

311WH
Cars in Brazil run on fuel based on sugar cane. In Sweden, 80 per cent. of fuel stations sell bioethanol, which powers all of Stockholm's buses. Furthermore, they have overcome the fish and chip smell associated with ethanol. There are two pieces of good news for Wales. First, Welsh manufacturing industry—for example, Ford in Bridgend—could produce the engines that run on ethanol. Secondly, Welsh agriculture could produce wood and biodiesel.
Because these fuels are renewable and produce low emissions, they also address the problems of climate change that the Government are currently taking seriously. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) said that biodiesel is safe, and mentioned the ease with which it can be put into modern car engines. That is not surprising, because the diesel engine was designed to run on a biofuel—vegetable oil. Later, the oil companies kicked the vegetable side out and asked people to go for the black gold. We could grow our fuel by planting oil seed rape. This is one area where I am prepared to alter my views on genetically modified crops; I am not keen on them as far as food crops are concerned. Research into genetically modified crops for non-food purposes may be something that the public will find more acceptable as we develop non-food crops that produce high energy yields.
Bioethanol can now be produced from wood, in addition to more traditional methods. Wood is something that we in Wales can grow a great deal of, although fewer conifers and more traditional hardwoods would be welcome. The Welsh Assembly is addressing that issue at the moment. One tonne of wood or straw can produce up to 350 litres of biofuel. We can develop that with the right tax breaks for wood.
In addition to energy production, there is also biomass, which is a more direct form of heat production. I am not talking so much about using bioenergy to produce fuel or electricity, but particularly to produce heat directly. It is important to remember that if we use biomass in small-scale heating plants, it is the most effective and efficient of all renewables. It is, incidentally, also one of the most job-intensive. Although my constituency is facing an application to build the largest wind farm in England and Wales at Cefn Croes—which will produce something like 59 kWh—it will create only about six on-going jobs. That is very few, although I shall not oppose it on those grounds. I differ from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew); there is a need for wind farms and for bioenergy, but we need to get the balance right. The fact is that growing farms for bioenergy creates more jobs than wind farms and the farms are also less visually intrusive.
The potential is great and, in Ceredigion, we have identified 25 small-scale installation sites—for example, schools, old people's homes and residential homes—where the local authority is considering replacing old, inefficient oil and coal boilers and could do so with biomass burners. Those 25 sites would produce about 200 kW each and that represents by far the greatest efficiency and effectiveness.
One of my concerns is to make sure that local farmers are able to use their wood crop for those sites. As I understand it at the moment, if the sites were to go ahead tomorrow, they would use soft wood pellets produced somewhere else and transported over a fairly
312WH
long distance. That would not be environmentally sound, and it is important to get the right technology into the right place. I should like to see local hardwoods, particularly from the remaining under-managed woods on many Welsh farms, being utilised in the local market.
Although I accept the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about transporting materials from a distance, to get things off the ground we perhaps need some sort of bridging regime where it is acceptable to bring the material from further away and then to go for the local market in time. For example, I am given to understand that the Ely power station initially took straw from as much as 100 miles away. Now that the farmers and producers know that there is a market for straw, it is obtained from a far smaller radius. There is a lesson there to be learned.
The DTI has to be aware of that point in the way in which it deals with biomass applications for the capital grants scheme. I understand that the new opportunities fund will have up to £150 million available for community renewable energy schemes. They will need to realise that although on-shore wind energy is the cheapest way to generate electricity, biomass is the best way to generate energy if we can get it directly into the area that is being heated. The European Union has a sustainable communities competition that I understand is also open at the moment for such projects. I hope the Government will look at that. Seventeen local authorities, as well as my own, are currently looking at biomass in this way. Devon schools are already well on the way to being heated by biomass.
The hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned earlier the Newbridge application for the burning of forest residue to produce biomass energy in mid-Wales. Although the application was very contentious, I was not so concerned about it. Opposition is often generated by a sense of nimbyism on the part of many people who have moved into rural areas expecting peace and quiet. They can, of course, have peace and quiet, but jobs are needed for people who live in the area, as well as production with which farmers can engage.
The Newbridge application raises a serious question for Wales and the United Kingdom in general. Are we going for residues and the burning of what is considered waste, with all the attendant environmental difficulties that have to be overcome, or are we going to put our resources much more firmly into the growing of non-food and energy crops? That is why I welcome this debate and the opportunity to press home to the Minister—and, through her, other Departments—the need to put more emphasis on the crop side rather than on the waste side. Further down the waste stream is incineration; that is something that I do not favour and we will have huge difficulties if we go that way.
The National Assembly for Wales has the Welsh forestry strategy currently under consideration and it would be useful, at a United Kingdom level, to emphasise local forestry production and traditional hardwoods as well as the softwoods that are familiar in Scandinavia, where biomass is usually used. That route might lead to a useful future for forestry in Wales.
I make these remarks in the context of a dreadful year for Welsh agriculture. This afternoon's debate provides an opportunity to advance some ideas, as well as to take advantage of the presence of the Minister for

313WH
Agriculture to remind her of the need for agrimonetary compensation and of the fact that we are currently haemorrhaging jobs in Welsh agriculture. I understand that she no longer has primary responsibility for Welsh agriculture. Nevertheless, she will be interested to know that last year in Welsh agriculture 73 jobs a week were lost. There was a 13 per cent. fall in the number of full-time farmers and 4,000 fewer people were employed in agriculture in Wales.
That dreadful condition is matched by a similar fall in the number of traditional agricultural activities in Wales. The beef-breeding herd has decreased by 3 per cent., the dairy herd by 4 per cent. and the number of sheep in Wales has fallen by 5 per cent; people will no doubt be amazed to hear that. A gap is growing, in that farmers cannot make their regimes work under the present CAP system and with a strong pound, and non-feed crops could have a very useful part to play.
I agree that we do not want a monoculture of energy crops and non-food crops, but I would like the Government to pursue three strands for west Wales in particular. Forestry is one of them. Another is the increasing interest in organic foods. I was lucky to come fifteenth in the ballot for private Members' Bills and my Bill will deal with organic food and farming targets. The third strand is a more sustainable agriculture with added value and the protection of local abattoirs.
The whole of agriculture can have a sustainable future with energy crops as part of the third part of that equation. In that context, I have a few suggestions that the Government could pursue to bring about that change in agricultural practice and more sustainable agriculture. First, I believe that forestry should be regarded as a crop. Some people find it difficult to think of trees as crops because of the time that is required. It is a crop.
Ceredigion has a historical background in forestry. In the early days of agricultural reform in the late 18th century, Thomas Jones of Hafod was perhaps the first person to introduce the idea of growing forestry into the landscape of mid-Wales. It is now seen as one of the great picaresque glories of landscape, but it is interesting to note that forestry was introduced for agricultural purposes as an experiment. We still have a large number of trees in mid-Wales, most of them under-utilised. We need perhaps to view forestry more as a crop.
The CAP regime needs examining. It is curious, to say the least. The most nonsensical aspect is that non-food and energy crops are included in world food prices and set-aside regimes; they are treated as though they were contributing towards the food mountain in western Europe. That is crazy. They should not be part of the CAP. The whole system needs reform, but it would be a useful step forward in the meantime to keep energy and non-food crops separate from the main food aspect of the CAP.
I do not know what the Chancellor is likely to announce on the alternative fuel challenge fund. The tax on petrol is about 65p a litre, while the tax on liquid petroleum gas is just 5p a litre. There is a huge gap. Bioethanol costs about 40p a litre to make. Petrol costs about 22p a litre to make. Hon. Members can see where the gap needs to be bridged. The hon. Member for
314WH
Peterbrough referred to the tax differential. Bioethanol and biodiesel have to be at least as cheap as ordinary fuels, if not a great deal cheaper. Historically, there was a time when the Government wanted to encourage the use of diesel by reducing the tax. It was seen later as an environmental mistake because of other aspects of diesel. However, it has to be cheaper in order to make the point.
The Department of Trade and Industry has a capital grants scheme for wind farms and for biomass. However, there might be a problem for biomass. For starters the funds are—as always—inadequate. Capital schemes are good for onshore wind, but biomass is not just about capital; it is about getting the market right, on-going revenue costs and getting producers on board. The £50 million that could be in the scheme might not be adequate to secure the requisite spread of costs for biomass. As I said, wind farms will find it much easier.
The DTI intends to pick technology winners, which could be a mistake in view of the need to introduce new technologies. I am not a personal opponent of wind farms, but Government money should not be used to support more wind farm developments when there is an alternative that can generate more jobs and provide a more sustainable future for Welsh agriculture. In that regard, the Government should pay more attention to infrastructure.
We all know about problems over liquid petroleum gas; an acceptable and more environmentally friendly option for use in vehicles. My huge rural constituency contains only one such fuel station. The Government may introduce good measures for biofuels in the challenge fund, but I fear that my constituents will, because of infrastructure problems, be unable to access them. West Wales is at the end of the fuel chain, which is why we were the first to lose our fuel last September. We were also the last to get it back when the protests ended. We also supplied many protesters, but that is a different matter.
To succeed, we must pay more attention to markets and infrastructure, but the Government have paid insufficient attention to them. I acknowledge that the Minister's Department is not responsible, but I am sure that she will want take some of the lessons into account. For example, VAT on biomass equipment and on local installations in homes or small factory units is an important consideration. Bioenergy, which is not usually polluting, can make a huge contribution.
The Minister stressed environmental issues. We cannot be trapped in a fossil fuel-dependent economy for much longer. We must take a visionary look at the problem. Energy crops will provide a better future for the whole of the UK and offer huge opportunities for Welsh farmers. It is worth reflecting on how we became a fossil fuel-dependent economy and on how we can get out of it. The entire world economy was dependent on energy crops until the industrial revolution. It was the replacement of the plant energy from trees, particularly charcoal, that led to the industrial revolution.
I represent a rural constituency in west Wales, but I was brought up in south Wales valleys, in one of the main coal-producing; valleys; it is now the only one with a deep mine—Tower colliery in the Cynon valley, Aberdare. Our debate reminds me of the beginnings of the destruction of the south Wales valleys. Hon.

315WH
Members with constituencies outside the valleys probably think that it was all about coal. In fact, it was not about coal, but cutting down trees. The valleys were, initially, totally forested. It was cutting down trees—for charcoal burning in the burgeoning iron industry at Blaenavon—that started the despoliation of the valleys.
In a sense, our journey towards the fossil fuel-dependent economy in which we are currently trapped developed out of our need for bioenergy. Curiously, however, because technology has improved so much and we no longer need to burn coal to produce energy from plants, bioenergy and biofuels is could provide our escape out of the dependent economy. We are effectively bypassing several hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Instead of waiting for plants to produce coal, gas and oil, deep in the reserves of the earth, we are using modern technology to achieve the same end. We can build the technology; not bionic man, but bioenergy. I hope that the Government will take account of the issues raised in this valuable debate and that the Minister will acknowledge the need to work a little harder to integrate a great deal more to realise this vision.
4.34 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I welcome this afternoon's debate and also the broad agreement—apart from one or two minor spats—on the desirability of seriously considering energy crops and their role in the future economy.
There is broad agreement, too, about the problems associated with energy crops: making sure that the markets exist, that the production and the markets coincide and that the process by which energy crops can play a greater role in the energy economy runs smoothly.
It is important to see Government investment as investment: not as underwriting mad technologies, but as a method of establishing energy crops and getting them to the market. We are talking not about a series of highly experimental technologies that need enormous research but about mature technologies that have been around for a long time. We are talking about changing some of our ways of thinking about how we use those technologies in our economy. We are also talking about the role of energy crops in contributing to the Kyoto targets. I was proud of this country's leading the way in establishing those targets, and I hope that we will continue that lead by taking the measures being discussed in the debate.
Energy crops are most important to the Government's target of 10 per cent. of energy being supplied from renewables. They are important, too, in the context of renewables' exemption from the climate change levy, which creates a potential market for a range of renewable energy sources, especially from biomass. The task is to ensure that electricity is supplied at an early stage by those sources and that when companies seek green tariff electricity sources they are available at a good price.
The debate should encourage us to make a quantum leap in our energy philosophy, although it is not particularly visionary: it is to substitute irreplaceable mineral energy sources with carbon efficient cycles. The plant grows, it fixes carbon, we combust it and it grows again. It is a simple idea, but a great leap forward in
316WH
terms of renouncing our long-standing dependence on digging things out of the ground that cannot be replaced.
The development of short-rotation willow coppice as a fuel for power stations is an important step forward, as is the growth of elephant grass and the development of power stations—which I agree should ideally be small and local—burning straw that was previously burnt off and polluted the area where it was grown, with no benefit.
The next horizon is the use of energy crops as a vehicle fuel. The Chancellor's green fuel challenge in the pre-Budget statement was an important step forward in that respect. Hon. Members mentioned two alternative vehicle fuels that we should seriously consider: biodiesel made from rape oil or other oil-bearing plants, and ethanol, which can be made from a variety of sources such as wheat, sugar beet, forest residues and cellulose residues from paper making.
Currently, road traffic accounts for a little more than 20 per cent. of CO2 emissions. However, as was set out in the climate change and transport Green and White Papers, the problem is that that figure as a total percentage of CO2 emissions is increasing fast. In 1990, it was estimated that transport produced 33.3 megatonnes of carbon, which, in a business as usual scenario for 2010, will go up to 40.7 megatonnes. That is a substantial increase in a relatively short period.
Projected policy has so far generally been based on proposals to curb traffic growth, to move people out of cars and on to public transport and, under certain circumstances, to develop lean-burn engines and different forms of the internal combustion engine. A depressing reality about policies in that direction is that it is clear, if only because the topography of our country has been built on the idea of the motor car, that people will continue to drive around in motor cars for a long time to come. That is a gloomy conclusion. Until we develop a fuel cell that can drive motor cars, people will continue to drive cars based on the internal combustion engine. Even with developments in engine technology, that will continue to be a substantial and increasing source of CO2.
How can CO2 be saved as the motorist drives? Part of the answer lies with the action taken by the European Union to develop targets and standards in vehicle manufacture, so that replacement vehicles coming on stream are far more efficient in terms of emissions than those that they replace. However, that action has already been part of the CO2 targets, and was certainly mentioned in the climate change Green and White Papers. It assumes that whatever fuel goes into cars is used more efficiently. No assumptions or predictions have yet been made about the contribution of the fuel used, whatever its nature, to combating climate change.
I am concerned about the fact that all the work that has been done so far on alternative fuels places the adoption of such policies well into the future. Electric cars and fuel cells are regarded in the climate change White Paper as peripheral technologies in terms of the market.
Is it possible to make considerable CO2 savings by changing the composition of fuel that presently goes into cars? The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made several important

317WH
points about how one might encourage the use of fuels such as ethanol for precisely the purpose of changing the total fuel mix of cars on our roads. It is not practical to replace petrol or diesel wholly with biodiesel or ethanol. For biodiesel, one would need to cover most of the countryside with oilseed rape. I think that most of the countryside would turn yellow if we were to develop such an economy. As I mentioned about ethanol, if we encouraged E85 cars as a staple alternative to mineral petrol-driven cars, we would need, with a few exceptions, to reconfigure fundamentally the engines of the cars that we use.
How do we resolve the conundrum? My modest proposal, to use Dean Swift's phrase, is that, over time, 10 per cent. of ethanol or biodiesel—I want to concentrate on ethanol—should be added to each litre of petrol or diesel sold. That would be achieved by a requirement that all petrol or diesel sold be subject to that composition. A similar arrangement achieved the elimination of lead additives over time. The most suitable arrangement would be for the Government simply to introduce the requirement by means of an anti-emission escalator, making the refining industry add an additional 1 per cent. of ethanol each year until 10 per cent. is achieved. In policy terms, that would appear to be similar to the requirement that energy suppliers should obtain 10 per cent. of their supplies from renewable sources.
The overwhelming advantage of such a policy would be instant savings of CO2 emissions without any change in motorists' behaviour—not that I do not advocate change in their behaviour, but it would be complementary to the measures taken to attempt to secure changes in behaviour, such as an increase in public transport use.
Currently, the part of the world in which bioethanol is most widely used is Brazil, where a large number of cars run on 85 per cent. ethanol. The Brazilian ethanol programme, which was introduced as a counter to the fuel shock of the early 1970s—Brazil having few oil resources—is widely regarded internationally as a failure, because the number of cars running on E85 in the Brazilian economy is decreasing. Part of the problem is that motorists have perceived the E85 cars as less efficient and zippy than petrol vehicles and as needing more maintenance. The programme has not proved as acceptable to Brazilian motorists as early experiments suggested that it might.
It is generally less well known that all petrol in Brazil is required by law to contain 22 per cent. ethanol. I defer to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, who suggested that at least 10 per cent. of fuel could be replaced by ethanol without significant modification to engines, but it appears that in Brazil substantially unmodified cars are able to run with 22 per cent. ethanol in all petrol.
The Brazilians have taken into account a further point about the composition of petrol. Because cars use lead-free petrol, it is necessary to add an alternative octane enhancer, and it so happens that ethanol is itself such an octane enhancer. The idea of introducing a substantial percentage of ethanol to petrol is not the fantasy that it appears at first sight.
318WH
An important question that has been raised this afternoon is whether one creates a significant saving in CO2 emission by introducing ethanol in the way that I have suggested. The energy output in bringing ethanol to market is considerable. Various estimates, however—depending on the technology that one uses—suggest that overall one can save CO2 emissions of between 50 and 70 per cent. Let us assume that the median mark is about 60 per cent., and make calculations based on that.
According to the climate change Green Paper, 23 per cent. of CO2 emissions are derived from transport, of which 85 per cent. is road traffic. A substantial majority of that is petrol-driven and produces 32.3 megatonnes of carbon per annum. The achievement of a 10 per cent. substitution of ethanol reduces the total by 6 per cent., if we assume that it is 60 per cent. CO2 efficient, or 1.9 megatonnes of carbon—a substantial amount, contributed simply by people continuing to drive their cars exactly as they do at present. That would increase the contribution made by the transport sector to climate change targets by 40 per cent. It is not a speculative programme that might or might not work: if one introduces an escalator, one knows that it will work, and as it takes hold, it produces a certain, quantifiable contribution.
We have talked at length about bringing technologies to market. One of the purposes of an escalator would be to allow industry time to build up effective resources for ethanol, preferably in the United Kingdom, affording potential producers a stable period in which to develop the ability to supply. As we have heard, ethanol in Brazil is sourced almost exclusively from sugar cane. It is estimated by Professor Goldenberg, one of the leading figures of the Rio talks, that Brazil itself could supply one or more industrialised countries that decided to add ethanol to petrol. There is no doubt that a number of other tropical countries currently overproducing sugar from cane could rapidly develop a source of supply. It is an interesting thought. in our currently oil-run world economy, that we might be able to find a new source of fuel from countries that have no oil but can produce an alternative fuel for cars in abundance.
Mr. Paice: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's proposed introduction of an escalator. Would he expect the oil companies to absorb the cost? Even with an escalator of 1 per cent. a year, under current circumstances the extra cost of producing ethanol as against the convention fuel that it would replace would be a lot of pence per litre. The balance between the price of the raw material and the comparative price of crude oil changes almost daily, but there is a significant cost difference that runs into several tens of pence per litre. Am I right in supposing that he expects the oil companies totally to absorb that?
Dr. Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention It slightly anticipates what I was about to say. I agree that, because the technology is changing rapidly and because one has to work out where, how and what production would be used, it is difficult to be exact about the difference in price that would be represented by the production of a gallon of ethanol as against a gallon of petrol.

319WH
One of my propositions is that ethanol can be made by a variety of different techniques, making it possible to reabsorb elements of what are currently industrial wastes such as cellulose from paper manufacture. Although, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out earlier, research is lacking, it would be apposite to try to quantify the overall cost of producing bioethanol within the UK using a combination of residues, first-growth plants and so on. As far as I am aware, the energy technology support unit—ETSU—has done some research on the matter, but not the sort of research that would allow more accurate figures to be produced. The cost per litre is likely to be marginally greater, even if one takes all those factors into account.
The studies in the UK—as far as I recall, they provided the material used by the Lords Select Committee—were based on an assumption that ethanol would be produced in the UK from wheat. In other words, land would be used to produce wheat and ethanol would be derived from it. The same problem then arises with ethanol as arises with biodiesel, that if there were to be a substantial ethanol economy a vast amount of land would be required to grow the wheat to produce the ethanol. However, souring ethanol from a variety of organic sources would considerably mitigate that, as would the phased introduction of an escalator.
It is certainly true that there is a dispute on cost, but we should bear it in mind that estimates for a change from a litre of petrol to a litre of ethanol simply assume that one would be replaced by the other. I have already mentioned that one of the substantial advantages of the idea of an escalator is that, in the first 5 per cent., the octane enhancer already present in a gallon of petrol has simply been replaced, which itself surely costs more than a litre of petrol to produce. That must be factored into the cost equation.
If that factor is taken into account the best guess that I can come up with for the cost of a 10 per cent. ethanol substitution would be to increase the price of petrol to about 5 per cent. more than it other-wise would have been. That cost difference can be treated in policy terms in various ways. It could simply be left to the market, with petrol companies absorbing the differential. That might bring pressure to bear on the efficient production of ethanol. Alternatively, it would be possible to factor in the additional cost, bearing in mind the immense environmental contribution—2 million megatonnes of carbon certainly saved—into a revised policy of a pre-announced fuel escalator. Before a Budget, one could announce, say, a 3 per cent. escalator or a rise in the price of petrol at the rate of inflation, rebating the 0.5 per cent. price increase represented by the additional cost of the ethanol additive.
That suggestion demonstrates that we are now in the real world of energy crops: we are way beyond the idea that these are ideas that exist on the margins of reality with which a few people in a few far-flung parts of the country may be experimenting but which will never really happen in our towns and cities. It seems to me that we are on the cusp, at least potentially, of making those technologies really work in a serious attempt to decarbonise a highly sophisticated in industrial economy.
That can be done largely by market devices and by minimal intervention by Government in bringing the new products to the market. I certainly believe that in the not-too-distant future we will look back on the last
320WH
century of mineral fuel use as 100 years of needless profligacy and of lost opportunities to power an advanced civilisation in line with our environment rather than against it. I therefore commend the actions that have been taken so far by the Government to bring energy crops to market and look forward to a world where we take them for granted as a fundamental part of the energy use of our country.
4.58 pm
Ms Quin: I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. It has been a fascinating debate and all the contributions have shown that it was worth while holding it. I have taken so many notes on so many pages of paper that the importance of renewable energy and recyclable materials is very much in front of me.
I was somewhat tempted to exclude the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) from my remarks but, as often happens, even though he began his speech by very much misrepresenting what I said, as his remarks proceeded a good deal of what he said was part of the common ground of the points that have been made by everyone who has spoken, particularly about the potential for development and the importance of the market aspects.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members referred to a joined-up approach, which is an important consideration. Reports such as that from the House of Lords have helped to stimulate a more joined-up approach to the issue. I hope that the Government-industry forum will contribute further, because the Government will be represented through the different Departments. That will be a useful way of ensuring not only co-ordination between Departments but that all Departments have contact with the industry and with potential users of the products.
Co-ordination is not perfect. One of the continual challenges of government is to ensure good co-ordination among Departments. None the less, I strongly believe that on this aspect of policy, co-ordination is improving, and we are all keen to focus on it in the coming months and years.
Unsurprisingly, many comments were made about the amount of finance available from different sources. Although the £30 million energy crops scheme for which my Ministry is responsible was decried by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, it is a useful programme. Currently, the issue is not shortage of money but encouraging applicants and ensuring that a market exists. Obviously, none of the schemes is set in stone for all time. We are prepared to learn from experience, but I emphasise that the amount of money that we have already committed, along with the money available through other sources, is an important starting point that will allow a good deal of progress to be made.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke about the energy crops scheme. We have made it a requirement of the scheme that the grower should have a firm outlet in view before we approve the grant. I agree with the point about growers wanting some assurance about where their crop will go, to whom it will be sold and the availability of a market for it. We have tried to factor that into the operation of the scheme.

321WH
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the licence fee for hemp. As I am sure he knows, regulation is required under international conventions. However, the figure that he cited was incorrect, because from the coming season the cost of the licence will be reduced to £80, which is a substantial reduction on the figure of £300 that he cited.
The hon. Gentleman was vague about the cost implications of his party's policy. Far from believing that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was puerile, I believe that it was extremely pertinent. Given the massive hole in the Opposition's spending plans, I would advise hon. Members not to put too much faith in their proposals. I pointed out in an earlier debate in this Chamber on support for organic farming that we had put 10 times more into that sector than the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman made some generous spending commitments on the support that his party would give to organic farming. Hon. Members would be advised to examine the record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, the previous Government did not follow up recommendations made in earlier parliamentary reports on such issues.
I was asked what might happen about the reduction of tax on biofuels to bring it in line with liquid petroleum gas. Obviously, I am not the Minister to make announcements about tax breaks, but the green fuels challenge gives industry the opportunity to make its case. If it makes a strong enough environmental case, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give serious consideration to the appropriate tax measures.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who commended the coordination between the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on this issue. They have co-operated together closely on the green fuels initiative and the green fuels challenge, so I am not surprised to hear that she and others have made representations to both Departments on those matters.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right in saying that the challenge relates to liquid biofuels, to which we normally refer as biomass. However, as his contribution made clear, we are discussing fuels that come from different crops, such as biodiesel, which derives from oilseed rape, and bioethanol. Various crops were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Test and others. The challenge is relevant to the whole crops sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough referred to her own hopes for biodiesel. Officials from my Ministry met the relevant trade body yesterday and, although the key assessment will be made by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will comment on the agricultural use and potential of what is proposed. We recognise the strong interest in the sector from the farming industry. The National Farmers Union has been active in the energy crops sector and made several worthwhile representations to Government. Ben Gill of the NFU has taken a strong personal interest in the energy crops sector and feels that a new outlet for crops is in farmers' interests.
322WH
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test. Clearly, we must consider some alternative scenarios. I assure him that we are not proposing to cover every square inch of the country in oilseed rape. It is important to consider the countryside implications of any proposals.
The new opportunities fund was also mentioned by several speakers, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), as was the situation regarding capital grants for power stations using solid biomass—mainly energy crops—and also offshore wind. He expressed some reservations about some of the conditions attached to the new opportunities fund. Although that is not my area of responsibility, it is useful to stress the fact that those schemes are not set in stone: we must consider their practical implementation, take-up and results so that we can review and monitor them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle was understandably keen to express the views of his constituents, which this debate allowed him to do effectively. He recognised that he was not addressing his remarks to the Minster who would make the decisions about planning. I shall ensure that those remarks are brought to the attention of my colleagues in the relevant Department. I agree that the economics of the proposals should be considered in the round. We should, for example, examine the transport implications and how the overall economics of a project are configured. There are various planning safeguards surrounding the energy crops scheme. We would require crops to be grown as close as possible to the end use, so that the environmental impact of transportation would be minimised. For small-scale heat and combined heat and power uses, crops should ideally be within a 10-mile radius of the user. For larger electricity generation projects, crops should be within a 25-mile radius. Developers will be able to make a case to vary those conditions, but will need to supply economic and environment impact data to do so. I also want to stress that MAFF will consult environmental organisations on proposals for larger projects. I hope that those factors address some of the concerns raised by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred to the special landscape of Cumbria, while the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to landscape, wildlife and environmental considerations in his part of the country. My earlier remarks about intrusive forestry developments were influenced by my knowledge of the Northumbrian landscape and the negative visual effects of some early schemes. However, I must pay tribute to the forestry authorities for the way in which such schemes have been made more environmentally acceptable in recent years, which we all appreciate. Landscape implications must be borne continually in mind.
None the less, I welcome the general air of excitement in this debate about the range of opportunities available. The hon. Member for Ceredigion was especially enthusiastic in describing some of the opportunities in relation to cars using green fuels. However, that is not the only issue. The automotive industry can also increasingly use fibres in the manufacture of vehicles and automotive parts. There is

323WH
a wide range of applications to the automotive industry, never mind some of the other industrial opportunities that were mentioned.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred earlier to the use of hardwood forestry residue, and I confirmed that it can certainly be used. Indeed, it can be a useful complement to crops grown for energy purposes. It might be useful to point out to him that MAFF is working with the Forestry Commission on a joint wood fuel initiative. Clearly, he is well aware that responsibility for many such issues is now devolved, and the Welsh Assembly is considering a number of initiatives in the sector, with which I know that he will be familiar. However, the green fuels challenge, which is a taxation matter, is a UK-wide responsibility and of relevance to all the UK territories. He also referred to the possibility of such crops substituting for traditional agricultural production—for example, on land that has previously been used for other crops or livestock.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test mentioned the climate change levy and the renewables exemption. His remarks kept our attention firmly fixed on the wider context and he provided some interesting international examples.
324WH
I welcome hon. Members' comments on common agricultural policy reform. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome gave robust support to the forward-looking approach to rural development, and there was widespread agreement that the energy and non-food crops sector has much to gain from a forward-looking reform of the CAP that places much more emphasis on the rural development agenda.
I reaffirm that I shall refer my ministerial colleagues in other Departments to the comments that hon. Members made during the debate. I shall also draw their contributions to the attention of the new forum, because many are relevant to its work in considering the economics and future outlets of these new technologies.
I strongly believe that the importance of the subject not only justifies this debate but would justify many future discussions in Parliament. I hope that the debate has been a useful contribution to highlighting the importance of a sector that we all agree has significant implications for the future of agriculture and of our country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of vehicle licensing. [143925]

  Mr. Hill
  The system of registration of all motor vehicles will continue. A system of Automated First Registration and Licensing of vehicles by manufacturers has been developed and now covers over 60 per cent. of new registrations. A similar system is being developed for use by independent importers.

  The system of registration and periodic relicensing performs a number of important functions including the vital role it plays in the fight against crime through the maintenance of the vehicle register. It also helps to ensure that vehicles meet statutory roadworthiness and insurance requirements.

  In recent years the regime for Vehicle Excise Duty has undergone substantial changes, principally aimed at encouraging more environmentally friendly use of vehicles—for example, the introduction of a new system of graduated VED for new cards based on CO2 emissions. The Government also introduced in June 1999 a new lower rate of VED for smaller-engined cars up to 1100cc. In March 2001 this limit will be raised to 1200cc and the Government have signalled their intention of raising that limit to 1500cc from July 2001.

  For goods vehicles, the Government have taken into account the role played by road transport in maintaining a competitive economy. Thus, following the pre-Budget Report last November, VED for goods vehicles has been cut by up to 50 per cent. The Government have issued a consultation paper on the future of VED for goods vehicles seeking views on a number of proposals including fewer VED rate bands, greater flexibility of vehicle configuration within each rate band, better environmental signals and reduced tax on vehicle ownership. The consultation closes on 12 January.

  Local Government (Secrecy)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning secrecy in local government executive structures. [144059]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have received representations on a number of issues relating to new council constitutions, including access to executive decision-making. We have taken account of these representations in making the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 which were laid before the House on 19 December. These Regulations,588W
  together with the powerful overview and scrutiny committees introduced by the Local Government Act 2000, will put in place a robust regime of more accountable decision-making. These arrangements will give people the right to proper access to papers and meetings of the Executive and overview and scrutiny committees will ensure that the Executive are held properly to account both for what they have done and, equally, for what they are proposing to do.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with British Gas regarding the value of the proposal to sell the Millennium Dome to Legacy plc. [144710]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have had no discussions with British Gas concerning the value of the potential sale of the Millennium Dome to Legacy plc. Any such matters will be discussed formally between English Partnerships and British Gas, from whom English Partnerships acquired the land.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions over what period the Government will receive payments from the sale of the Millennium Dome. [144714]

  Ms Armstrong
  The details of the financial implications of any sale to Legacy plc must remain commercially confidential at this stage, while negotiations continue.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects the planning decisions to be made concerning the Millennium Dome site; [144762]

  (2) if the bid of the preferred bidder for the Dome is contingent upon planning permission. [144764]

  Ms Armstrong
  Completion of the sale of the Dome and the associated land will be conditional upon appropriate planning permissions having been obtained. The timing of any such permissions will be a matter initially for the London borough of Greenwich, and will depend on how any planning applications progress through the planning system. Two initial applications relating to the Legacy plc proposals for the Dome site are currently being considered by the London borough of Greenwich. Another application, for the use of associated land around the Dome, is due to be submitted within the next several months.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many expressions of interest have been received from companies, consortia and individuals wishing to bid for the Dome site. [144765]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 330W.

  Over 70 expressions of interest were received in response to the competition that was launched in March 1999. All of these were encouraged to elaborate and substantiate their interest, and were subsequently evaluated prior to short lists being drawn up.
  589W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what checks were carried out concerning other potential bidders before confirming the Legacy Consortium as the preferred bidder for the Dome. [144769]

  Ms Armstrong
  Legacy plc was confirmed as the preferred bidder at the end of an extensive competition process lasting 18 months, during which more than 70 expressions of interest in acquiring the Dome site were evaluated and shortlisted in a four stage process. The final shortlist of two from this process comprised Dome Europe and Legacy plc. Dome Europe was appointed as preferred bidder, but subsequently withdrew, and discussions were then initiated with Legacy plc.

  The competition process was open to new bidders for a period of over nine months after its launch in March 1999. While other unsolicited expressions of interest have been received since the competition was closed to new entries, these have not been subjected to the same level of development and testing; nor would it have been fair to continue accepting new entries when existing bidders had already committed substantial resources to proving the appropriateness and deliverability of their bids.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of land will be sold as part of the disposal of the Millennium Dome. [144767]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Legacy plc bid currently envisages acquisition of 63 acres of land, as well as the Dome itself and some additional structures.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's estimate is of the value of the Dome site with the Dome(a) removed and (b) remaining. [144763]

  Ms Armstrong
  A pre-sale valuation of the Dome site has been undertaken in the context of the competition to identify a sustainable long-term use for the Dome. The Government estimate of the financial value of the site is commercially confidential while the process to secure a buyer continues.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information was made available to each bidder for the Dome site concerning the willingness of the vendor to accept staggered payments. [144768]

  Ms Armstrong
  The financial offers of each competing bidder have been considered and assessed on their individual merits, including in relation to proposed payment structure. In comparing bids, any deferred payments have been discounted for time and risk.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will name the parties with a financial stake in Legacy plc; [144713]

  (2) what percentage of Legacy plc's equity is owned by (a) Mr. Robert Bourne, (b) Treasury Holdings and (c) other parties. [144712]

  Ms Armstrong
  Details must remain commercially confidential while negotiations continue, but I can confirm that the total issued share capital of Legacy plc is owned by Robert Bourne and family interests.
  590W
  Should Legacy plc be granted a lease on the Dome there is an agreement that on the grant of the lease the shareholders in Legacy plc will be:
  Robert Bourne and family interests—15 per cent.
  Treasury Holdings Ltd.—80 per cent.
  The Bank of Scotland will hold a Convertible Loan Stock Instrument which is capable of being converted into 5 per cent. of the issued equity of Legacy plc after the grant of the lease.

  Devolution
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions what plans he has for further devolution of power to the regions. [144307]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No timetable has yet been drawn up for moving to directly-elected regional government. We remain committed to do so, where support is demonstrated in referendums.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department is issuing on the possible locations of 'Terra' telecommunications masts. [144869]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to telecommunications masts generally and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce any changes as soon as practicable.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BCC, Clay Cross
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has taken to make job openings available to those who have been made redundant with the closure of BCC at Clay Cross, Derbyshire. [143476]

  Mr. Caborn
  A Response Group has been set up to co-ordinate the action taken to support those affected by the BCC closure. Action taken so far includes the opening of an on-site Job Shop to provide advice on job vacancies, training and benefits. Two job and training fairs have been held and Rapid Response Funding secured to help provide skills assessment and retraining for those affected. In addition St. Gobain have made 122 new or replacement jobs available to the BCC work force from elsewhere in their operation. Over the longer term the Government Office for the East Midlands, working with East Midlands Development Agency and other regional and local partners, will seek to deliver a range of training, reclamation and other economic initiatives aimed at supporting the regeneration of Clay Cross. Clay Cross
  591W
  also has Assisted Area Status giving access to Regional Selective Assistance and Enterprise Grants.

  Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week that Derbyshire county council has been invited to work up its proposals for a new junction on the M1 motorway between junctions 29 and 30 to serve the Markham Employment Growth Zone. This is part of a major regeneration scheme to provide more than 8,000 jobs in the North Derbyshire area. The Council's detailed proposals will be submitted to the DETR next summer so that a decision can be taken by the end of the year.

  Region

  Wales

  Scotland

  Nottinghamshire

  Yorkshire

  North East

  North West

  Midlands

  South

  January

  67

  111

  56

  191

  32

  10

  50

  12

  February

  121

  26

  47

  195

  38

  19

  51

  11

  March

  107

  11

  42

  142

  46

  32

  80

  26

  April

  55

  24

  35

  117

  52

  26

  35

  13

  May

  45

  50

  21

  69

  30

  22

  32

  6

  June

  46

  55

  36

  75

  61

  28

  58

  10

  July

  53

  14

  36

  117

  38

  32

  39

  4

  August

  17

  22

  18

  79

  58

  18

  37

  12

  September

  20

  17

  29

  81

  40

  15

  38

  7

  October

  23

  3

  11

  66

  16

  12

  33

  1

  November

  54

  21

  95

  129

  18

  10

  33

  5

  December

  99

  6

  109

  478

  175

  72

  60

  14

  The breakdown of vibration white finger claims settled (including denials) since January 2000 on a month by month basis, and by regional split, is as follows:

  Region

  Wales

  Scotland

  Nottinghamshire

  Yorkshire

  North East

  North West

  Midlands

  South

  January

  133

  66

  53

  225

  323

  8

  24

  2

  February

  60

  37

  84

  190

  213

  10

  30

  4

  March

  144

  69

  55

  356

  286

  46

  51

  8

  April

  80

  61

  39

  163

  134

  22

  29

  4

  May

  194

  86

  62

  250

  220

  46

  60

  8

  June

  216

  118

  100

  339

  267

  41

  56

  15

  July

  131

  147

  102

  211

  147

  43

  50

  13

  August

  108

  72

  108

  210

  197

  23

  43

  14

  September

  134

  83

  129

  182

  206

  20

  79

  3

  October

  219

  90

  191

  278

  243

  42

  108

  19

  November

  172

  63

  289

  334

  184

  36

  113

  20

  December

  117

  77

  169

  224

  174

  34

  75

  9

  In total the Department has now made over 64,800 individual payments, including interim and full and final settlements, to claimants in respect of compensation for respiratory and vibration related diseases, totalling over £310 million. The Department continues to pay out around £1 million per day in compensation.

  Trawlermen
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provisions he will make to speed up compensation claims for former distant water trawlermen who are suffering from serious ill health. [144755]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Processing staff aim to give priority attention wherever possible to claims in cases where they are aware that the claimant is seriously ill.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many settlements have been made in each month and each area since January 2000 in respect of claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and if he will make a statement. [144295]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims settled (including denials) since January 2000 on a month by month basis, and by regional split, are as follows:

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former distant water trawlermen had received compensation at the latest date for which figures are available. [144754]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  As of 8 January 2001, 314 claims have been paid.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when compensation will be paid to families of deceased former distant water trawlermen. [144756]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  All claims will be processed and payments made as quickly as possible after receipt, subject to the need to examine relevant documentation and confirm eligibility.
  593W
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will waive the probate fee for families of deceased former distant water trawlermen, where the will was for less than £5,000. [144753]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Probate fees are charged by the probate offices in appropriate cases and are not a matter for my Department.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been employed in his Export Licence Department in each of the past 10 years. [144175]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). The ECO forms part of the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate (XNP). Historical staff records do not differentiate between the ECO and other parts of the Directorate.

  The figures set out in the table show the number of permanent staff in post in XNP on 1 April each year. The figures include fractional equivalents for part-time staff.

  Number of staff in post in the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate (XNP) on 1 April each year

  Year

  Number of staff

  1994

  136.50

  1995

  145.00

  1996

  157.33

  1997

  132.39

  1998

  142.95

  1999

  152.09

  2000

  163.48

  Before 1994 XNP did not exist in its current form. The export licensing process was undertaken by staff in a number of different Directorates. It would, consequently, entail disproportionate cost to establish the number of staff involved before that date.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in his Department work(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department's Regulatory Impact Unit. [144706]

  Dr. Howells
  Four officials work in the DTI's Regulatory Impact Unit. Three are full-time and one is part-time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Opportunities Fund
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what facilities have been built in schools utilising the New Opportunities Fund. [144675]

  Kate Hoey
  In November 2000 the Government announced proposals for a £750 million "PE and Sport in 594W
  Schools" initiative to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund. This initiative is subject to public consultation but is intended to focus primarily on refurbishing existing, and building new, indoor and outdoor sports facilities at primary and secondary schools. It is intended that £25 million of the £750 million be directed into the Space for Sport and Arts Scheme which will provide a total of £130 million to create around 300 new facilities for both sports and arts activities in primary schools in deprived areas. All new facilities in schools supported through the New Opportunities Fund would also be for community use and will be additional to current provision.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the review of the British Tourist Authority. [145585]

  Janet Anderson
  I am pleased to announce that Stage One of the review of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) is being published today and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The Steering Group for the review concluded that there was a continuing need for the services and functions carried out by the BTA and, having looked carefully at all the options, concluded that BTA should remain a non-departmental public body.

  The report recommends that the review team should look at some issues in greater depth as part of Stage Two of the review. These include the return on investment as a measurement of BTA's performance; and rate of return issues such as data for individual offices overseas, benchmarking and the quality of measurement techniques.

  The report also recommends that BTA should draw up a specific strategy to declare what services it will provide to small and medium businesses and how it will consult them. BTA should review its strategy on the balance between short and long term market investment; should seek further opportunities for partnership working; and should develop an agenda for action to ensure that the aims of Modernising Government are met.

  Overall, the report finds the BTA is regarded both by Government and the tourism industry as an effective organisation, which has become more responsive over recent years.

  Listed Buildings (Ecclesiastical Exemption)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to undertake a further review of the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls. [145586]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We fully accept the need to continue to monitor the ecclesiastical exemption regime and the progress made by exempt denominations in implementing the recommendations of the 1997 Newman review. We currently have in hand a review of policies relating to all aspects of the historic environment, which will culminate in a major policy statement in the spring. Once that review is complete, and against the background
  595W
  of its conclusions, we will undertake a further assessment of the exemption.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to widen access to good quality physical education and sporting opportunities for young people. [145584]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It should not be a matter of chance whether a child will get good sporting opportunities. There are basic opportunities that should be available to all children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been working closely with me to develop a range of measures that will bring real improvement. Over the next few years, our aim is to offer children an entitlement to two hours each week spent during and after school on high quality PE and sporting activity. We will consult schools, professional associations and other interested parties to identify how best to make this happen.

  To build the capacity to make this entitlement possible, we are also extending the outside help available to schools. We will shortly begin two pilot studies to extend the New Deal into sport and create a new role of sports assistant to work alongside the new sports co-ordinators to help deliver this opportunity in schools. By 2004 there could be as many as 2,000 opportunities—many of which will be offered to suitable people on the New Deal.

  Bass Stocks
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps are being taken to protect anglers' interests in respect of bass stocks around the UK coastline; and if he will make a statement; [144573]

  (2) what representations he has received from anglers and angling organisations regarding bass stocks around the UK coastline. [144574]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following continued concerns expressed by the sea angling fraternity about the status of bass stocks in UK waters, my officials have arranged a meeting with representatives of angling groups and charter skippers on 16 January to consider whether further conservation measures are appropriate for the species. The meeting will also discuss other areas of mutual concern.

  At the same time, in order to gain a better understanding of the various bass stocks, CEFAS scientists will be contributing to the work of a new ICES Study Group on Seabass, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mike Pawson. In accordance with the terms of reference for this Group, data from all countries which catch bass in Area VII and in the Bay of Biscay and the North Sea, will be compiled in order to construct the age profile of bass stocks in these areas and, if possible, to carry out an assessment of their status in relation to safe biological limits. The first task will be to compile an inventory of the available data, which will be reviewed by the ICES Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management in May 2001. In the light of this information, the European Commission can be expected to consider whether conservation measures are appropriate at Community level.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Land Sales)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the rules which govern the use of proceeds from sale of his Department's land by NHS trusts; and if these rules would apply to the sale of land by north Bristol NHS Trust at(a) the Frenchay hospital site and (b) the Southmead hospital site. [141346]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Regional offices of the National Health Service Executive decide whether a trust keeps the proceeds from the sale of an asset. This decision is taken after careful consideration of the competing demands for capital investment within the region. The objective is to use sale proceeds from any sale of trust assets to achieve the maximum benefit for the NHS.

  In the south west region capital receipts of less than £1 million are usually retained automatically by the trust. Receipts of more than £1 million are normally retained by the Trust subject to the production of a suitable business case for the use of the money.

  The use of any proceeds from the sale of land at Frenchay and Southmead hospitals where the amount exceeds £1 million will be a matter for discussion between north Bristol NHS Trust and the south west regional office.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps NICE is taking to monitor(a) the use of and (b) adverse reactions to Ritalin in children; and if he will make a statement. [144486]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence does not itself monitor the use of and adverse reactions to particular medicines. Monitoring the use of medicines is a matter for local clinical governance arrangements. The monitoring of adverse reactions is carried out by the Committee on Safety of Medicines/Medicines Control Agency (CSM/MCA). Health professionals are encouraged to submit voluntarily to the CSM/MCA reports of suspected adverse drug reactions via the yellow card scheme. These reports, together with data from other sources, are continuously reviewed to identify previously unrecognised hazards or new information on known hazards which might require regulatory action.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have agreed protocols with the police to accept into their care those with mental health needs who are detained by the police for their own safety; how many are under negotiation; and how many have no agreed procedures. [144677]

  Mr. Hutton
  All health authorities should have agreed protocols, the guidelines for which are laid out in Chapter 10 of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice. The police power to remove to a place of safety
  597W
  (section 136) depends on the local social services authority, health authority, trust and the chief constable establishing a clear policy for the use of power. All the professionals involved in the implementation should understand the power and its purpose and the person's other rights and follow the local policy. All local social services authorities, health authorities and trusts should have in place clear policies agreed with chief constables for the removal of people with a mental illness to a place of safety.

  Details of individual protocols are not held centrally.

  Gogay v.Hertfordshire County Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department of the case of Gogay v. Hertfordshire county council. [144740]

  Mr. Hutton
  This case concerns a care worker in a children's home run by a local authority who was suspended from duty when the local authority began an investigation into child protection concerns. The judgment makes it clear that, in such circumstances, a local authority must consider its obligation not to act in a way which seriously damages the relationship of confidence

  Destination of discharge by mouth for patients resident in Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority NHS Hospitals, England 1998–99

  Discharge destination

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  19 Usual residence

  8,973

  8,708

  9,545

  10,022

  8,923

  9,437

  9,781

  29 Temporary residence

  30

  26

  27

  40

  44

  43

  39

  39 Prison etc.

  2

  3

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  49 Special hospital

  2

  2

  6

  4

  1

  5

  7

  51 NHS provider—general ward

  246

  258

  265

  298

  281

  269

  227

  52 NHS provide—maternity ward

  15

  18

  9

  9

  12

  22

  26

  53 NHS provider—MH/MI

  9

  9

  10

  17

  20

  13

  9

  54 NHS nursing home

  8

  11

  7

  6

  5

  7

  5

  65 Local Authority Part 3 residential accommodation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  69 LA home or care (old coding)

  7

  6

  2

  5

  12

  7

  8

  79 Patient died or stillbirth

  251

  257

  257

  226

  218

  211

  255

  85 Non-NHS (not Local A) run residential care nursing home

  4

  6

  9

  14

  3

  7

  11

  86 Non-NHS (not Local Authority) run nursing home

  14

  18

  22

  18

  16

  20

  13

  87 Non-NHS run hospital

  4

  9

  9

  6

  5

  8

  12

  88 Non-NHS (other than Local Authority) run Hospice

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  0

  89 Non-NHS institution (old coding)

  47

  35

  42

  39

  27

  31

  27

  Not applicable (ie not discharged)

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Not known: a validation error

  61

  37

  51

  48

  54

  52

  52

  Total

  9,675

  9,405

  10,267

  10,758

  9,625

  10,136

  10,475

  Discharge destination

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  19 Usual residence

  9,534

  9,072

  9,237

  9,257

  10,928

  113,417

  29 Temporary residence

  30

  59

  47

  44

  30

  459

  39 Prison etc.

  0

  4

  0

  0

  3

  23

  49 Special hospital

  2

  3

  2

  5

  2

  41

  51 NHS provider—general ward

  255

  234

  265

  237

  289

  3,124

  52 NHS provide—maternity ward

  9

  11

  16

  14

  11

  172

  53 NHS provider—MH/MI

  13

  15

  22

  22

  13

  172

  54 NHS nursing home

  7

  6

  5

  7

  12

  86

  65 Local Authority Part 3 residential accommodation

  1

  1

  2

  3

  0

  9

  69 LA home or care (old coding)

  3

  5

  9

  13

  4

  81

  79 Patient died or stillbirth

  212

  250

  353

  262

  276

  3,028

  85 Non-NHS (not Local A) run residential care nursing home

  8

  5

  9

  12

  6

  94

  86 Non-NHS (not Local Authority) run nursing home

  21

  30

  29

  29

  37

  267

  87 Non-NHS run hospital

  6

  15

  3

  3

  8

  88

  598W
  between the authority and one of its employees, unless there is reasonable and proper cause to do so. As the judgment said,
  the employee is entitled to something better than a knee jerk reaction which occurred in this case.

  Local authorities need to ensure that the action that they take in relation to employees involved in allegations of abuse are appropriate in the circumstances. As the judgment makes clear, however, local authorities must in no way feel inhibited in making the inquiries that they consider appropriate to safeguard children in their care and, if there is a conflict between the interests of the child and the interests of the employee, the interests of the child should prevail.

  NHS Continuing Care
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 148W, how many patients were released by the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority from NHS hospital care in their area to nursing or residential home care under the supervision of social services in each month from August 1998 to November 2000, inclusive. [144496]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures showing the destination of discharge for patients resident in the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority are for 1998–99 (latest data available) and appear in the table.
  599W

  Discharge destination

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  88 Non-NHS (other than Local Authority) run Hospice

  4

  1

  1

  2

  5

  26

  89 Non-NHS institution (old coding)

  25

  30

  37

  37

  37

  414

  Not applicable (ie not discharged)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Not known: a validation error

  56

  33

  49

  44

  51

  588

  Total

  12,186

  9,775

  10,086

  9,991

  11,712

  122,091

  Note:

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Department of Health

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 148W, how many patients were deemed by the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority to be ready for release from hospital care in their area to residential or nursing home care under the supervision of social services and had continued to occupy a hospital bed for more than two weeks from the date they were deemed eligible for release in each month from August 1998 to November 2000, inclusive. [144497]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly information for Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority on discharge delayed while awaiting social service department funding for a residential/nursing home package or awaiting a nursing/residential home placement is in the table. Information on the length of time the discharge was delayed is not available centrally.

  Total number of patients resident in Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority aged 75 and over ready for discharge but still occupying an acute hospital bed

  Reason for delayed discharge1

  Awaiting SSD funding to residential/nursing home package

  Awaiting nursing/residential home placement

  1998–99

  April-June

  4

  30

  July-September

  17

  32

  October-December

  11

  33

  January-March

  11

  24

  April-June

  2—

  2—

  1999–2000

  July-September

  25

  20

  October-December

  17

  35

  January-March

  22

  27

  2000–01

  April-June

  21

  27

  July-September

  29

  34

  1 CIC guidance defines Delayed Discharges as: Total number of patients aged 75 and over ready for discharge from an acute bed but still occupying an acute bed in a hospital (ie no longer needing acute clinical interventions), excluding those under the care of a psychiatric consultant and learning disabilities, because of the following principal reason:

  awaiting assessment—assessment in progress, no care plan agreed. awaiting SSD funding to residential/nursing home package—assessment completed but awaiting SSD funding.

  awaiting transfer to non-acute NHS care other than in an acute bed in hospital (e.g. rehab or continuing care)—assessment completed but awaiting transfer to NHS funded non-acute bed in hospital, nursing, residential care or group home.

  awaiting nursing/residential care home placement—care plan agreed but patient awaiting placement in a non-NHS-funded nursing home or residential care home—perhaps waiting for a place in a home of their choosing under the direction on choice.

  600W

  awaiting domiciliary package—care plan agreed but awaiting services to be put in place to facilitate discharge.

  other reason

  2 Data not available due to a data quality problem

  Source:

  Common Information Core (CIC) Quarterly Monitoring returns. CIC information is currently collected quarterly (at HA level) by survey. The figures are therefore based on an in quarter 'snapshot' of activity. Data has been 'cleaned' for inappropriate rates and null returns

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 28 November 2000, concerning a constituent, which was transferred to his Department. [144735]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply to my hon. Friend's letter was sent on 5 January.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chile
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recognise the Chilean Government's claim to exercise control of its 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. [144723]

  Mr. Hain
  As a coastal state, Chile has the rights, jurisdiction and duties in their exclusive economic zone that were provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

  Panicos Tsiakourmas
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the abduction of Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas, a Greek Cypriot, by Turkish forces from the British Sovereign Base area in Cyprus on 12 December 2000. [144897]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner has made repeated strong protests about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas's arrest to Mr. Denktash and we have raised our concerns with the Turks in Nicosia, Ankara and London. On 9 January, I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). We will continue to raise this issue until the situation is satisfactorily resolved.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas,
  601W
  on 12 December 2000, by forces of the Turkish administration from Pergamos, and his health; and what representations he has made to (a) the authorities in northern Cyprus and (b) the Turkish Government about this matter. [144721]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner is in close contact with his family and the UN concerning his health and welfare. Our High Commissioner has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest. We have also raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. We will continue to raise this issue until the matter is satisfactorily resolved.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the situation of Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas, who was arrested by Turkish military forces in Cyprus; and what representations the British High Commissioner has made to the Turkish authorities in relation to the welfare and whereabouts of Mr. Tsiakourmas. [144625]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State and I have received regular reports on Mr. Tsiakourmas since his arrest. Our High Commissioner in Nicosia is in close contact with the Tsiakourmas family and the UN concerning Mr. Tsiakourmas's welfare. Our High Commissioner has made strong protests about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas's arrest to Mr. Denktash and has also discussed the case with the Turkish Ambassador in Nicosia. Our Ambassador in Ankara has raised the case with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we have done likewise with the Turkish Embassy in London.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Republic of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [144407]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Cyprus. However, I hope to visit the island in March.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers from his Department have visited northern Cyprus since May 1997. [144406]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the then Minister for Europe, visited northern Cyprus in April 1999, as part of a wider trip to the island. During her visit to the north of the island she met Mr. Denktash, and party leaders Mr. Akinci and Mr. Talat.

  I plan to visit Cyprus in March.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently had with Greece and Turkey on the proximity talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [144400]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State meets his Greek and Turkish counterparts frequently. His most recent substantive discussions with them on Cyprus took place at the OSCE Ministerial Meeting in November.
  602W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met President Clerides of the Republic of Cyprus. [144408]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary last met President Clerides on 12 March 1998 at the EU Birmingham Summit. The Prime Minister met President Clerides on 10 April 2000 in London. The Foreign Secretary and I met the Cyprus Foreign Minister, Mr. Kasoulides, in London on 3 October and 29 September respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Rauf Denktash on freedom of the press in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [144412]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK has made it clear to the Turkish Cypriots at various levels that we expect the rights of Turkish Cypriots, including the freedom of the press, to be respected. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who Her Majesty's Government's representatives will be at the next meeting of the United Nations' sponsored proximity talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [144402]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom is not party to the United Nation-sponsored talks on Cyprus. However, we follow developments closely and Sir David Hannay, UK Special Representative for Cyprus, is likely to meet the parties during the next meeting. The UK urges all involved to co-operate with the UNSG's efforts to reach a just and lasting settlement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Rauf Denktash regarding the legal action taken against Turkish Cypriot opposition politicians and journalists in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [144413]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom has made it clear to the Turkish Cypriots at various levels that we expect the rights of Turkish Cypriots to be respected, including the freedom of the press. We have expressed concern about particular instances, such as the recent case of Mr. Levent, and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers from his Department have visited the Republic of Cyprus since May 1997. [144399]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the then Minister for Europe, visited Cyprus in April 1999. The visit included meetings with President Clerides, Foreign Minister Kasoulides, Mr. Denktash, and several Greek and Turkish Cypriot party leaders.

  I plan to visit Cyprus in March.

  Belarus
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent human rights record of the Government of Belarus. [142800]
  603W
  Mr. Vaz
  The human rights record of the Government of Belarus remains poor in many respects. The political system is oppressive and undemocratic. The judiciary is not independent of the executive. Opposition politicians are harassed and have, in some cases, been subject to politically motivated legal proceedings and harsh sentencing. There is bias in the state mass media. Independent trade unions have suffered unacceptable pressure from the authorities, including having their bank accounts frozen. The Belarusian authorities have failed to investigate satisfactorily the disappearances of several opposition sympathisers. The parliamentary elections on 15 October failed to meet international standards for democratic elections.

  Minurso
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British personnel work for Minurso; what is the proposed expenditure for the 2001–02 financial year; and if he will make a statement. [144516]

  Mr. Hain
  There are currently no British military or civilian police personnel working for Minurso. The United Nations 2000–01 projected budget for Minurso was $49,317,037. They have not yet produced a projected budget figure for 2001–02.

  The Government fully support the UN's efforts to bring peace to the region and will continue to work for a just and durable settlement to the region's problems.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with the Turkish Government on the recent prison riots in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [144580]

  Mr. Vaz
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed this issue with the Turkish Government. We regret the loss of life and injuries during the Turkish police operations, and our concerns about the handling of the police operations have been raised with the Turkish authorities by our officials.

  Belize and Guatemala
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the boundary between Belize and Guatemala; and what action he will take in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of Belize. [144569]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The UK continues to support Belize's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

  We remain committed to the long-standing British undertaking to consult internationally in the event of a threat to Belize's security and to play an appropriate part in any response. This has been the UK's position since the withdrawal of the British garrison from Belize in 1994.

  Settlement of the dispute is in the interests of all concerned. We are pleased that confidence-building measures have been agreed by Belize and Guatemala under
  604W
  the auspices of the Organisation of American States. We believe it is essential that these discussions continue and that there is early progress on implementation.

  EU Council
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for January and the major European Union events for the period 1 February to 30 June. [145522]

  Mr. Vaz
  To date we have received the detailed agendas for the following Council meetings in January:

  19 January—Brussels—ECOFIN Council

  Adoption of the provisional agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items

  Taxation

  Report on Public Finances

  Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact

  EMU statistics

  AOB

  12 January—Brussels—Fisheries Council (Possible)

  22–23 January—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  29 January—Brussels—Budget Council (Possible)

  29–30 January—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  No Agendas for the above are yet available.

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

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  February

  8–9

  Brussels

  JHA Informal Council

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  12

  Brussels

  Education/Youth Council (possible)

  12

  Brussels

  Research Council

  15–17

  Brussels

  Informal Employment/Telecommunications Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Informal Trade Minister dinner

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  March

  6

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  12

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumer Council

  15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  16

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  23–24

  Stockholm

  European Council

  March/April

  31–1

  Brussels

  Meeting of Environment Ministers

  April

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  May

  5–6

  Brussels

  Gymnich

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Council (possible)

  605W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  14–15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  31

  Brussels

  Health Council

  June

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  5

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumer Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Employment/Social Affairs Council

  15–16

  Gothenburg

  European Council

  18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (possible)

  21

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Research Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reason was given by the Syrian Government to justify their refusal to provide documents requested by the Government during the Lockerbie trial; and if he will make a statement. [144770]

  Mr. Battle
  The Syrian authorities, in their reply to the letter of request sent by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, stressed that, in their opinion, they should not have been asked the question in the first place and would therefore prefer not to have to send a formal reply.

  The Lord Advocate, therefore, informed the court on 8 January that it was unlikely that the court would get a formal response, certainly not within any short time scale, and that any formal response would undoubtedly be negative.

DEFENCE

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what manpower reductions are necessary to the crew of HMS Invincible during 2001 so that HMS Ark Royal can be brought up to a full complement. [144404]

  Mr. Spellar
  The crew of HMS Invincible will be reduced to reflect the ship's programme of a phased reduction in readiness leading to her refit commencing in late 2001. Overall, the current crew level of around 640 (excluding the embarked Air Group) will reduce to about 120 in refit. Some of the manpower released will be transferred to HMS Ark Royal as part of the Navy's overall manpower management plan.

  Air Fleets
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the fleet size is of(a) Tornado GR1, (b) Tornado GR4, (c) Tornado F3, (d) Harrier, (e) Jaguar, (f) Nimrod, (g) Sentry, (h) Tristar, (i) Puma, (j) Sea King,
  606W
  (k) Chinook and (l) Merlin; how many were (i) allocated to front-line units, (ii) fully serviceable, (iii) unserviceable 1 line, (iv) unserviceable 2 line, (v) unserviceable 3/4 line, (vi) on trials, (vii) held in reserve use and (viii) undergoing upgrade on 12 December; what percentage of the fleet size this represents for each category; and if he will make a statement. [143191]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 January 2001]: I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he was consulted on the programme to celebrate Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee; and for what reason a Fleet Review will not take place. [144838]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been kept fully informed about the development of plans for the armed forces to celebrate Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee.

  It has been agreed with Buckingham Palace that in view of the demands of a very full royal programme during Golden Jubilee year, the Queen will make a single visit to the armed forces which will reflect their role in the 21st century, emphasising the importance of the Joint Service co-operation that exists between the three Services. In view of this, it was decided that single Service events, including a Fleet Review for the Royal Navy, would not be appropriate. Contrary to reports in the press, the decision had nothing to do with budgetary constraints.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 167W, regarding lodgings for judges, for how many days cars were hired for the Lewes lodging during (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [144707]

  Jane Kennedy
  Cars were hired for the Lewes lodgings as follows:

  1997–98–110 days;

  1998–99–145 days; and

  1999–2000–95 days.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what regulations govern the wearing of personal identification, full uniform and regalia of the RUC; and what are the disciplinary procedures in the event of non-compliance. [142276]

  Mr. Ingram
  Guidance on both aspects is contained within the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Conduct) Regulations 2000 (SR 2000/315).

  Police Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the annual budget is for the Police Oversight Commissioner; if he will break down the costs into the main budget heads; and what representations he has received regarding the moneys allocated for this purpose. [142319]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have been in discussion with Mr. Constantine, the Oversight Commissioner, regarding the resources he requires. Mr. Constantine identified costs for the work of the Commission, and I have set aside £739,000 for this financial year and £737,000 for the 2001–02 financial year. The figures are broken down as follows:

  £000

  Year one—June 2000-March 2001

  Establishment Costs

  149

  General Office Expenditure

  48

  Commissioner's Costs

  91

  Staff and Associated Costs

  451

  Year one total

  739

  Year two—2001–02

  General Office Expenditure

  61

  Commissioner's Costs

  91

  Staff and Associated Costs

  585

  Year two total

  737

  Costs for the 2002–03 financial year have yet to be finalised.

  Table 2: Percentage benefit accuracy across benefits agency area directorates

  Income Support (IS)

  Jobseekers Allowance (JSA)

  Short Term Benefits (STB)

  Long Term Benefits (LTB)

  Area Directorate (AD)

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  1. East London and Anglia

  76.07

  84.32

  —

  86.52

  87.57

  92.66

  94.79

  92.22

  2. Chilterns

  76.22

  82.20

  —

  86.13

  —

  94.73

  91.63

  85.58

  3. London, South

  77.25

  85.79

  —

  86.72

  87.79

  94.18

  89.17

  94.71

  4. West Country

  80.08

  86.26

  —

  91.63

  90.91

  94.86

  94.15

  94.38

  5. Mercia

  81.57

  87.66

  —

  80.23

  —

  94.95

  98.44

  96.30

  6. West Midlands

  86.17

  84.95

  —

  91.44

  90.84

  95.14

  92.50

  92.78

  7. Wales

  85.14

  88.21

  —

  90.89

  91.18

  94.93

  92.76

  94.83

  8. North West Coast

  80.69

  87.99

  —

  89.52

  90.91

  94.10

  93.36

  97.88

  9. Greater Manchester

  81.69

  86.67

  —

  90.51

  90.67

  95.63

  94.30

  96.13

  10. Yorkshire

  81.49

  87.08

  —

  88.02

  90.35

  93.84

  93.30

  95.95

  11. Tyne Tees

  84.23

  90.50

  —

  88.85

  93.37

  96.49

  94.43

  96.32

  12. West of Scotland

  83.97

  90.28

  —

  92.16

  93.36

  95.10

  92.46

  92.09

  13. East of Scotland

  84.82

  92.88

  —

  93.21

  92.84

  94.70

  92.21

  93.60

  National

  80.81

  86.79

  87.10

  89.38

  90.41

  94.62

  93.28

  94.75

  Notes:

  1. Short Term Benefits (STB) incorporates results for Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement allowance and Maternity Allowance. STB results in 1996–97 were based on a re-performance of local checks. Where there are no entries in the columns this designates that a check by the Quality support teams was not undertaken in that Area Directorate in that year.

  2. Long Term Benefits (LTB) consists of Retirement Pension and Widows Benefit.

  3. Jobseekers Allowance was introduced in October 1996 and Quality Support checks were undertaken to provide a national result.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of staff turnover in the Benefits Agency was in each of the last five years for which

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the percentage of benefit payments were found to be accurate in each benefits area directorate for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) the most recent period for which figures are available. [143104]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 10 January 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of benefit payments were found to be accurate in each benefits area directorate for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) the most recent period for which figures are available.
  The accuracy of benefit payments in all Area Directorates is measured by the Benefits Agency Quality Support teams which were established in 1994. Unfortunately, no data is available for 1979/80 as accuracy figures were not collated at that time. Figures for the main benefits checked by the Quality Support teams in 1996/97 and 1999/2000 (the most recent period available) are set out in the tables.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Percentage of benefit payments found to be accurate

  National figures

  Benefit

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  Retirement pension

  93.20

  95.29

  Incapacity benefit

  91.57

  94.63

  Income Support

  80.80

  86.79

  Jobseekers Allowance

  87.10

  89.38

  figures are available in (a) the UK, (b) Greater London and (c) Leaside District; and if he will make a statement. [144488]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table for each of the last complete financial years.
  609W

  Percentage

  UK

  Greater London

  Leaside

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  3.6

  4.8

  4.5

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  5.8

  5.7

  5.0

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  6.1

  6.6

  6.3

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  4.8

  7.2

  8.2

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  5.3

  5.9

  6.9

  Family Incomes (Benefits)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in the U.K. were living in families dependent on supplementary benefits or income support(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of all children in the UK in each year since 1979. [144465]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Children in families receiving Supplementary Benefit/Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based), Great Britain 1979 to 2000

  Number of children (000s)

  Proportion of children under 16 in Great Britain (percentage)

  1979

  923.1

  7.3

  1980

  1,088.3

  8.8

  1981

  1,493.4

  12.3

  1982

  1,721.4

  14.5

  1983

  1,789.5

  15.4

  1984

  1,949.0

  17.0

  1985

  1,949.0

  17.0

  1986

  2,122.5

  18.9

  1987

  2,111.4

  18.9

  1988

  2,091.8

  18.8

  1989

  2,029.6

  18.2

  1990

  2,044.8

  18.2

  1991

  2,368.1

  20.9

  1992

  2,702.9

  23.6

  1993

  2,966.0

  25.7

  1994

  2,980.3

  25.6

  1995

  2,957.5

  25.3

  1996

  2,918.2

  25.0

  1997

  2,718.3

  23.2

  1998

  2,539.3

  21.7

  1999

  2,472.8

  21.1

  2000 (May)

  2,389.1

  20.4

  2000 (August)

  2,378.9

  20.3

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are given at a point in time. For 1979 the month is November, 1980 to 1984 the month is December, 1986 the month is February, and from 1987 to 1999 the month is May. Two sets of information is given for 2000: May (in line with data from 1987, and August which is the latest available data).

  2. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands. Percentages are given to one decimal place.

  3. Numbers are not available for 1985 due to industrial action.

  4. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in April 1988.

  5. Children of unemployed Supplementary Benefit/Income Support claimants are included in the figures up to 1996. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by income-based Jobseeker's Allowance from October 1996; children of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants have been added to figures from 1997 onwards.

  6. Children are defined as aged 0–15.

  7. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance cases will include some claimants with an underlying entitlement to contribution-based benefit.
  610W
  8. Numbers are based on sample data and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error. Samples sizes are as follows:

  1979 to 1981: 1 in 200 (Supplementary pension cases), 1 in 50 (Supplementary Allowances)

  1982 to 1987: 1 in 200 (Supplementary pension cases), 1 in 100 (E cases), 1 in 50 (Supplementary Allowances)

  1988 to 1993: 1 in 100

  1994 to date: 1 in 20

  Source:

  Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1979 to 1987

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1988 to 1993

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1994 to August 2000

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997, May 1998, May 1999, May 2000 and August 2000

  Flooding
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been provided from the Social Fund to individuals as a result of the recent flooding(a) nationally and (b) in Lewes. [144708]

  Angela Eagle
  At 5 January 2001 total payments made nationally from the 2000–01 discretionary Social Fund budget in respect of flooding were £157,684 in community care grant payments and £11,635 in crisis loan payments.

  Payments made by the Benefits Agency Central Sussex district, which covers Lewes, amount to £4,636 for community care grants and £970 for crisis loans.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland receive the minimum income guarantee. [144498]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are around 167,500 recipients of the minimum income guarantee in Scotland, with some 3,600 in Inverclyde local authority area.

  Notes:

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

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

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

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

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Family Visitor Visas
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in reviewing the cost of family visitor visa refusal appeals. [144147]

  Mr. Straw
  In the debate on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 139, on the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2446) I told the House that I would review the

  611W
  operation of the scheme provided by those regulations within three months. This review has now been completed.

  The review undertaken by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and me, involved a close scrutiny of the original assumptions which led to the level of fees provided by these regulations, and took account of the experience of the new appeals system since it came into force on 2 October 2000. In the light of the conclusions of the review, I am pleased to announce that the Government have decided to reduce the level of fees currently payable by family visitors who wish to appeal against decisions to refuse them visas. Regulations have been laid today to take effect tomorrow, 12 January, reducing the fees to £50 for paper appeals and £125 for oral ones, replacing the fees of £150 and £500 provided by the previous regulations.

  The review team will now be examining other issues, including the definition of family visitor and how and to whom the fees are paid within the regulations.

  Reporting Crime
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations his Department has made to allow members of the public to report crimes via the internet and e-mail; and if he will make a statement. [141628]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have commissioned work on the development of an internet portal which would enable members of the public to report minor crimes to the police using the internet.

  This exciting development is part of a wider vision for delivering police services electronically to the public which we are now working on. While many forces are already introducing services via their own websites, I believe that the public should be able to interact with their local force through a standard interface providing a wide range of services.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to move a motion in respect of the procedure for consideration of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill after its presentation similar to that moved by the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on 7 February in respect of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [142738]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: No decision has yet been made on the procedure for considering the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill.

  Asylum Support Vouchers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total value was of the asylum support vouchers issued in the first six months of 2000–01; and what the total cost was to public funds of issuing them. [142786]
  612W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The total value of asylum support vouchers issued in the first six months of 2000–01 financial year was £5.1 million.

  Total staffing and related administrative costs of the National Asylum Support Service, including the costs of processing application forms, allocating accommodation and administering the voucher schemes—but excluding the face value of the vouchers, and the costs of providing accommodation and travel—over this period were £6.6 million. This includes payments made under the voucher contract. However, vouchers are printed and distributed by third party providers under contract to the Home Office and the costs of this service are commercially confidential.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what circumstances prevent a person who has a criminal record from receiving compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and Board; and to what extent this is affected by whether they had a criminal record at the time they became a victim of crime. [144428]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Paragraph 13(e) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme empowers the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) to withhold or reduce an award where the applicant's character, as shown by his criminal convictions (excluding convictions spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) or other evidence, makes it inappropriate that a full award or any award should be made. The guide to the scheme includes an illustrative table indicating how awards are likely to be reduced by a certain percentage depending on the nature or length of the sentence imposed for criminal activity and how long ago the offence or offences were committed. A copy of the guide is supplied to all applicants.

  War Criminals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the validity of reports of former Ukrainian SS troops settling in Britain; what plans he has to investigate such people for war crimes offences; and if he will make a statement. [144896]

  Mrs. Roche
  War crimes are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The Government believe strongly that all war criminals should be brought to justice whenever possible, both those responsible for atrocities during the Second World War, and subsequently.

  Following recommendations made by the Hetherington Inquiry, Parliament passed the War Crimes Act 1991. That Act gave the courts retrospective criminal jurisdiction to try certain classes of war crimes committed during the Second World War by people who are now British nationals or United Kingdom residents. The police service diligently investigated hundreds of cases after the entry into force of the Act.

  Any new information relating to the commission of an offence under the War Crimes Act 1991 by any person within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction should be passed to the police so that they may consider whether to carry out an investigation. This includes allegations about

  613W
  the activities of former Ukrainian SS troops, said to reside in Britain. The Metropolitan police have received information relating to these allegations, which they are currently analysing.

  When it is not possible to prosecute in this country, the United Kingdom has extensive arrangements to allow extradition to countries which are better placed to pursue a prosecution, including extradition of its own nationals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is also considering the scope of his powers under immigration and nationality legislation in relation to individuals suspected of involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of housing benefit fraud in each of the last three years. [144137]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Number of Housing/Council Tax Benefit claimants convicted

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  631 (700)

  1998–99

  714 (800)

  1999–2000

  730 (900)

  Notes:

  1. These figures are the total number of successful convictions (single combined figure for HB/CTB) reported by local authorities via the administration and policy monitoring returns.

  2. Not all local authorities return the required statistics. Approximately 69 LAs having missing data for convictions in 1999–2000, 82 LAs with missing data in 1998–99 and 65 LAs with missing data in 1997–98.

  3. The figures in parenthesis are the published estimates for the total number of claimants convicted.

  Ermina Andola Campillos
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the visa application of Ermina Andola Campillos will be decided. [144504]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  This visa application was decided on 22 November. I will write to my hon. Friend about the background to this case.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require the ability, competence and knowledge of those handling and transporting animals on journeys lasting eight hours or more to be assessed by an independent person or body rather than by their employer; and if he will make a statement. [142949]

  Mr. Morley
  A proposal for independent assessment of competence of those transporting farm livestock was the 614W
  subject of a public consultation on a limited review of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, carried out in August 1999. In the meantime, the European Commission started its own review of the parent EU directive and the Commission's report has now been published on their website at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/availability/en_availability_2000_1.html

  We will implement changes to the Order to take account of the Commission's report and recommendations, and the outcome of our earlier consultation.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each year since 1995, the number of flights, including helicopter flights, taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143864]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants are employed in work relating to agriculture; what proportion of these are dealing(a) wholly and (b) partly with farm subsidies; and what proportion each category represents of the total number of civil servants. [144252]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: On 1 April 2000 there were 10,380 staff in my Department and its Agencies. The majority of these are employed in work relating to agriculture. In England, farm subsidies are dealt with mainly by our Regional Service Centres and the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA). On 1 April 2000, 2,173 staff worked in the nine Regional Service Centres and 600 staff in the FRCA.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Private Bills
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Council what arrangements she plans to make to inform the House of the compatibility of Private Bills with the European Convention on Human Rights. [145183]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to Private Bills. However, like all legislation, any Act resulting from the passage of such a Bill can be judged in the courts, either in the UK or in
  615W
  Strasbourg, for its compatibility with the ECHR. In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked to undertake a full assessment of the compatibility of their proposals with the ECHR and to make a statement setting out their conclusion as to whether the Bill is compatible or not. A Minister in the Government Department within whose policy responsibilities the subject matter of the Bill falls will make a formal statement saying that he believes that the promoters have undertaken a full assessment and that he does not (or, if necessary, that he does) see any need to dispute their conclusions.

CABINET OFFICE

  Opposition Parties Policies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2000,Official Report, columns 47–48W, concerning special advisers, if the results of exercises to cost policies and pledges of opposition parties are placed in the public domain; and if she will place details of the resulting documents in the Library. [144704]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As my answer of 11 December made clear, it is for individual Ministers to determine the form of presentation.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action the Government are taking to improve their handling of major IT projects. [144628]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 484W.

  Consumer Champions
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the consumer champions in each Government Department; by what process they were recruited; and what qualifications were required for these posts. [144462]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Consumer champions are existing members of the senior management of Departments and agencies, and are designated by the Departments and agencies concerned, carrying out their role in addition to their other work. They have responsibility for ensuring that consumers' views are translated into practical improvements to public services; and ensure that the changes made to public services have real meaning and impact and that they are part of a long-term strategy of improvement. The most important qualifications for the post are a commitment to this process, and an organisational position that enables them to see it is put into effect.

  The departmental consumer champions are listed on the internet at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk./servicefirst/consumerfocus/champions/htm.

  I have placed copies of this list in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Education
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress he is making towards providing free nursery education for three and four-year-olds. [143470]

  Ms Hodge
  All four-year-olds have been able to access a free early education place since 1998. By 2004 we will provide a free place for every three-year-old.

  This is the first Government ever to have specifically funded free nursery education for three-year-olds. By 2004 we will have doubled our spending on nursery education from £1 billion to £2 billion.

  Act of Worship
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received from local education authorities about the future of the collective act of worship in schools. [143471]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received only seven such representations. They asked for changes to be made to the arrangements for collective worship in schools.

  We are committed to the existing arrangements, which promote pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Ofsted inspections and the role of SACREs underpin our commitment.

  Specialist Schools
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of specialist schools on improving standards. [143472]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Specialist schools report to us about progress on their development plans and we monitor performance in public examinations. We also commissioned research by the London School of Economics and Leeds University. All these sources of information suggest that specialist schools are having a significant impact on improving standards.

  Wired-up Communities Pilot
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the wired-up communities pilot. [143473]

  Mr. Wills
  The Wired-up Communities pilot will test how we can most effectively provide access to the internet and ICT to all homes in some of England's most deprived communities. It is one of the Government's range of initiatives to tackle the digital divide.

  The first pilot project began in Kensington, Liverpool, last autumn. I will announce further pilot projects, to be run in partnership with the private sector, shortly.

  Employment Agencies
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the matter of employment agencies advertising at job centres. [143474]
  617W
  Ms Jowell
  No representations have been received on this matter within the past year. However, the Employment Service works closely with private employment agencies to offer the widest possible selection of jobs to its jobseekers. The Employment Service has recently, in partnership with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, issued a joint good practice document highlighting how public and private employment services can work together for the benefit of jobseekers.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on performance-related pay for teachers. [143475]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The performance threshold assessment system was formally reinstated on 22 November and will lead to a £2,000 pay increase for successful applicants.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the allocation of funds to Learning and Skills Councils in the north-east of England. [143477]

  Mr. Wicks
  The increased resources this Government have made available for education and training has meant that the Learning and Skills Council will receive a 9 per cent. real terms increase in its budget for 2001–2002. People in the north-east stand to benefit fully from their share of these increased resources, including through any allocations made to the four Local Learning and Skills Councils serving the region.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of teachers. [143478]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Overall, there were 6,900 more teachers in post in January 2000 than January 1998 and 5,400 more than January 1997. A survey carried out by my Department in September 2000 suggested that the secondary school figure for that month was about the same as in January that year. This year has seen the first rise in the number of people entering teacher training since 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects. [143479]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Compared to 1998, before we introduced Golden Hellos, recruitment so far this year to initial teacher training courses is up 5 per cent. for science and 15 per cent. for maths. Incentives for modern languages and technology were introduced from September 2000. Recruitment so far this year is up on last, by 9 per cent. for technology and 11 per cent. for modern languages. A further 397 people have started secondary training in these four subjects through the Graduate Teacher Programme.
  618W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on how many persons were recruited for initial teacher training for secondary school maths teaching in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01 including recruitment under the Graduate Teacher Programme. [143480]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Recruitment to secondary initial teacher training in maths declined steadily between 1994–95 and the introduction of Golden Hellos. The figure for 1996–97 was 1,650. So far this year, 1,360 people have started training in maths, including through the Graduate Teacher Programme, which we introduced in January 1998. Between 1994–95 and 1997–98, recruitment to secondary teacher training courses in maths fell by 25 per cent. Since 1998–99 it has risen by 14 per cent. There will be a further intake to the Graduate Teacher Programme in the summer term.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of newly qualified teachers joining the teaching profession. [143481]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Around 70 per cent. of newly qualified teachers in England, in both 1997 and 1998, were in service in the maintained sector in England and Wales the March following qualification. Others were in service in further or higher education institutions or the independent sector. Some newly qualified teachers take a gap period before taking up teaching posts. By five years after qualification, some 80 per cent. of teachers have at some stage worked in the maintained sector.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the system of allocating funds directly to schools. [143482]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  School Standards Grant for maintained schools is payable through local education authorities, which must pass the relevant sums on to schools on a pre-determined timetable so that schools receive the funding in a lump sum during the summer term. In 2001–02 the typical primary school will receive £20,000, and the typical secondary school £60,000.

  University for Industry
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in setting up the university for industry. [143483]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the university for industry. [143494]

  Mr. Wicks
  A great deal of progress has been made. Using the brand name learndirect, Ufi Ltd. has moved from its development phase to the national roll out of operations, marked by an event on 25 October 2000.

  There are now over 770 learndirect centres operating nationally in a wide range of settings. Ufi Ltd. plan that around 1,000 learn direct centres will be in place by spring 2001. Learndirect currently offers over 440 course titles focusing on its initial priorities of basic skills, Information Technology skills at all levels and business skills for small and medium-sized enterprises. Currently over 70 per cent. of learndirect learning materials are available on line.
  619W
  The learndirect information and advice service, which includes the learndirect telephone helpline (0800 100 900) and is available on the website www.learndirect.co.uk, gives access to a wide range of in partial and accurate information on learning opportunities. The helpline has taken over 2.3 million calls since its launch in February 1998, and the website has taken 780,000 hits requesting information on learning opportunities since its launch in May 2000.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in secondary schools since May 1997. [143484]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The size of the average secondary class is 22, and in January 1997 it was 21.7. Secondary class sizes rose steadily throughout the last decade—in 1990 the figure was 20.3. Secondary headteachers are receiving an average of £50,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose this year. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  We have secured early delivery of our infant class size pledge for the vast majority of infants, including in North Wiltshire. In the constituency in September 2000, over 98 per cent. of infants were in classes of 30 or fewer pupils. The figure in January 1997 was 81 per cent.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in secondary schools since May 1997. [143487]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The size of the average secondary class is 22, and in January 1997 it was 21.7. Secondary class sizes rose steadily throughout the last decade—in 1990 the figure was 20.3. Secondary headteachers are receiving an average of £50,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose this year. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  We are delivering our infant class size pledge for the vast majority of infants, including in Hertford and Stortford. In the constituency in September 2000, nearly 95 per cent. of infants were in classes of 30 or fewer pupils. The figure in January 1997 was 73 per cent.

  New Deal
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of recruits to the New Deal are in unsubsidised employment. [143485]

  Ms Jowell
  New Deal has delivered for young people and the economy: figures to the end of October 2000 show that 557,300 young people have joined the New Deal and we know that 262,440 of these young people have moved from benefits to work. Over 72 per cent. of the young people who have left New Deal for employment are now off Jobseeker's Allowance benefits.

  40 per cent. of young people who have so far left New Deal go into sustained unsubsidised employment—in addition, independent research has shown that nearly three fifths of those recorded as leaving for an unknown destination do, in fact, find work. Of course many more
  620W
  are still gaining help in training and work experience which evidence shows improves their long term employment prospects.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations on the New Deal he has received from employers. [143490]

  Ms Jowell
  The Employment Service is in constant touch with employers across the country to improve its service to them. This is borne out by a record response from employers to New Deal, with over 80,000 having signed Employer Agreements to date.

  While we continue to make improvement, an independent survey of employers shows that 84 per cent. are satisfied or very satisfied with the service they receive from the Employment Service.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the destination of people leaving the New Deal. [143495]

  Ms Jowell
  Figures to the end of October 2000 show that 457,100 young people have left the New Deal. Of these, 40 per cent. entered sustained unsubsidised employment, 11 per cent. transferred to another benefit, 20 per cent. left to another known destination, and 29 per cent. left to an unknown destination. However, independent research has shown that nearly three fifths of those recorded as leaving for an unknown destination do, in fact, find work.

  New Deal's success has meant that over 250,000 young people have been helped into work. We will build on that success and strengthen the New Deal so that it will assist even more people and help ensure that the current low unemployment rate continues.

  Literacy
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding was earmarked for each of the last four years for literacy in primary schools. [143486]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Funding for the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy in primary schools over the last four years is as follows:

  1997–98: £5 million (National Literacy and Numeracy Projects)

  1998–99: £57 million (including £7 million for Year 6 booster classes)

  1999–2000: £74 million (including £24 million for Year 6 booster classes)

  2000–01: £88 million (including £21 million for Year 6 booster classes).

  In addition, a total of £96 million of Books for Schools grant was allocated to primary and secondary schools in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  £98 million has been allocated for literacy in primary schools in 2001–02 (including £23 million for booster classes).

  Sport
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government's policy is on organised sport in schools. [143488]
  621W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to supporting organised sport in schools. Competitive games are a compulsory part of the National Curriculum for Physical Education for children aged 5–14 and are one of the options available for those aged 14–16. Out of school hours, the most popular activity is sport for both primary and secondary children. The Government launched their Sports Strategy "A Sporting Future for All" in April this year. One of its key aims is to increase participation in physical activities in schools, including organised sports. 1,000 School Sports Co-ordinators are currently being appointed. They will be based in communities of greatest need, working in "families" of primary and secondary schools linked wherever possible through LEAs to Specialist Sports Colleges. They will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and take part in a wide range of sports outside the curriculum. So far, 143 School Sports Co-ordinators are in place. On 26 September 2000, the Prime Minister also unveiled a further major investment in sport, including £750 million New Opportunities Lottery funding to strengthen the foundation of sport across the UK by building and refurbishing PE and sports facilities in over 1,500 schools and outdoor adventure facilities, which will provide even more opportunities for children to play sport in schools.

  Pre-school Provision
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on pre-school provision. [143489]

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the number of pre-school places. [143465]

  Ms Hodge
  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place. By September 2004 all three-year-olds will also be able to access a free place.

  We are making £986 million available over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 for the provision of free places for three-year-olds, and other early years initiatives. By March 2001, some 50 per cent. of three-year-olds nationally will have access to a free early education place. We are making a further 80,000 new places available in 2001–02 which will increase to 66 per cent. the number of three-year-olds accessing a free place by March 2002.

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

  School Websites
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the quality of creative work on school websites. [143491]

  Mr. Wills
  We have recently launched the revised and updated version of the Superhighway Safety information pack, aimed at teachers, learners and parents. As well as addressing the whole range of internet safety issues, this free pack provides advice and guidance on what school websites should (and should not) include. For instance, we advise that schools 'showcase' their pupils' creative work. The pack's website version (http://safety.ngfl.gov.uk) also includes links to examples of particularly good school 622W
  websites, to provide schools with further ideas. Some of the websites showcased in this way have won the British Educational Communications and Technology agency's school website award. These awards are designed to encourage schools to showcase excellent examples of web publishing. As increasing numbers of schools are able to access the internet, we would expect the amount of creative work on display in this way to increase.

  ICT
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that adults in disadvantaged communities gain information and communication technology skills. [143492]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are committed, by 2005, to providing access to the internet and information and communications technology (ICT) to everyone who wants it including those in the most disadvantaged communities.

  We are taking significant steps towards tackling the difficulties adults in disadvantaged communities face in accessing ICT so that they are able to play an active part in the digital revolution. On 11 September the Prime Minister set out the Government's strategy for getting the UK online. The Prime Minister also announced over 600 successful applications in the first phase of the UK online centres funded through the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). These CMF funded centres are specifically targeting the most deprived urban and rural areas and will provide access to ICT and learning provision. By 2002 there will be around 6,000 UK online centres throughout England. These will be based in the heart of local communities in the most convenient locations including public libraries, colleges and community centres.

  Learndirect was launched nationally on 25 October 2000. Its services are relevant to people with all kinds of backgrounds, social and economic circumstances and skill needs. The network of learndirect centres, over 770 of which are already in place, will provide local learning facilities offering a supported, end-to-end learning experience.

  Learndirect's emphasis on making learning easily accessible makes it possible to target the whole population and yet still reach those who may feel let down by traditional learning. This inclusive approach is supported by the provision of learning which is tailored to meet the needs and commitments of the learner and end-to-end learner support.

  50,000 free computer training courses are being made available for jobless people across the country under our UK online computer training scheme. We are also piloting an initiative to wire up homes and schools in some of the most disadvantaged communities in England, and we are introducing the 'Computers within Reach' pilot scheme in which, in the period up to the end of March 2001, we intend to provide 35,000 recycled computers in local pilots in deprived communities.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proportion of education funding which goes(a) directly to schools and (b) to local education authorities. [143493]
  623W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Maintained schools receive delegated funding, and in 2000–01 this amounts to 84.2 per cent. of local education authorities' local school budgets. This includes devolved Standards Fund moneys. We have set a target of a minimum 85 per cent. delegation for 2001–02 and 87 per cent. for 2002–03. In addition, schools have received amounts ranging from £3,000 to £50,000 per school as School Standards Grant; this will continue for the next three years. In 2001–02 a typical primary school will receive £20,000 and a typical secondary school £60,000.

  Nursery and Pre-school Education
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total amount spent on(a) nursery and (b) pre-school education in (i) England in 1980 to 2000 and (ii) Wales in 1980 to 1998. [141680]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Total Government expenditure on under-fives in England is estimated to increase by £1 billion in 2003–04 compared with 1996–97. All four-year-olds already have a guaranteed early education place. The Government have made a commitment to provide a free nursery education place for all three-year-olds by 2004.

  The following table gives, in real terms at 1999–2000 prices, local education authority current expenditure on under-fives (including rising fives) in England from 1979–80 through to 1999–2000, including the nursery voucher scheme funding of £636 million in 1997–98. These figures include all local authority expenditure on nursery and pre-school education, including funding from sources outside that specifically allocated for this purpose.

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  500

  1980–81

  531

  1981–82

  526

  1982–83

  559

  1983–84

  578

  1984–85

  614

  1985–86

  617

  1986–87

  678

  1987–88

  1,034

  1988–89

  1,084

  1989–90

  1,172

  1990–91

  1,221

  1991–92

  1,345

  1992–93

  1,460

  1993–94

  1,533

  1994–95

  1,623

  1995–96

  1,643

  1996–97

  1,671

  1997–98

  1,778

  1998–99

  1,810

  1999–2000

  11,904

  1 Estimate

  Before 1987–88 the figures only include expenditure on under-fives in nursery schools. From 1987–88 onwards the figures include spending both in nursery schools and on under-fives in primary schools.

  Responsibility for education matters in Wales rests with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Government Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [142235]

  Mr. Wills
  Blackpool LEA achieved unitary status on 1 April 1998 following local government reorganisation. It is therefore difficult to make statistical comparisons from 1997 to 2000. Outlined are details of the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency and Blackpool LEA of a range of the Department's policies.

  Sure Start

  There is a Sure Start programme centred on Mereside. There is a strong emphasis on community capacity building, particularly through training both to increase self-confidence and to promote self-sufficiency. Parents and grandparents are involved in providing some of the services, such as running storytelling and rhyme clubs. The programme has received total funding of up to £1,950,070.

  Beacon Schools

  The LEA has two Beacon Schools—Anchorsholme County Primary School and Christ the King Catholic Primary School.

  Specialist Schools

  There are two specialist schools—Bispham High School (Arts) and Montgomery High School (Language).

  Class Size

  £

  Blackpool LEA

  Revenue

  Capital

  1998–99

  73,000

  414,500

  1999–2000

  351,000

  278,125

  2000–01

  588,710

  171,200

  The September 2000 figure shows that in Blackpool there are now only 192 (4.1 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 2,369 (45.4 per cent.).

  Key Stage Test Results

  Percentage of pupils at level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 tests

  English

  Maths

  Science

  1998

  60

  56

  62

  1999

  64

  64

  70

  2000

  72

  66

  79

  Attainment by pupils aged 15 in GCSE and GNVQ equivalents

  Percentage 5 or more A*-C

  Percentage no passes

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Blackpool

  34.6

  36.5

  36.1

  6.9

  7.3

  6.3

  England

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  6.6

  6.0

  5.6

  Partnership Programme for Independent and State Schools

  Langdale Preparatory School (Independent) and Claremont Primary School (State) received Independent/State School Partnerships grant of £17,000 in 1999–2000

  625W
  for one year. The schools worked together to explore "The Development of Blackpool and its Relationship to Tourism". The project involved most areas of the curriculum with emphases on History, Geography, Science, Art, Mathematics and English.

  Funding

  PPP

  Collegiate High School—This project (supported by NDS) was signed during summer 2000 between the school, LEA and Uforia (private contractor). Work commenced on 11 September and is expected to be completed by 7 May 2001. The project is to construct an indoor sports centre on the school grounds, which will also be available to another special school. The private sector partner will contribute capital and be granted a lease to operate the upgraded facilities out of school hours. The school currently pays rent for indoor sports facilities. Total value of the project is £1,200,000 (£750,000 NDS and £450,000 private sector contribution).

  Capital (£000)

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  ACG

  3,437

  2,124

  642

  SCA

  70

  50

  624

  NDS

  1,863

  1,259

  661

  VA grant

  226

  93

  69

  SEED

  115

  —

  —

  PPP

  —

  —

  —

  Capital formula

  993

  —

  —

  NGfL

  371

  376

  234

  Science labs

  103

  —

  —

  SSLUs

  35

  —

  —

  Assistance with AMP

  —

  14

  —

  Access at %85

  —

  —

  9

  Security

  37

  37

  36

  Outside toilets

  —

  —

  47

  Energy

  —

  —

  41

  Under New Deal for Schools (NDS) the following schools in the Blackpool, South constituency have benefited:

  NDS1
  Baines Endowed CE—Scheme submitted by District Liaison Committee—£6,548

  NDS2

  Grange Park Junior—roof repair—£1,075 and tiling toilet floors—£9,675

  Revoe Primary—roofing—£172,000

  Thames County Primary—roofing—£11,825

  Waterloo Primary—roofing—£26,875, toilet upgrades—£12,900 and gable end correction—£2,685

  Mereside Primary—refurbishment of toilets—£22,790

  Roseacre Primary—replacement toilets—£26,875

  Collegiate High—refurbishment of toilets—£12,900

  St. George's High—refurbishment of changing rooms—£6,990

  Highfield High—repairs to brick arches—£53,750

  Palatine High—repair of brickwork—£860, resurface netball courts—£1,450, resurface tennis courts—£17,200 and repair/replace slabs—£919

  NDS3

  Collegiate High—sports facilities—£750,000

  Highfield High, Palatine High, Grange Park Infant and Junior and St. Kentigerns RC Primary—Part of 10-school package for re-roofing totalling £509,400

  626W
  NDS4

  St. George's High—general refurbishment—£220,000

  Highfield High—refurbishment of science and food technology labs—£256,300 and part of a three-school package for replacement of temporary classrooms totalling £570,688

  Collegiate High—rewiring—£382,590

  Park School, Palatine High and Highfield High—part of a four-school package for replacement of windows totalling £220,000.

  Further Education Numbers

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions, where the home postcode is in the Blackpool, South constituency 1992–97, 1997–98, 1998–99

  16–18

  Adult

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FEFC funded

  1996–97

  954

  277

  538

  4,323

  1997–98

  966

  338

  640

  4,768

  1998–99

  926

  336

  605

  4,906

  Non-FEFC funded

  1996–97

  140

  110

  120

  115

  1997–98

  84

  151

  129

  143

  1998–99

  115

  151

  180

  483

  Note:

  Under 16s included in 16–18 figures; where age unknown, included in adult figures

  Sources:

  1996–97: Individualised Student Record 10 (December 1997)

  1997–98: Individualised Student Record 13 (December 1998)

  1998–99: Individualised Student Record 16 (December 1999)

  for all FEFC funded institutions

  Modern Apprenticeships Data

  Since 2 May 1997, we know of 956 starts on Modern Apprenticeships in the Blackpool, South constituency (as at 30 September 2000). Broken down by financial year these are:

  Financial year

  Foundation Modern Apprenticeships1

  Advanced Modern Apprenticeships2

  Total

  1997–98

  0

  142

  142

  1998–99

  23

  169

  192

  1999–2000

  215

  174

  389

  2000–013

  115

  118

  233

  Total

  353

  603

  956

  1 Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as National Traineeships, were introduced nationally in September 1997.

  2 Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as Modern Apprenticeships, were introduced nationally in September 1995.

  3 To date.

  Source:

  WBTYP trainee database

  Please note:

  1. The Trainee Database System (TDS), from which these data are taken, is less complete than Management Information supplied to the Department by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) (around 95 per cent.).

  2. In addition, the postcode information on the TDS, from which parliamentary constituency data are compiled, are 95 per cent. complete.

  3. TEC Management Information does not provide information at parliamentary constituency level.

  627W
  Labour Market Data

  The working age employment rate in Blackpool in summer 2000 was 74.2 per cent. compared with a seasonally unadjusted UK figure of" 75.1 per cent.

  The working age employment rate in Blackpool increased by 1.7 percentage points between summer 1997 and summer 2000.

  New Deal for Young People

  Number

  Starts

  931

  Jobs total

  474

  Subsidised

  41

  New Deal for 25+

  Number

  Starts

  367

  Jobs total

  84

  Subsidised

  12

  Teaching Vacancies (North Somerset)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent specialist mathematics teaching vacancies there were in North Somerset local education authority schools in each year since 1979. [142944]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on teaching vacancies in North Somerset local education authority prior to 1997 is not available, due to the fact that this particular authority was formed as part of the local government reorganisation of 1 April 1996. The number of full-time mathematics teaching vacancies in maintained secondary schools in North Somerset local authority on the third Thursday in January each year since the authority was created is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  1

  2000

  2

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  A DfEE survey of maintained secondary schools in England in the first week of September 2000 indicated that there were about 1,000 secondary teacher vacancies.

  There was a growth of 2000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of children of compulsory school age in each local education authority in England are(a) educated in that authority's special schools, (b) educated in special provision in that
  628W
  authority's mainstream schools, (c) receiving special education in private schools or in another local education authority, (d) educated otherwise and (e) not being educated. [143439]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The available information is to be placed in the House of Commons Library: proportion of pupils of compulsory school age in maintained special schools, proportion of pupils of compulsory school age receiving special education in independent schools, proportion of pupils of compulsory school age receiving special education in non-maintained special schools and the proportion of pupils of compulsory school age not on the roll of a school or pupil referral unit.

  Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 places a responsibility on local education authorities to provide suitable education outside school for children unable to attend school because of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise. By 2002 provision for pupils excluded from school must be full-time.

  Statutory guidance from the DfEE advises local education authorities to set up systems for collecting data on the number of children of all ages who are out of school, and their achievements. Such a register will help authorities ensure that vulnerable groups do not become lost in the system between education and employment.

  Information is collected on the number of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools.

  This is published in the Statistical First Release "Special Educational Needs in England—January 2000" in November 2000. A copy of this publication is available from the Library and can also be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. However, this does not specifically distinguish between forms of special provision in mainstream schools.

  We do not collect information about those pupils receiving special education in another local education authority. However, we have included in the table information about pupils receiving education in non-maintained special schools (including hospital special).

  Mixed-ability Streaming
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the merits of streaming pupils of different abilities. [143593]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most secondary schools, and a small but increasing proportion of primary schools for their older pupils, set by ability in particular subjects. The balance of evidence supports the effectiveness of this practice in raising standards.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits were granted to foreign nationals during the last 12 months. [143932]

  Ms Hodge
  During the 12 month period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 a total of 102,180 work
  629W
  permits were granted to foreign nationals. A more detailed breakdown by type and duration of permit is shown in the following table.

  Type of permit

  Up to 12 months

  Over 12 months

  Business and Commercial

  19,985

  52,571

  Sports and Entertainments

  21,107

  710

  Training and Work Experience (TWES)

  5,517

  2,290

  Total

  46,609

  55,571

  Class Sizes (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children aged(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven are taught in classes of over 30 in schools in Wansbeck; and what were the comparable 1997 figures. [144287]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have secured early delivery of our infant class size pledge for the vast majority of infants, including in Wansbeck. In the constituency in September 2000, 2.3 per cent. of five, six and seven-year-olds were in classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 36.7 per cent.

  The latest infant class size data for September 2000 were recently published in a Statistical First Release "Infant Class Sizes in England 2000" on 1 November, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. Figures from this release show that since September 1998, 324,000 five, six and seven-year-olds have benefited from the Government's infant class size initiative. In September 2000, 30,000 children were in classes of 31 or more children, compared to 171,000 in September 1999. This demonstrates that the Government are delivering early their infant class size pledge, which is supported by some £620 million.

  School League Tables
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what course of action is open to schools who wish to challenge the accuracy of school league tables; and if amended league tables are published in the event of errors being discovered. [144291]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is open to schools to complain that data published in the annual school performance tables are in error. Where they do so we investigate thoroughly and issue errata amending the figures where appropriate. The publication of the information in league table form is, however, a matter entirely for the media.

  We have received complaints about the information published in the secondary school performance tables on 16 November last year from two schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. Following investigation the data for King Edward VI School have been amended, and the school has received an apology for the error. The figures for the second school were found not to be in error. Data are published in the Department's performance tables to a very high level of accuracy. Seven of the 5,400 secondary
  630W
  schools and colleges included in last year's tables have had errata following errors made by the Department or its contractors.

  School Transport
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much additional grant has been given to education authorities to provide safer school transport in each of the last five years. [144455]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department has made no specific grants to local education authorities to provide safer school transport. Funding for school transport is included as part of local education authorities' standard spending assessments, but it is for individual authorities to decide how they spend the money. The total amount spent by local education authorities on home to school transport in England in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, was £444 million. The Government recently announced £2.8 billion of capital investment over the next five years for local authorities in England for small-scale integrated transport schemes, including safe routes to schools. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has also supported individual local projects on safe routes to schools. It has funded a pilot programme of site-specific advice on school travel plans, will roll out a larger programme this spring, and will help to fund local school travel plan coordinators.

  The Government have also worked with their School Travel Advisory Group on a programme of initiatives to improve safety and reduce car use on the journey to school. My Department, jointly with DETR, has produced guidance to schools, governors and local education authorities on measures to encourage healthier, safer and more sustainable school travel.

  School Funding (Staffordshire)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent on schools in Stafford shire in each year since 1997; and how much in each case was delivered outside the statutory spending assessment funding formula. [144469]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Spending on schools in Staffordshire for 1997–98 and 1998–99, the years for which this information is readily available, was £240.9 million and £255.2 million respectively. These figures are based on net institutional expenditure. The following table sets out the resources made available to Staffordshire local education authority since 1997–98. These are not directly comparable with net institutional expenditure.

  £ million

  Standard Spending Assessment1

  Special and Specific Grants

  SSA and Special/Specific Grants

  1997–98

  269.7

  12.9

  282.7

  1998–99

  297.1

  5.1

  302.3

  1999–2000

  315.4

  10.4

  325.8

  2000–01

  329.5

  21.8

  351.3

  1 Includes the under fives, primary, secondary and post-16 SSA sub-blocks.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the consistency of decisions on special educational needs resources across the country; and if he will make a statement. [144484]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise that there are differences in practice between areas in the use made of funds for special educational needs (SEN). The funding arrangements allow both LEAs and schools flexibility in deciding their local priorities. We are seeking to promote good practice in this through the DfEE SEN Funding Steering Group, which is working to improve the current arrangements for reporting on SEN budgets and outturn, and to develop tools and strategies for managing an SEN budget in as inclusive a way as possible. It is aiming to produce guidance, drawing on existing LEA models, and to disseminate this by summer 2001.

  At the individual pupil level we are also working to promote better and more consistent practice, through other good practice material, for example our July 2000 report on Education Psychology Services. The revised SEN Code of Practice should also promote more consistent practice by schools and LEAs. While individual pupils with SEN will vary in their needs it is important that schools and others adopt a consistent and rigorous approach in identifying and providing for these needs.

  Consistency of good practice will also be promoted through amendments to the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1999. These amendments will require LEAs to set out their detailed arrangements for what schools might normally provide from their budgets for pupils with SEN. It will also require LEAs to publish their plans for providing appropriate SEN support. Schools will continue to be required to provide information about their own arrangements for identification, assessment and provision within their SEN policy. As with the revised SEN Code of Practice these amended regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities in(a) Greater London and (b) the rest of England and Wales are currently unable to offer permanent places to all pupils in secondary schools within their boundaries; what efforts are they making to provide an education to those pupils; what support his Department is providing to them; and if he will make a statement. [144485]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not collect detailed information on the provision of school places by local education authorities in England; education in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  It is for local education authorities to ensure sufficient school places to meet demand. They may make emergency arrangements for pupils who cannot
  632W
  immediately be offered permanent school places by, for example, providing temporary tuition or assisting with travel to schools in neighbouring authorities. Where authorities can demonstrate insufficient school places to meet future demand, they may apply to the Department for capital funding to provide additional places. In December, the Government announced allocations of £90.9 million for LEAs in England to provide 43,260 new school places, including £10.9 million for over 4,000 new secondary school places in Greater London.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claims of discrimination under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have been considered to date by(a) employment tribunals and (b) the courts. [144718]

  Ms Hodge
  From April 1997 to December 2000, the employment tribunals have considered at a full and final hearing 713 claims made under the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Due to changes to the database system of the Employment Tribunals Service in 1996, statistics are not available for 1996–97.

  Seven claims under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had been heard by county and sheriff courts up to September 2000, the latest date for which research information is available.

  School Governors
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what powers a school governing body has to refuse to accept the appointment of a governor made by a minor local authority. [144872]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act the school governing body is now the appointing body for an additional co-opted governor nominated by the minor authority named in the school's instrument of government. Where there is more than one minor authority, the governing body can choose which to seek nominations from, or can select from nominees put forward by more than one.

  In the case of a single nominee, a governing body is bound to accept that nomination unless it can show good reason why it should not do so. In these circumstances the governing body should explain its reasons and seek another nomination from the minor authority.

  Numeracy
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been allocated for numeracy in primary schools. [144445]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have provided primary schools with substantial funding, as shown, to support the implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy since September 1999:

  1999–2000: £74 million (including £24 million for booster classes)

  2000–01: £98 million (including £21 million for booster classes)

  2001–02: £98 million (including £23 million for booster classes).

WALES

  Llanwern Steel Works
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he was first informed of the possible closure of the Llanwern steel works. [144878]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been aware of widespread speculation on the subject over several months. However, Corus plc recently confirmed that no decision has been taken about the future of Llanwern.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact in terms of lost jobs of the closure of the Llanwern steel works by Corus plc. [144877]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  While Corus has made clear that it is looking at further restructuring, the company has not made any announcements about a possible closure of Llanwern. None the less, I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and with the National Assembly for Wales, to assess the potential impacts in the event of changes to the structure of steel plants in Wales.
  634W
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that the Llanwern steel works are not closed. [144879]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have held discussions with Corus plc at the highest level and will continue to do so. The Government are committed to helping the steel industry deal with the challenges of the fiercely competitive environment in which it operates and are working closely with industry representatives on a range of issues to help it to improve competitiveness and ensure its long term future.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with trade unions representing steel industry workers in Wales. [144876]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I take a very close interest in the steel manufacturing industry in Wales and have visited a number of plants. I have met all that are interested in the industry, including trade unions and management, and I remain in close contact.