Sitting of 25 January 2001

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 1 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Social Security (Departmental Expenditure Limit)
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What misappropriations in the departmental expenditure limit for the Department of Social Security he has identified. [145790]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): None. Total social security spending, which rose by 4 per cent. in the previous Parliament, has risen by only 1.3 per cent. in this one. That figure includes the calculation of tax credits, and is the lowest increase in social security spending over any Parliament since the war. But for our choices to raise pensions and child benefits, social security spending would actually be falling each year.
    In the interests of prudence, savings from fraud are not included until there is clear proof that they will be achieved. The costs of unemployment have fallen by £4 billion a year, partly as a result of the new deal and the new deal for lone parents. We believe that it is important in the national interest that those deals be maintained. It is for those who would promise a total of £2 billion in social security and new deal savings to explain in detail how they could be achieved.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the Chancellor for his characteristic and somewhat distinctive account of prudence. However, does he acknowledge that, apart from other important areas, the big three areas where fraud can arise in benefits are in jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and income support, which together amount to more than 1p in the basic rate of income tax? Will he explain why the Government last year missed their fraud target by the staggering sum of £700 million?
    Mr. Brown: Fraud was not even calculated by the previous Government for 16 of their 18 years in office.
    1060
    Fraud has fallen by 6 per cent. in the past year. We have implemented the Grabiner report, and are now legislating to move forward in that regard. We have implemented the main recommendations of the Scampion report as well, and are moving forward on that, too.
    I had thought that we would get an explanation from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is the Opposition spokesman on education and employment matters, about the savings that the Opposition claim to be able to achieve and how they would achieve them. [Interruption.] They get very upset when we ask them questions. I can only refer the House to the former Opposition spokesman on economics in the House of Lords, Lord Skidelsky, who said that the £1 billion of savings to be made by eliminating benefit fraud
    is the bottomless source of hypothetical savings to which all Chancellors are driven when they have run out of anything else to cut.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 54.]
    That is a Tory verdict on the Tory party.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steps taken to reduce fraud have brought it to a potentially irreducible minimum, and that the Opposition's proposal to secure £1 billion out of further reductions is preposterous?
    Mr. Brown: The Opposition have given no evidence that they could meet the £1 billion of savings from fraud that they are claiming. They have given no evidence either that they could achieve their savings target in single-parent benefits—save by cutting the benefit for every single parent on income support with a child over 11, while cutting the new deal for lone parents. They have given no evidence as to how they can continue to cut unemployment by abolishing the new deal. The choice at the general election, whenever it comes, will be between a party that is providing stability, creating jobs and investing in public services, versus a party of cuts, privatisation and boom and bust.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor emphasises that he has held the rise in social security spending below the level achieved by the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, cuts in disability benefits led his own Back-Bench Members to vote against him. Moreover, contrary to previous answers given in this House—and even when the benefits received by pensioners through the targeted income rises as distinct from the basic state pension are taken into account—the proportion of national wealth going to pensioners has fallen under this Government compared to the previous Conservative Government. Of which achievement is the right hon. Gentleman most proud?
    Mr. Brown: We are spending more on disability benefits and pensions. We are spending more on health, education, social security and employment than the Liberal Democrat party was able to advocate at the previous general election. Some day, someone from the Liberal Democrat party will have to explain how it will spend more on everything—how it will finance its claims that it will raise spending in every area of the

    1061
    country. At the previous election, the party's policy was to raise pensions in line with inflation: we have done far better than that.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Is not a prerequisite of understanding departmental spending an understanding of basic arithmetic? I looked recently at Conservative figures suggesting that £425 million could be saved in housing benefit administration. When I looked a little deeper, I discovered that the arithmetic simply did not add up. Will my right hon. Friend help the Opposition by giving them a course in basic arithmetic?
    Mr. Brown: Indeed, we are prepared to help out the Opposition if they are prepared to show some common sense, as they call it, in relation to their own policies. They have produced no evidence that they could ever get £1 billion in additional savings; they have produced no evidence that they could get £1.8 billion from cutting bureaucracy; and they have produced no evidence that they could cut single parents' benefit other than by taking benefits away from all single parents. They must now answer the question: how would they get the £1 billion worth of cuts?
    Mr. Michael Portillo: I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is responsible for his own policies. What people will take away from today's exchange is that he is complacent about and indifferent to the amount of fraud in the social security system. I remind him that when the Conservative Government set targets to defeat social security fraud, we hit the target every time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has already pointed out, the Government have failed miserably to meet their targets.
    What is more, the Government were presented with a clear recommendation to set up a single anti-fraud investigation unit. Not only have they failed to do that, but in a Labour party press release they pour scorn on that recommendation as being "an expensive mistake". Why is the Chancellor indifferent, and why does he lack the willpower to do what is necessary?
    Mr. Brown: First, when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, there were no targets for fraud. Secondly, the author of the report that he is referring to in The Times, whom the right hon. Gentleman has used as his evidence, says that he is satisfied that the Government are making progress. Thirdly, all the experts who look at the Conservative party's proposals for saving £1 billion in fraud say that that cannot be done in the way suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The question is that the Conservatives claim that they could save £5 billion, £1 billion of it from fraud, and they must now explain how they would do it. Every expert says that it is impossible. [Interruption.] They get very upset because they must go back to their constituencies and explain why they would cut into basic services.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the Chancellor that he is answering for Government policy? It is not for the Chancellor, at this stage, to ask the questions.
    Mr. Portillo: Yesterday, a Minister was sacked for misleading the House of Commons, but today Ministers, in the form of the Chancellor, are once again failing to
    1062
    answer to this House. Is it not the case that, from the way in which they raise money, the way in which they represent Opposition policies and the way in which they fail to answer the House, we see the same pattern of sham and insincerity? Is not the truth that the only action that the Government have taken on fraud has been to reannounce the same policy 45 times? The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, quite rightly, that the Chancellor thinks that issuing a press release and banging a drum amounts to the same thing as a campaign against fraud. It does not.
    In The Times today, it is revealed that there have been 160,000 cases of suspected housing benefit fraud and only 800 prosecutions. That is the measure of the Chancellor's success. Is it not true that he is simply unconcerned with tackling fraud? He lacks the political willpower to do anything against it. He attacked the Scampion report in a Labour party press release, pouring scorn on it and saying that was is an expensive mistake. The only party with the willpower to tackle fraud and save £1 billion is the Conservative party.
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor quotes the Scampion report every time and claims that the Government are not implementing it. In The Times this morning, Mr. Scampion answers the Conservative party once and for all. He states: "I understand"—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not like it, but he is going to hear it:
    I understand where the Government are coming from. I don't see that what they are doing is undermining my recommendations at all.
    When we came to power, 40 per cent. of income support claims were erroneous: we have halved that. When we came in, there were no proper laws to deal with the fraud investigations that were taking place: we are taking action, with a new unit against organised fraud. When we came in, no proper cross-checking was being carried out on housing benefit claims: we have taken action on that. We set up the Grabiner committee; it has reported and we are implementing the report. The Social Security Fraud Bill is currently going through the House of Lords and will shortly come to the House of Commons. The Bill implements the "Two strikes and you're out" policy recommended by Grabiner.
    In every example that the shadow Chancellor wants to use about non-implementation, we are taking action. However, after Mr. Scampion and Lord Grabiner, the right hon. Gentleman cannot come to the House and make up a figure of £1 billion in savings from fraud—just as he conjures up a figure of £1.8 billion from bureaucracy, and a figure for the scrapping of welfare to work and the new deal. That cannot be done without hurting some of the poorest people in the country.
    In 1997, it was the shadow Chancellor who said that the Tories were linked to harshness. That is exactly where they are.

    Equitable Life
    Mr. John Butterfill: If he will make a statement on Equitable Life. [R] [145791]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): As I announced in Westminster Hall on 19 December, the Financial Services Authority is

    1063
    preparing a report on the events that led to Equitable Life's decision to close to new business. The report will cover both the FSA's role as prudential regulator and its exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986, including the Personal Investment Authority's responsibility for the conduct of business regulation of long-term, investment-linked life insurance. The report will be published.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is it not clear that even if Equitable Life had won its court case in the Lords, there would almost certainly not have been enough to deliver its responsibilities to the guaranteed annuity policyholders without raiding the assets of the non-guaranteed policyholders? Has there not been a complete failure of regulatory supervision in this matter? Will the Chancellor publish not only the report of the investigation into the activities of the FSA and its predecessor SIB—the Securities and Investments Board—but the advice being given on the matter by the Treasury, which was also involved? Does the Minister agree that as the regulatory system, and especially the Treasury, have failed the public in this matter, the Government may well have a responsibility to compensate policyholders who have lost their money?
    Miss Johnson: The Government recognise that policyholders will rightly be concerned at the news of Equitable Life's closure to new business. It is not for me or any Minister to give investment advice. As in all personal financial matters, independent financial advice is widely available from authorised firms or persons. The FSA is preparing a report on the events and it is not for me to speculate on the outcome of that report.
    Miss Anne Begg: If my postbag is anything to go by—in the number of constituents who have written to me about the money they have lost as a result of investing in Equitable Life—a large number of people throughout the country have fallen foul of that company in these events. They ate extremely angry—through no fault of their own they invested their money in what they thought was a sound British financial institution. They are looking for a steer from the Government to ensure that the people who let those events happen are brought to account and that such events never occur again.
    Miss Johnson: The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides a model for the best standards of regulation in the world. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, one regulator will replace the current nine regulators. The Act gives the FSA clear statutory responsibilities, including objectives for market confidence, consumer awareness, the protection of consumers and the prevention of financial crime.
    It is important that we recognise that the FSA's report will cover both the FSA's role as prudential regulator and the Personal Investment Authority's role. Its terms of reference include the background and events leading up to the FSA's assumption of responsibility for the prudential regulation of Equitable Life on 1 January 1999—[Interruption.] I am sure that on such an important matter, Opposition Members would like an accurate description of what is happening.
    1064
    The report will describe the course of the supervisory work from then until the society's closure to new business on 8 December 2000, and it will indeed identify, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has requested, any lessons to be learned.
    Mr. Portillo: Many millions of people are living in anxiety over this question. Will they not be shocked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not get up and take responsibility for his part in the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman, through the Economic Secretary, take responsibility for the letter written by the Treasury in December 1998 which approved Equitable Life's decision to reduce the bonuses payable to those people who had guaranteed annuities?
    Is it not the case that the fact that the Treasury ventured into an opinion on the law—an opinion that turned out to be wrong—was the reason why Equitable Life did not seek a sale of the company at that time? Therefore, are Ministers not responsible for the fact that the company is now unable to meet the expectations of millions of people? Will the Government take their responsibility seriously, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that the fate of millions of people has been affected by what has been done in his name?
    Miss Johnson: I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's approach. It is because we recognise that this is such an important matter that it is subject to an investigation and report by the FSA. It is not for any of us here to speculate on the outcome of the report. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will wait for the investigations to be concluded and will look at the evidence that is presented.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Is it not a bit rich of the Conservative party, which was responsible for the mis-selling of hundreds of thousands of pensions, to try to make political capital out of the plight of Equitable Life policyholders? Should not the industry take responsibility for bailing out those policyholders who will be affected? Is it not about time that we reviewed and got rid of the requirement compulsorily to purchase annuities?
    Miss Johnson: The whole country will hear what my hon. Friend has just said about the record of the previous Government in this regard. That stands on its own. As for the future of annuities, we have always said that we are open to ideas for alternatives to the rules for annuity purchase as long as they are fair and practicable and will provide an income to last the whole of retirement.

    Personal Service Companies
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What his estimate is of the number of IT consultants who will move overseas as a result of proposed changes to the tax and national insurance treatment of personal service companies. [145794]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): There is no evidence that a significant number of IT consultants are moving overseas as a result of this legislation.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: In answer to a previous question, the Paymaster General wrote to me on the subject of this stealth tax, which falls principally on IT consultants. She said that this burden on them was
    allowing us to target support on the real entrepreneurs.
    Does she accept that IT consultants are disgusted that she does not recognise that they are real entrepreneurs? Why is an IT consultant who keeps money in the business to invest in equipment and take on more workers not a real entrepreneur?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has pursued this subject for some considerable time. He needs to appreciate three main points. The proposal to which he refers, commonly known as IR35, does not attack entrepreneurs or those who run their companies. Nor is it targeted at the IT industry. Its purpose is to deal with a specific issue. The use of service companies meant that people who, in any other circumstances, would have been employees, were able to reduce their liability to tax. To give an example, a service company worker earning £50,000 a year had been previously paying about 21 per cent. tax and national insurance compared to an employee doing exactly the same work paying 35 per cent. The encouragement provided to entrepreneurs in this country is well known, given the reforms undertaken by the Government—and, indeed, that is recognised, even by the press, in the surveys published today.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Even the press?
    Dawn Primarolo: I take that point and will rephrase those words, given the sensitive nature of our comments at present. It is recognised in the press.
    So the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) point first, that IR35 hits IT workers, is not true; and secondly, that it discourages entrepreneurs, is not true because the Government's policy has encouraged them. It ensures that those people working in the same conditions are subject to the same tax. It is not a stealth tax; it ensures that people pay the tax that they should have been paying all along.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that anyone moving overseas as a result of our tax treatment would be very ill-advised? Has she seen the account in yesterday's Financial Times about the European Parliament commissioning a report from seven international financial people involved in such matters? The report shows that the Government's tax treatment and labour market policies were the ones that the eurozone should copy. Is not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to be applauded for achieving the respect and admiration of the eurozone countries for the work that he has done?
    Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct about the plaudits that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received for the innovations that he has introduced to encourage entrepreneurial activity in the United Kingdom. Indeed, on the specific question about IT consultants, in the Electronic Telegraph of 3 April 2000, a commentator said that she was
    sceptical at repeated threats that specialists will just move offshore to avoid
    1066
    IR35. She went on to say:
    The tax on most parts of the Continent is even worse than it
    would be here for those consultants and that "they would be poorer" if they left here. For example, in Norway, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, the tax rates are higher for those workers.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Can we now have a straight answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)? Will the Paymaster General admit that IR35 represents everything that is damaging about the Government? It adds to the regulatory burden; it is a stealth tax and an attack on innovation and enterprise; it is an attack on the genuine wealth creators of this country; and it is driving our finest people overseas. In short, it is the politics of envy.
    Dawn Primarolo: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. IR35 is not driving IT workers overseas and there is no evidence to support that allegation. The tax system encourages entrepreneurial activity in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman needs to tell us whether he would continue to allow that mechanism to exist in the tax system so that some people could pay less tax than others when they are in exactly the same position.

    National Health Service (Investment)
    Mr. David Chaytor: What discussions he has tad with ministerial colleagues on plans for public investment in the NHS over the next four years. [145795]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Following discussions with colleagues, I announced in the spending review the average annual real-terms growth in cash of 6.1 per cent. a year, over the four years to 2003–04—the biggest sustained growth of any four-year period in the NHS.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I tell him how much my constituents already benefit from the Government's new investment in the NHS in Bury, especially because of the establishment of the health action zone and NHS Direct, the modernisation of GPs and dentists surgeries, and the multimillion pound improvements at Fairfield hospital? Can he tell the House what would be the impact on the NHS in Bury of the Conservative party's plans to cut £16 billion from public services? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Brown: Conservative Members do not want to hear this fact, but, in addition to meeting our election commitment on waiting lists, there are more doctors and nurses—and more are in training; 38 new hospital developments; more in-patients receiving treatment; more admissions being met; and more out-patient attendances than when we came into power. The whole country shares my hon. Friend's concern that the Conservatives' proposals for partial privatisation of the NHS would damage the very fabric of a service that is valued by every citizen.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he was being disingenuous

    1067
    when he said in his Budget statement that the extra yield from an increase in tobacco tax would go to help the national health service? We know that this year, because of his ludicrous policies, the yield from tobacco tax is £900 million less than it was in the Government's first year of office.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had looked at what I said in the Budget, he would have seen that I set aside the money, which has been paid into the national health service—[Interruption.] This is another example of the Conservatives' attitude. They refused to vote for the rise in tobacco duty and, had they been successful, that money would not have gone to the national health service and would, in effect, have been cut from its budget. We have put in the money over the course of the year.
    As for the impact of that money, in 1996–97 there were 4,780,000 routine admissions; under Labour, because of new investment, there were 5.4 million routine admissions in the last year for which figures were available. That shows that the national health service is able to do more as a result of having more. The hon. Gentleman has just given an example of where the Conservatives would cut money from the NHS budget.
    Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that investment in the health service in the past four years has been very welcome, and improvements have been made. Nevertheless, does he accept that the extra investment that he has announced for the next four years is essential if we are to have the improvements that we need in hospitals such as Basildon and Orsett in my constituency? Does he recognise that those Labour Members who regularly approach him want him to ensure that we have extra resources for our hospitals and local health services? What representations has he received from Conservative Members to spend less in their constituencies?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The extra investment will allow us to improve the national health service in the next few years. Additional hospitals are being built, accident and emergency units are being modernised in every part of the country, 50 new magnetic resonance imaging cancer scanners have been put into many hospitals, and many extra investments have been made. There are 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, and we plan for 20,000 extra nurses. Conservative Members complain about what is happening in their constituencies, but they will not face up to the fact that their policies would cut the NHS budget and that the shadow Chancellor has announced a policy for privatisation in the health service. They should go back to their constituents this weekend and ask them what they think, because they want the new investment and do not want the cuts or privatisation.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is it any wonder that Labour Members are asking about investment in the NHS for the next four years when investment in the NHS during this Parliament has been less than it was under the previous Government? Does the Chancellor regret that the three years of delays in providing funding for the NHS has led to a shortage of doctors and nurses, a breakdown in the NHS and a lengthening of waiting lists?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is wrong: she is wrong on her first point and wrong on her second point. The share of national income we are spending on health is rising, as was announced in the public spending review. As regards the Liberal Democrat party, its election manifesto said that it would spend £500 million more a year. We are spending £5,000 million more a year—10 times as much.

    Credit Unions
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What plans the Government have to support and promote credit unions. [145796]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government strongly support credit unions' ethos of self-help and their important work in tackling financial exclusion by offering savings and affordable loans, especially to the least well-off. The Government have been involved with a number of initiatives to help the growth of the sector, and Conservative Members would do well to take note of the fact that membership of credit unions has increased by no less than 30 per cent. since the Government came to power.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he support measures to allow credit unions to offer variable dividends on some of their accounts, and to borrow from sources other than banks and other credit unions? Does he recognise that such measures, along with the early establishment of a central services organisation, are essential if credit unions are to continue to grow and to develop further?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-known hard work, energy and advocacy for the credit union movement. I agree that a central services organisation is important. The Association of British Credit Unions is finalising its business plan, following which it will put forward its proposals. We certainly support the early instigation of that important support, which is a result of the taskforce work which the Government have backed.
    On the deregulatory proposals that my hon. Friend advocates, we already have measures in the pipeline to extend the maximum repayment limits and to abolish the maximum membership limit. Yes, I support my hon. Friend when he says that we should allow credit unions to pay dividends more frequently and that they should be able to borrow from bodies other than other credit unions.

    Children's Tax Credit
    Mrs. Betty Williams: How many families will be entitled to the children's tax credit. [145799]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): It is estimated that about 5 million families will benefit from the introduction of the new children's tax credit.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it correct that up to 250,000 families in Wales will be eligible for a £10 a week tax cut when the children's tax credit comes into effect in April? Is she further aware that 1,600 families in my constituency of Conwy are eligible

    1069
    for the working families tax credit, which is worth, on average, an extra £30 a week? Will she, therefore, explain for the benefit of Conservative Members what would happen to the living standards of those hard-working families if those tax credits were scrapped?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not think my hon. Friend will be surprised to hear that I agree with her comments.
    Mr. Eric Forth: You wrote the question.
    Dawn Primarolo: I did not. The children's tax credit will benefit in particular lower and middle-income families, who desperately need that money to help with support for their children.
    Given your previous ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from answering on behalf of the Opposition, but it is plain to everyone that, if they were ever in a position to abolish the children's and the working families tax credits, and again to freeze child benefit, which was their policy in government, families with children would be considerably worse off—some of them by as much as £50 a week.
    Mr. Graham Brady: When the Paymaster General and the Chancellor and his friends were popping champagne corks at their celebratory party last night, did it occur to the hon. Lady that the Government's policy will mean that 5 million married couples will no longer qualify for tax credits? They will be worse off under this Government. Is it not wrong for the Government to discriminate against married couples with children while they claim to be helping them?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government also introduced the 10p starting rate and cut the basic rate of tax, which benefited the very taxpayers whom he now identifies. He will, I am sure, accept that the growth of the number of children living in poverty under his Government was a national scandal; that it is the responsibility of this Government to lift those children out of poverty; and that families need the most help when they have children and when those children are small. The hon. Gentleman should turn his mind to his alternatives: would he choose to force more children into poverty or to support this Government's policy?
    Gillian Merron: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the children's tax credit is just one of a number of measures designed to lift children out of poverty? Can she also confirm the importance of continuing to fund initiatives by this Government such as the £2 million Birchwood sure start scheme in my constituency, designed to give under-fours the very best start in life? That scheme is clearly very much at risk from the Conservative party, which is pledged to cuts worth millions of pounds across each constituency, including my own.
    Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend. The contribution of sure start to families, and particularly to ensuring that their children have the very best start in life, is something that I think the whole House would want to support. We want to ensure that children are not being born into poverty, growing up in poverty and suffering
    1070
    from poverty all their adult life. The changes that this Government have made, both with the children's tax credit and the introduction of the working families tax credit, and with the rise in child benefit, mean that many families will be up to £50 better off, compared with their experience of poverty under the previous Government.

    Savings Ratio
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on the level of the savings ratio. [145800]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government's latest assessment of household saving was published in November's pre-Budget report.
    Mr. Forth: Does the Minister accept that the savings ratio is vital to the country's economic well-being? Is it up or down, and does he take responsibility for that?
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that savings are important for this country. What he should take account of, though, is not simply the net savings ratio, which, as the pre-Budget report shows, is set to grow on the basis of the policies for stability that we put in place, but what is happening to the overall level of savings, the gross level of savings, which is robust. Moreover, very importantly, the 1999 figures for the long-term level of savings, the most recent year's figures that we have, show that gross savings were £3 billion higher than in 1996 and £5 billion higher than in 1995.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: On 14 December, when I asked the Economic Secretary much the same question—reported at column 792 of that day's Hansard—as my right hon. Friend has asked, the House heard what can only be described as a rather meaningless burble. Can the Chief Secretary now answer some straight questions? First, is the savings ratio, which he described as set to rise, at its lowest level for 37 years or not? Secondly, does he or does he not accept that instead of creating an endowment society, in which people save to be independent, his Chancellor's policies of proliferating means tests have destroyed the incentives to save for millions of people?
    Mr. Smith: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. On what is happening to household finances, he and his colleagues would do well to make a rounded assessment, because what is happening—and this is the experience of ordinary, hard-working families at whom Opposition Members sneer—is that we have rising real living standards, going up very much faster than under the Conservatives; household wealth at record levels; and household debt as a proportion of that household wealth actually falling. So consumers, householders and hard-working families are very much better off than they were under the Conservatives. It is our platform for stability and sustainable growth that provides the best basis for savings in the future, not the cuts, stop-go, boom-bust instability offered by the Conservative party.

    Public Services (Investment)
    Mr. Roger Casale: If he will make a statement on his plans for capital investment in public services over the next four years. [145801]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Public sector net investment is set to double over the period 2000–01 to 2003–04 to some £18 billion. Detailed plans on how this additional spending will be delivered are set out in the recently published departmental investment strategies.
    Mr. Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I tell him that, for my constituents in Wimbledon, the extra spending has led to the building of two new accident and emergency units at St. Helier and St. George's hospital, and to the refurbishment of the Northern line and of South Wimbledon station, while capital investment in schools in Merton this year is £230 per pupil, in contrast to £15 per pupil in 1996–97? But is it not also the case that it is only as a result of our policies for economic stability that we can make such capital investment in a sustainable way, and is there not a sharp contrast with the Opposition, who have nothing to offer other than further privatisation, cuts to services and the failed economics of boom and bust?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Thirty-eight hospital developments are taking place around the country, 242 accident and emergency departments are being modernised, and 86 walk-in centres for the health service are being developed. The national health service development is £3.8 billion of new investment. In addition, as my hon. Friend rightly says, 17,000 schools have now benefited from the new deal investment, and thousands more schools will get the modernisation that is necessary. The whole country knows that none of that would have happened under the previous Government.
    Mr. James Paice: I am sure that the Chancellor would not wish to be tarred with the same brush as his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as being the cause of the House being misled. Will he reconsider his earlier answer and confirm that the yield of tobacco tax is lower than in the first year of his chancellorship?
    Mr. Brown: I did not mislead the House. The figures for tobacco will be published in the usual way. We devoted the money in the Budget anyway on the basis of our estimates for the year, because we did not want a situation in which the health service did not get the money till the end of the year. The Conservative Opposition went into the Lobby, voted against the increase in cigarette taxation, and would not have given the health service money. They must explain to the country why they keep saying that they will spend as much as we do on the health service, yet they have deprived it of several hundred millions pounds-worth of investment, and would do so every year.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the benefits associated with the Office of Government Commerce, with specific reference to the savings that will accrue to the Department?
    Mr. Brown: There have been a number of major changes in the Treasury, with the creation of the Office of Government Commerce and the extension of the public and private finance initiative. The result is that about £13 billion of private sector investment is taking place in the public services. Instead of substituting private investment for public investment, we are complementing public investment with additional private investment. That is one of the reasons why more money is going into the schools, and why we have been able to start 38 hospital plans, and it is one of the major reasons why we can announce the biggest-ever investment in transport, which is £180 billion of private and public investment over the next 10 years.
    None of that could have happened under the Conservative party, which is dedicated to cutting public investment in those areas. The Opposition will soon have to explain in each constituency around the country why they would scrap hospital developments, why they would scrap the school developments, and why they would not go ahead with the road developments. When they return to their constituencies at the weekend, they will know clearly that that is the issue on which the two parties will be locking horns over the next few months.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Chancellor may be aware that the publicly owned Covent Garden Market Authority wishes to invest in improving its facilities for the benefits of the people of London. Will he therefore explain why the latest annual report and accounts of that public organisation show it being forced to lend £2.3 million to an unnamed local authority, rather than being permitted to use that money for the purposes of investment in its facilities?
    Mr. Brown: As I understand it, that matter comes within the remit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall look into the matter and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Dr. Lynne Jones: When he expects to announce his proposals to improve the clarity of the treatment of risks and benefits in the construction of the public sector comparator and assessment of value for money for private finance initiative proposals. [145802]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We expect the full capital appraisals review, announced in the 2000 spending review, to be completed by the end of March. That will pave the way for any subsequent changes to the way in which public sector comparators are constructed to make the handling of costs and benefits clearer.
    Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, which seems to indicate progress with honouring a commitment given to the Treasury Committee last June. As my hon. Friend will be aware, both the Treasury

    1073
    Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have expressed doubts about the reliability of the construction of the public sector comparator, as those responsible do not see public finance as a serious alternative. Does he agree that the best way of dealing with that problem is for the Government to announce that public finance will be available for worthwhile capital projects, such as the new hospital in south Birmingham, if it can be shown that that is a better way than private finance of giving value for money to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Timms: I can reassure my hon. Friend that value for money is the key consideration in choosing between private finance and conventional public procurement. Under the arrangements that currently apply, the Arthur Andersen/London School of Economics study showed that private finance initiative solutions are beating their public sector by 17 per cent. on average. For example, six of the 38 hospital projects currently under way in the biggest hospital building programme that the NHS has ever had are conventionally funded. In each case, the choice is made on precisely the basis of value for money that my hon. Friend advocates. That is the right approach, and we have taken it.
    Mr. David Heath: Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) not absolutely right? Is there not plentiful evidence from audit studies over many years showing that the public sector is very poor at commissioning and managing capital projects, whether for central Government, the NHS or local government? Are there not plenty of studies, which the hon. Gentleman has chosen not to quote, questioning the cost-effectiveness of those PFI schemes that have proceeded? Is it not time that we had a clear comparator that showed us whether we are getting value for money in the expenditure of public funds?
    Mr. Timms: I think that the hon. Gentleman's point argues against the conclusion that he draws from it. There are indeed considerable benefits to be gained from bringing in the skills of the private sector in planning and managing construction projects in the public sector—for example in the health service. We are realising those benefits through the approach that we have taken.

    Taxation
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What representations he has received from interested organisations on the level of the tax burden. [145803]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Chancellor receives a wide range of representations on taxation matters.
    Mr. Tyrie: Most of those representations will explain how the rise in the tax burden is impairing economic performance. Could the Minister, on behalf of the Government, tell us to what level the tax burden will have to rise before the Government believe that a higher tax burden impairs economic performance?
    Mr. Smith: Actually, the tax burden is falling. When making those claims, Opposition Members should recall what they themselves said, on the record and in
    1074
    government, about what was likely to happen to the tax burden in this country. In the November 1996 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", the Conservative Government said:
    These changes, along with the existing commitments to future real increases in road fuel and tobacco duties, raise the ratio of government receipts to GDP.
    So, the Conservatives said that the ratio would go up. In fact, under this Government, last year, this year and next year, there is a lower ratio than the Conservatives were planning.
    Caroline Flint: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Friday's Financial Times described the Conservatives' attempts to reduce the tax burden as a mess of which Harry Potter would have been proud? How can the Opposition square what they preach with what they do, when they voted on Tuesday against cuts in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, employers and small firms?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right: there is a sharp contrast between what the Conservatives say and do now and what they did in office. We remember the 22 tax rises and the VAT increases that they promised not to introduce. This Government have kept every promise that we have made on tax. [Laughter.] We have cut the basic rate of tax and have not raised the upper rate. We have introduced the 10p rate and cut VAT on fuel. Opposition Members will not be laughing when they go to the electorate on the subject of real living standards, because year on year under this Government, take-home pay after direct and indirect tax has been rising—I am allowing for everything—by £400 or more a year, whereas under the Conservative Government it increased by less than £300 a year.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Is the Chief Secretary aware that many couples whose married couples allowance has been slashed by the Chancellor will not receive the children's tax credit? Will he tell the House how many such married couples will face a higher tax burden as a result of this disgraceful new Labour stealth tax?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat uncharacteristic attack on his own Front Bench. It was the now shadow Chancellor who said in office that the allowance was an anomaly. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government who started to cut it. The Government are introducing help through the children's tax credit. As my right hon. the Chancellor has said, we hope to benefit families with children to the tune of £10 a week.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must consider not only the overall tax burden, although that is important, but timing and distribution? In particular, is he aware of the deep concern in manufacturing industry about the fact that the Government are to pursue the climate change levy? Although the levy is tax neutral—fiscally neutral—it will

    1075
    impose a burden on that sector. Perhaps we should be rethinking the timing of the measure, given the condition of manufacturing in this country.
    Mr. Smith: We strongly support manufacturing industry. Nissan's announcement that it is to bring production of the new Micra to Sunderland has occurred partly because of our energetic efforts. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that decision, about which we are very pleased. It is evidence of our commitment to success in manufacturing industry. He also mentioned the climate change levy, which has been carried forward in close consultation with industry. We have negotiated agreements on the levy with particularly energy-dependent industries. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the levy is fiscally neutral, not only as a whole but within each sector. Moreover, we will generate jobs and help manufacturing by reducing national insurance contributions.

    New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)
    Mr. Michael Clapham: How many have joined the new deal for the long-term unemployed since July 1998. [145804]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Some 325,700 people have joined the new deal for the long-term unemployed, of whom 61,050 have so far found employment. From April, we will be improving and intensifying the programme, applying the lessons learned from the success of the new deal for young people.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I think it is fair to say that those figures show that
    1076
    the new deal for the long-term unemployed is working, which is good news for people in Barnsley. Given that fact, may I draw the Opposition's attention to the three planks on which the new deal is based: first, its comprehensive scope links it to local labour markets; secondly, it increases the jobseeker's employability; and thirdly, it is based on training—something that the Opposition should remember, because the fact that it is based on training means that we are preparing people and bringing them to the labour market with the proper skills? Will my hon. Friend make sure that the training element is monitored to ensure that it is appropriate to local labour markets such as that in Barnsley?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. Detailed evaluation by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown the success of the new deal for young people. As my hon. Friend says, its success has been achieved by increasing the intensity with which young people look for work and by increasing their employability. The evaluation shows that long-term unemployment among young people is half what it would have been without the new deal. We are including the lessons that we have learned from that in the new deal for the long-term unemployed, for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituency in Barnsley and others throughout the country.
    We will include in the deal access to work-focused training and key work skills programmes. As my hon. Friend said, all those elements make a large contribution to increasing the productive capacity of the economy. It would be a social and economic tragedy if the Conservative party's plans to abolish the new deal were ever effected. The new deal has been a key element in the successful management of the economy in the past four years. It should remain.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports.
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Run an Efficient and Humane Asylum System". That will be followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Neglect of the Crisis in Agriculture". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and a debate in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subjects to be announced.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Homes Bill.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on Standards and Privileges on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall next Thursday will be:
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Tenth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee on Space Policy.
The House will wish to be reminded 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. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 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 am grateful to the Leader of the House. Earlier this week, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), stated that he had contacted the Home
1078
Office on behalf of Mr. Hinduja about a change in the rules governing passport applications. However, there has been no debate in the House about any change in Government policy on that. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate next week on the Government's current policy on granting citizenship? It is a matter of urgency because other hon. Members have constituency case work that could be influenced by any change that the Government have introduced but of which the House is perhaps unaware.
The right hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I am worried about other aspects of this week's events, notably the role of the Home Office in processing the application. It is typical of the Government that the only statement by any Home Office Minister was a media interview yesterday with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the House is treated with the same courtesy as the media on such an important matter, and that Home Office Ministers attend our proceedings next week to share with hon. Members information that they are prepared to share with the media?
Will the Leader of he House also ensure that the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of an inquiry will not be used to cover up or delay information that hon. Members seek? That is especially important because Home Office questions will not be held until 5 February, and many questions will need answering before that date.
Turning to a matter that I raised last week, when does the right hon. Lady expect the Government to find time to debate the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000? In her reply to me last week, she was extremely dismissive, but I remind her that the Government were criticised by a High Court judge for not consulting Members of the House on this matter. Whatever the right hon. Lady's views are on the time that has or has not been allowed, it is imperative that the Government present the order to the House, especially as there was a judgment against them when the National Union of Teachers took them to court over the matter.
I must raise another matter that I raised last week. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has not announced today that the Government will find Government time to introduce a Bill on adoption. I mentioned the fact last week that, at Prime Minister's questions on 17 January, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government would legislate on the matter in this Session. The right hon. Lady's response to me last week suggested that that would be done by means of a private Member's Bill—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)indicated dissent.
Mrs. Browning: This is why I am seeking clarification. In response to my request about the Prime Minister's pledge, the right hon. Lady said that the problem was due to a lack of time for private Members' Bills. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will know that on Tuesday night—when I was present on the Opposition Front Bench—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), whose private Member's Bill on adoption is in sixth place on the list, offered to make her Bill available to the Government if they wished to introduce adoption legislation through the vehicle of a

1079
private Member's Bill. My hon. Friend made her offer in response to what the right hon. Lady had told me at last week's business questions.
There is clearly confusion on this matter. Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether, when the Prime Minister said that the Government would legislate in this Session, he meant this Session or this year? There is clearly a difference. Will she also clarify whether the Government intend to introduce that legislation, either in a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asked about a change in the rules governing passport applications, but then properly identified that that was as a question for the Home Office. There will be a half-day debate next week on Home Office business, so it is slightly surprising that the Opposition have not chosen to pursue the matter then, if they think that it is of such significance.
The hon. Lady made a spirited attempt to make something out of a matter that has already been put to rest. The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain yesterday—as the hon. Lady is well aware; indeed, she mentioned it herself—that he has asked for an investigation into the circumstances of the granting of nationality in this case. He also made it plain that the outcome of that investigation would be made public—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I thought that it was singularly stupid that, the second the Prime Minister said that yesterday, Opposition Members all started shouting, "When?" It will be published when it is finished. Considering that the investigation was announced only yesterday, and that the individual involved has probably hardly started work yet, this attempt at phoney outrage is even less convincing than usual.
The hon. Lady asked about the education prayer. I understand her concern. I accept tint it would have been useful if we had had the opportunity to debate the prayer at greater length, as we might have discovered whether the Conservative party was in favour of performance-related pay. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says that it might be. The implication of his remark is that it is very hard to find out where the Conservative party stands on any policy matter.
Nevertheless, this is an issue of what, these days, are increasingly called rights and responsibilities. The Opposition have the right to use time as they choose; they have the right to waste time. However, they also have the responsibility to consider that, if they waste time and talk out a prayer such as the one to which the hon. Lady referred, it might prove difficult to find time for it next week.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked me about the issue of adoption. I think that there was a misunderstanding about what I said last week. I must confess that I have not checked Hansard, but there was no intention to suggest that the Government intend to proceed by way of a private Member's Bill. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said very clearly was that there will be a Government Bill, and that the hope and the intention is to introduce it in this Session.
1080
The hon. Lady will also recall that what I said to her was that adoption is such an important, sensitive and complex issue that it is extremely important to get it right. [Interruption.] That will be a prime concern for the Government, although—
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Four years.
Mrs. Beckett: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you, like me, find the volume of noise from Conservative Members a little tedious. May I just tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that she is rather wasting her time making all that noise? I know from previous experience that the volume on the Opposition side of the House is turned down and the volume on this side is turned up, so she is wasting her time if she is trying to impress the public.
I repeat to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that adoption is a very important and serious issue, and it should be considered only in legislation that is very fully thought through and properly introduced. However, there is no doubt that, as the Prime Minister made plain to the House, he is extremely keen and determined to make legislative progress on the issue as soon as possible. He is very much pushing for legislation to be well prepared as early as possible.
There was no suggestion at all that we intended to proceed by way of a private Member's Bill. The reference that I made last week was to the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition—that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) might make her private Member's Bill available—at a time when Conservative Members were blocking having any private Members' Bills at all.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by wishing you as a fellow Scot a very happy Burns day, and invite you to participate in a wee dram later if your schedule allows?
If I might turn to the terpsichorean ability of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I would ask her whether she is familiar with a dance called the hokey cokey that many children perform. Does she agree that the saga of Wembley stadium—where the athletics track has been in and then out, and then in and then out again; and the £20 million has been in and then out, and in and then out again—needs resolution by someone getting it by the scruff of the neck and shaking it all about? Will she please indicate to the House whether it is possible to make time in the near future for such a debate, or at least a statement, on the future of Wembley stadium?
Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. Unfortunately, his description of the process is all too accurate. He will know that the Government have no direct responsibility for the Wembley stadium project. However, I hope that he and the House are also aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is taking a keen interest in the issue and is very keen indeed to see a positive outcome to it. He believes that the project is very important, not only to my hon. Friend's constituents but to the country as a whole. I think the whole House will agree with him. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend is making. I fear that

1081
I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the Floor of the House, but I can recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I remind the Leader of the House that at least some of the current concerns about adoption law could be met if there were full implementation of the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)? I ask the right hon. Lady particularly to consider that point.
May I revert to the very useful support given by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to the Liberal Democrat Members' motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000? Will she please consider very seriously the need for a full debate on the matter as soon as possible so that it can be concluded?
Last week, the Leader of the House told some hon. Members that she was hopeful that we would soon have the Government's response to the Phillips report on BSE. May I draw her attention to the fact that next week's debate on the crisis in agriculture will undoubtedly be less valuable precisely because we have not yet had the report from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? As I think everyone recognises, it is an extremely important report. Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether it will be February, March or April before we have the Government's response to it? She will be well aware that the livestock sector has been knocked for six over the last five years by the inadequate attention paid by the last Government to major problems, and that £4 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent. The report raises huge questions about the scientific basis on which Government policy is developed, in relation to both the scrapie issue and the use of organophosphates, which may have contributed to the spread of the disease.
This morning, some young constituents of mine from St. Columb Minor asked me why the Leader of the House could not arrange for less time wasting in the House—she referred to that a few moments ago—and for more attention to be given to the provision of recreational facilities for young people, particularly in Cornwall.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the full implementation of an earlier private Member's Bill, and I take his point; but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may have indicated in response to earlier approaches, the Government feel that comprehensive changes to adoption law are necessary. While there is no hostility to the ideas contained in that private Member's Bill, and while we will view the hon. Member for Meriden's Bill with good will when it is presented, we think both Bills are unlikely to be comprehensive enough to deal with the range of issues we feel must be dealt with. That is partly why we are committed to Government legislation as early as is practicable.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Opposition prayer, and I understand his concern. He then asked about BSE. When he asked whether a debate would take place in February, March or April, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office was heard to say, "One of those." I can only say that I hope the
1082
debate will take place in the not too distant future. It is unlikely to take place in the next couple of weeks, but I hope that it will not be delayed much beyond that. I know the hon. Gentleman would be the last to expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do a less than thorough job in responding to the report, and that, obviously, is what my right hon. Friend seeks to do.
I am afraid that my powers to deal with how time is handled in the House are more limited than people sometimes assume. I accept that that is not always a bad thing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about support for young people's recreational facilities. As he will know, the Government are providing substantial investment in recreational activity, both directly through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and in the form of investment in education. That investment would, of course, be put in jeopardy only if the result of the next election were different from that of the last.
Mr. Tom King: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Prime Minister next week on exactly what are the limits on the role of his press secretary? She will know that the issue has been considered by the Select Committee on Public Administration and also by Sir Richard Wilson. It was decided that, while the press secretary—paid for with public funds—is entitled to defend Government policy, he is not entitled to attack Conservative policies in a specific and personal manner.
Will the Leader of the House ensure—this is not what is currently understood—that when the Prime Minister's press secretary starts to campaign for the Labour party, he will leave No. 10 and become an employee of the Labour party for the period of the campaign? It is clear from recent comments by the press secretary that it is high time the line was drawn.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid I am not inclined to invite the Prime Minister to make a statement in the near future, not because the right hon Gentleman has not made some perfectly proper points but because, as he is well aware—and as he suggested himself, to an extent—the issues have been aired many times in the past, and will no doubt be aired many times in the future.
Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that the Conservative party plans to scrap the winter fuel allowance, and also the free television licence for those aged 75 and over. She may not know, however, that I agree with a number of pensioners in my constituency that we should do the opposite in regard to the TV licence, and extend it to more pensioners. We should encourage pensioners to take up the benefit, especially when they are facing what I expect to be the extra costs involved in the move to a digital system.
Would it be appropriate for us to debate the differences in approaches to help for pensioners ahead of the Budget, so that we could not only influence the Chancellor but let the public know the differences between the policies of the two parties?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. It is certainly the case that a

1083
clear and stark difference emerges when one discusses pensions policy issues: the Government have given pensioners substantial extra financial resources and the Conservatives, were they to be re-elected, would put those at risk in the way they did in the past. However attractive from that point of view such a discussion might be, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the Conservatives' pleasure at yesterday's events, may I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Without exception, should not any Member—Minister, Back Bencher or shadow Minister—who makes a representation to a Department about an individual when no constituency interest is involved notify the Parliamentary Commissioner's office? I have also suggested that tax returns should be notified to the Parliamentary Commissioner's office. Is not it important that everything should be above board in all such matters? We on this side of the House have nothing to fear.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that most Members—perhaps those on this side of the House in particular—have nothing to fear from such a regime. He has expressed that opinion before, so he will know that this is, I fear, one of the rare occasions on which he and I do not see wholly eye to eye. Although I understand why he makes his suggestion, it would be incredibly onerous for Members. He makes a point about non-constituents, but all Members, particularly those who represent cities with more than one constituency, have to consider issues that are germane to their areas, but which do not arise directly within them. Although I understand my hon. Friend's underlying point, the House unfortunately might find his remedy unattractive.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Am I right to think that the 8 February debate on standards will not relate to the standards applied to Ministers? May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 234, on the conduct of the Prime Minister?
[That this House criticises the Prime Minister for answering the request for a list of the occasions when he said in public that the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced in Session 1997–98 had been blocked in the House of Lords with his reference to the reply he gave on 17th January, Official Report, columns 344–5, in which the information was not included; and asks the Prime Minister to treat the House and its honourable Members with greater respect by giving straight answers to questions, even if that exposes weaknesses in previous statements he has made.]
The early-day motion criticises the Prime Minister's answer to a written question from me about when he made mis-statements on foxhunting legislation being blocked in the other place. We need a debate because that answer referred to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which did not give the information. If we can have a debate, the Prime Minister can say clearly whether he intends to obstruct the flow of information or whether nobody around him told him, on each of the four occasions, that what he said was not totally adjacent to the facts.
Mrs. Beckett: No, the debate on standards and privileges will be about the recent report by the Standards
1084
and Privileges Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member. He has every right to make such a party point at business questions, but I very much hope that Members will take the debate seriously and use it to discuss an important and far-reaching report that has implications for all Members of the House. We can consider how we handle such issues and whether the way in which we handle them fulfils the function, which the House has always had in mind, of setting and observing high standards of probity. The changes that have been made and those proposed in the report are ones on which the House should have the freedom to comment, so I hope that the debate will be on the report and not the ministerial code or the behaviour of Ministers.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 250.
[That this House shares the growing international concern that the use of depleted uranium munitions causes cancers and other serious and long-term injuries to health; welcomes the decision by Her Majesty's Government to screen British troops for depleted uranium poisoning; believes that alternative munitions should be employed in future; calls for Her Majesty's Government to impose a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium munitions by British forces and declare a commitment to cleaning up the environmental contamination caused by their use in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and sites in Britain where testing and manufacture of depleted uranium weapons take place; and notes that the US Navy is banning the use of depleted uranium ammunition.]
It is in my name and calls for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons. My right hon. Friend will know that there is growing international concern that the use of such weapons can cause cancers and other serious long-term damage to the health of troops. Troops are being screened, but civilian populations possibly at risk are not. Given that the US navy is banning the use of those weapons, should not we debate the legitimacy of their use? Will she find time for an urgent debate on the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I have seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion, and I think that I recently heard her raise elsewhere her concerns about the use of such materials in the context of civilian as well as military personnel. I seem to recall having seen reference to some studies that have been carried out, which suggested that the scientific examination of the matter does not indicate that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend is altogether necessary.
However, I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend and of the House the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, or one of his ministerial colleagues, has today answered a question announcing that all the background papers on the issue of depleted uranium had been placed in the Library. That shows that the Ministry of Defence is pursuing the policy of openness, and it will give hon. Members a chance to look at some of the background material, which may be helpful and illuminating.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an urgent debate on the matter in the near future, but my hon. Friend may like to take advantage of the opportunities afforded

1085
by Westminster Hall when she has had a chance to look at the evidence in the Library, and at other evidence that no doubt will become available.
Sir George Young: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement of a timely debate in a fortnight's time on standards and privileges. However, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), does she recognise that there is a relationship between standards and privileges as they affect hon. Members, and the ministerial code as it impacts on Ministers? Can she confirm that it would be appropriate to refer in that debate to the sixth report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and to press the Government for the reasons they rejected the recommendation that the ministerial code should be altered to clarify the role of the Prime Minister?
Mrs. Beckett: What is in order in that debate is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not for me. He may judge that references to the sixth report will be in order. I simply repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley): I hope that the House will pursue the issues contained in the report before us, as not to do so would be a wasted opportunity.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the UK's business relationship with Gibraltar? I raise the matter as I am very worried about the sharp practices that go on there. Recently, Carlisle United, my local football club, was bought by a Gibraltar-based company called Mamcarr. The problem is that we do not know who the directors of that company are. Gibraltarian law says that they do not have to be identified and it is possible that they have been disqualified from being directors in the UK. My local club is therefore owned by anonymous people. They could be legitimate business men or criminals.
Many of my constituents believe that the club's real owner is still Michael Knighton, the disgraced former director and disqualified director of the club. I do not know whether that is true, but the murky operations of the business in Gibraltar are creating great concern in my constituency and in the football league. If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, will she pass my remarks on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, so that he can take the matter up with the Government of Gibraltar?
Mrs. Beckett: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern, and am aware that in many parts of the country, not least his, there is always great feeling for the local football team, which is a matter of great importance for many constituents.
I fear that my hon. Friend is right in suspecting that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future, although he, like others, might like to think about Westminster Hall. I certainly undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In raising a matter that touches on football, my hon. Friend is talking of something that is near to many people's hearts, but there will be other occasions on which issues of this kind may arise, and I will make that point to my right hon. Friend.
1086
As I say, I fear that I cannot undertake to do more to help my hon. Friend, although I am prepared to wish his football team good results, and rather better than mine.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Can the Leader of the House say when there might be time for a debate on food labelling? Is she aware that a company in France is manufacturing corned beef, described as "Hereford" corned beef? Not only that, but the can carries a photograph of a white-faced Hereford bull. Close inspection of the can reveals that the meat is, in fact, processed and packed in France, and is simply described as "Hereford brand meat", whatever that might be. Given that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a well-known supporter of Hereford beef, when will we have a debate on this and discuss why the French can stop us producing champagne but we apparently cannot stop them producing Hereford corned beef?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I understand his concern, although I suppose that it could been regarded as a back-handed compliment. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has heard his concerns. The hon. Gentleman will also know that it is Agriculture questions next week, and he might try and find a way to ask his question then.
Ms Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on employment protection for British Merchant Navy officers who have offshore contracts? I refer in particular to those officers serving on the associated bulk carriers fleet which is being sold on by the P & O group. Their contracts are being suddenly terminated, they are being asked to leave their ship at the next port and they have no recourse to employment law. These officers include my constituent, Captain Christopher Davies, from Heath, Cardiff.
Mrs. Beckett: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of her constituent and others who are likely to be similarly affected. It is always a matter of anxiety to the House when people are disadvantaged without recourse to any of the remedies that the House normally provides. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend will know how many more opportunities there are now to raise such issues in Westminster Hall, and she might try there.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Lady will know that the two forced resignations of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will have netted him £48,443 in ministerial resettlement grants. Does she believe that he deserves it? If not, will she urge him not to take it? [Interruption.] Yes, the figures are correct. Can we have a debate next week on the operation of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1999 so that we can explore the issues at greater length?
Mrs. Beckett: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he must be as good at his numbers as the shadow Chancellor. I should be very surprised if my right hon. Friend will benefit from anything like the amount that the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, I see no need to

1087
debate this matter now since there has been no change in the regulations. They were introduced by the Conservative party, which has made extensive use of them in the past. The procedures are exactly the same as they have been for some considerable time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend may have seen an exchange that I had yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry and also early-day motion 249, tabled by a number of people with responsibilities in areas where General Motors operates.
[That this House deplores the decision taken by General Motors to close the plant in Luton; notes that the most recent profit figure for Vauxhall is £127.7 million in 1999, and that it holds the second largest share of the UK car market; notes that the UK will become a net importer of Vauxhall cars if the Luton plant closes, importing an extra 160,000 vehicles every year, worsening balance of payments by £1 billion; notes that Vauxhall received millions of pounds of British Government grant aid and employees accepted reduced wages and holidays in a successful effort to reduce costs since 1998 in return for job security; notes that Vauxhall has broken its agreements to both employees and the British Government and therefore rejects the company's decision to close Vauxhall at Luton; believes that the Chief Executive Officer of General Motors, Mr. Wagoner, should be called before the Trade and Industry Select Committee to give evidence; and calls on the company to retain production at Luton and deliver the new replacement model for the Astra to Ellesmere Port.]
This is an extremely serious matter and I am pleased that the Secretary of State expresses his anger, along with that of many right hon. and hon. Members.
Will the Leader of the House find time in the very near future for a debate on employment relations, with particular reference to the activities of multinational companies? We welcome their investment—the motor vehicle industry is critical to us—but we must get the balance right, and we cannot allow such activities to continue.
Mrs. Beckett: I have a great deal of sympathy with the constituents of my hon. Friend, and with those of other hon. Friends who represent Luton, in these difficult circumstances. I fully understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. He will be aware that the Government have long had a good and constructive relationship with the company, during which we have tried to ensure that employment can be maintained and opportunities fully pursued in this country. I fear I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on employment relations—even in the context of Vauxhall—but I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is experienced and skilled at raising the affairs of his constituents, will find other ways to pursue the matter.
Mr. Michael Jack: Commenting on the radio on yesterday's events concerning the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the noble Lord Goodhart said that the Government were at their most vulnerable when large amounts of sponsorship were involved. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the dome and its sponsorship, especially during the period when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for it, so
1088
that we can examine in detail the use of such sponsorship and any further promises or other such things given to sponsors, and so that we can investigate the muddied waters around the disposal of that national asset which has already cost us far too much money?
Mrs. Beckett: I always think that it is a bit dodgy when Conservative Members raise issues on funding; the words "pots" and "kettles" certainly come to mind. There is extensive inquiry and discussion about the history and future of the dome—no doubt there will be many opportunities to discuss that further—but I fear that I cannot find time for another special debate on the matter at present.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a transport debate? I ask that in the light of comments, reported yesterday in The Sun, by the Tory Transport spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He said:
If an inspector catches you without a ticket, he issues a penalty fare. We say that if he catches you without a seat, he issues you with a voucher. If you pay for a seat you should get one. If you are forced to stand you should get something back.
A debate would give us the opportunity to examine yet another ridiculous scheme proposed by the Conservatives. It would also give us the opportunity to discuss whether the principle of standing and losing a seat and getting their money back will apply to Conservative parliamentary candidates at the next general election.
Mrs. Beckett: Without getting drawn into the issue of what will happen to Conservative candidates at the next election, I understand my hon. Friend's request for a debate on what, as he says, seems to be yet another somewhat ludicrous idea from the Opposition. For once, however, I am in minuscule agreement with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in so far as I wholeheartedly agree that when one pays for a seat, one should get a seat; I think that the whole House agrees. As for whether people would be pleased to be given a voucher so that they could travel without a seat on another occasion—that is rather doubtful.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I do not think it good enough for the Leader of the House to brush aside the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he said that we need a statement from the Prime Minister on the performance and behaviour of the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman. The Prime Minister's spokesman is in breach of the guidelines, clearly laid down for him by the Cabinet Secretary in evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration on which I serve. It was made clear that he had no authority to attack the Conservative party. It is clear to anyone who read The Daily Telegraph yesterday that he attacked Conservative spending plans. May we please have a statement from the Prime Minister? Only the Prime Minister can answer on this matter. The line of responsibility runs directly to the Prime Minister; no one else can answer.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I did not brush aside the right hon. Gentleman's question; I would not dream of doing so. I always treat him with great respect—he is a very senior Member of the House. I simply pointed out to him that

1089
the matter had been aired many times before and no doubt would be aired many times again. I do not intend to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he should come to the House to make an urgent statement. Nor, I fear, have I had time to peruse The Daily Telegraph in as much detail as the hon. Gentleman has. However, if he is referring to the fact that the Government have published some information about the Conservative party's costings and proposals, he will know that that was done ad nauseam by the Government whom he supported when they were in office.
Mr. Huw Edwards: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 220?
[That this House deplores the comment by Corus Chairman, Brian Moffat, that his company is 'in business to make money not steel'; notes that the first act of the Board of Directors of Corus after it was formed was to pay out £694 million to its shareholders; notes that Corus also appropriated unilaterally £863 million from a surplus in the British Steel Pension Fund and provided massive remuneration increases to former Dutch senior management, providing pay-offs of between £1 and £2 million to chief executives who were dismissed; further regrets that Corus, through acquisitions and mergers that can be identified from published sources, has spent £137.4 million abroad compared with capital investment in the United Kingdom, which can be identified from published sources of £3.6 million; and therefore rejects Corus' business strategy and calls upon the company to retain the current configuration of the steel industry and to prioritise investment in steel making.]
The motion refers to Corus plc, which includes the old British Steel. The chairman, Brian Moffat, has said that his company is
in business to make money not steel.
Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at his comment?
A number of my constituents work at the massive Llanwern steelworks just outside Newport. Many of my constituents are British Steel pensioners. The surplus of their pension fund has been pinched to the extent of £863 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the best efforts of the Government, the company has treated its work force appallingly?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of its constituents. The whole House understands, and sometimes with reluctance accepts, that no company can continue in business if it is wholly unprofitable or very badly managed, but we seem to have in Corus a company with considerable industrial and commercial success, to which the work force have contributed massively with high productivity and efficiency. It is a well-run company producing high-quality materials.
Although I understand my hon. Friend's regret and concern, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but I am confident that he and others will continue to air their concerns.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: May we have an urgent debate on freedom of speech in this country?
1090
Was the Leader of the House as alarmed as I was to hear that the German ambassador had been given Foreign Office instructions that Mr. Joschka Fischer should not be allowed to mention the "F" word on his visit to the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of it, and I am not aware of it now.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on tackling anti-social behaviour and how we can encourage more local authorities to use powers available to them under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? Will she note that my Tory-controlled local authority, Gedling borough council, despite my urgings, has so far failed to issue one anti-social behaviour order and is widely perceived to be weak when it comes to anti-social tenants? We need to see how we can encourage local authorities to use the powers that we have given them.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. His local authority is controlled by the Conservative party, which always claims to be sound on law and order and very against anti-social behaviour of all kinds, although the behaviour of its members does not always suggest that that is the case—I concede that that is in the House, not outside. I am sure that my hon. Friend feels the contrast sharply because he is geographically close to Labour-controlled Nottingham, which has made extensive use of anti-social behaviour orders, to the benefit of its local community. The lesson for his constituents is that they have a Member of Parliament who is concerned about anti-social behaviour, and a council which is perhaps less concerned, and they should look to see whether their council can more closely reflect the political complexion of their Member of Parliament.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Leader of the House do my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) the courtesy of replying to her reasonable question? If the events surrounding yesterday's resignation are as simple as they are made out to be—namely, a two-minute telephone conversation—why cannot an inquiry be conducted in short order? Why cannot a date be set within three months—certainly by Easter? If no date is set, the suspicion will grow that the fox had to be shot yesterday because there were going to be further damaging revelations. Either way, if a cloud is allowed to continue to hang over the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), it will be unfair on him. Can we please have an end date for the inquiry?
Mrs. Beckett: I did respond to the hon. Lady's question. I made it plain that the inquiry will be held as expeditiously as possible and that the results will be published. As for Conservative Members' obsession, I know that they are all hoping like mad that something else really interesting will come up. I suspect that that hope will be misplaced, but we shall see. It is a matter for the gentleman who has just been asked to undertake the inquiry, and I am sure that he does not wish to spend any more time on it than is necessary. I am not willing to suggest that we should put him under pressure.
Shona McIsaac: Although I welcome the fact that the House will debate various matters relating to

1091
law and order next week, there is not a sufficient slot to debate robbery, specifically Tory plans to rob more than £1 billion from lone parents. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that issue so that we can expose the Conservative party's con-artist policies in respect of lone parents?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand her wish to spend more time exploring the folly and inadequacy of the Conservatives' policy proposals, not least of which are the extraordinary supposed costings of their plans. Although I sympathise with her desire, it is not something for which I am likely be able to find special time in the near future, but I will certainly bear in mind her request.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not now embarrassingly obvious that the ministerial code is completely inadequate for its originally intended purpose? Is it not now approaching a scandal that the Prime Minister alone is the custodian of the ministerial code? Do not this week's events illustrate beyond all doubt that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to police the integrity of his own Government, and that we must therefore have an urgent debate to establish how to guarantee the integrity of Ministers in the same way that the code of conduct seeks to guarantee the conduct of Members of Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that anyone—except those on the Opposition Benches—will believe that this week's events show any such thing; nor do I think that they demonstrate any need for a change in the ministerial code. I simply tell the right hon. Gentleman that the tone of many Conservative Members' comments increasingly suggests that they expect never to be in government again, and I sincerely hope that they are right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on, but I have taken note of those who have not been called. The House will realise that there is a time limit on the speeches of Back-Bench Members in the next debate, and it is important to move on to that debate.

Points of Order
1.17 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement in the House on the announcement sneaked out only yesterday evening that £100 million is being diverted from the neighbourhood renewal fund into an emergency package to hold down council tax in marginal labour areas because increases of three times the rate of inflation are threatening dozens of Labour-held constituencies?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard the Leader of the House say, there will be a debate on local government finance next Wednesday, when those issues can be raised.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of the questions asked during today's Treasury questions were about not Government policy but Opposition policy. I believe that Back Benchers' questions to Ministers are supposed to be about Government policy. I should be grateful for your guidance on the matter, especially as such guidance will be needed after the general election, when Conservative Members will be sitting on the Government Benches.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to comment on that matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard me make it clear that Ministers are not responsible for Conservative party policy. I have also made statements on that matter.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You had cause to intervene on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw his attention to that fact, but I am afraid to say that your intervention had little effect on him and the rest of his team. May I ask you to intervene rather more promptly when Ministers go out of order in their answers in future?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will not tell me how to do my job.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 3 December 1998, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) answered a question that I had tabled. He said:
Since becoming Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have had one meeting with the Hindujas on 6 October.—[Official Report, 3 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 291W.]
The Mirror today contains a statement by Darin Jewell, who says:
I helped draw up the agenda for the meeting at the end of August 1998 and we had a checklist of about 13 discussion points and naturalisation was one of the items at the top.
If he is correct, the right hon. Gentleman must have lied to me in his answer. How can we get to the truth?
Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that no hon. Member would lie. He knows that. I am not responsible for statements that Ministers or, indeed, hon. Members make.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker, that were raised by my hon. Friends

1093
the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Although everyone recognises and respects that your judgment is paramount in the Chamber, my hon. Friends made salient points. Will you confirm that if the Chancellor were again to burble inanely about matters for which he is not responsible—or, indeed, if any other Minister were to do so—you would consider your power to issue a red card and immediately to dismiss that Minister from the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: In the words of the old song, I want to take one day at a time.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSE OF COMMONS (REMOVAL OF CLERGY DISQUALIFICATION)
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Mr. Mike O'Brien, presented a Bill to remove any disqualification from membership of the House of Commons that arises by reason of a person having been ordained or being a minister of a religious denomination and to continue the disqualification of Lords Spiritual from such membership: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 34].

  Fisheries
  [Relevant documents: Council Document 5051/00: Consultations on the Common Fisheries Policy after 2002; Council Document 7426/00: Multi-annual guidance programme for fisheries; Council Document 12504/00>: Common Fisheries Policy: Community contributions towards control inspection and surveillance; Council Documents 14061/00 and 5140/01: Fishing in Greenland Waters;Council Document 13941/00: A proposal for a Council regulation (EC) fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  1.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is traditional to open the annual fisheries debate by reflecting on the dangers faced by our fishermen at sea. I am afraid to say that last year was particularly bad for accidents that involved fishing vessels. Some 39 vessels were lost and provisional figures show that 33 fishermen lost their lives in 2000. Those are very bad figures, and I am sure that the House will join me in extending our deep sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who have been lost. Safety is clearly an important issue, and I intend to say a few words about the Government's response to it.
  Hon. Members will know that it is customary to hold the fisheries debate before the December Council, which decides the total allowable catches and quotas for the following year. They will also know that it was not possible to hold the annual debate in December last year for two reasons: first, because the Commission was delayed in producing the proposals; and, secondly, because of the timing of prorogation. The Scrutiny Committee had to react in record time to clear the Commission's proposal, and I appreciate its efficiency.
  I am glad that a full debate took place in Standing Committee in December. It provided an opportunity to focus on TACs and quotas for 2001. The Committee expressed interest in holding the traditional annual debate early in the new yea], to cover a full range of issues. I made it clear that I recognised that the annual fisheries debate is important to hon. Members who represent fisheries constituencies, as well as those with a more general interest in the subject. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has arranged a full day's debate, which follows on from a two and a half hour debate in Committee. Fisheries issues have been well served by this year's arrangements. Given the serious issues that the fishing industry faces, that is right and proper.
  Hon. Members will want to focus on TACs and quotas, but we also have an opportunity to review other developments in fisheries policy over the past year, particularly the serious status of depleted fish stocks, especially cod, and our measures to deal with that. It is also important to look ahead and see where our fisheries policy is going.
  Hon. Members will know that cod stocks are in a bad shape this year. There are a number of reasons for that, including the fact that we are at the bottom of the cod cycle and the temperature of the North sea is rising. The principal reason, however, for the decline in fish stocks is

  1095
  overfishing. We cannot ignore that fact or the fact that there have been constant improvements in catching efficiency and, indeed, in the management of stocks.
  In the past, there was a reluctance to take tough decisions. On the issue of poor enforcement, the European Commission is taking action against the United Kingdom for the over-fishing that took place between 1985 and 1988, and from 1990 to 1996. Indeed, only two of the 11 years in that period were managed to quota by this country. We have to take account of such issues, along with the serious problem of black fish landings before 1997. I am sorry to say that the United Kingdom faces reference to the European Court of Justice because of the failure to keep to quotas in those years. However, it is unfair that this Administration, who have not exceeded our quotas since 1997, should have to face the criticisms in the court. We shall, of course, defend our position robustly.
  As usual, we faced a very tight timetable. Commission proposals for TACs and quotas for 2001 were issued late and the December Council was held a week earlier than usual. That created extra pressure to react to the very stringent package of proposals. The poor state of many of the main stocks and the scale of the quota cuts recommended meant that we had to consider even more carefully than usual how to react. Indeed, I set up several special meetings with the industry to talk through the proposals and to listen to its views
  I recognise that the process of setting TACs and quotas for all EU stocks at the December Council each year is not ideal. The late delivery of the Commission's proposal makes it hard for national Parliaments to scrutinise them as they should, and this year was no better than previous years. The process also causes enormous uncertainty for the industry, particularly when steep cuts in TACs and quotas are being decided. I have great sympathy for the industry in these unsatisfactory circumstances, which occur year after year. We must find a better way of doing things, and we are raising that point with the Commission.
  One possibility is to set TACs and quotas under a multi-annual management strategy for each stock. That already applies to most of the stocks that the EU jointly manages with Norway. The Commission has produced a paper setting out how that might be achieved and outlining the preparations that would be needed. Further discussions on this option will take place this year under the Swedish presidency and the UK will be at the forefront of seeking improvements to the system.
  Last year, we pressed the Commission to urge the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—to accelerate its advice. Earlier receipt of advice would make a major contribution towards avoiding the present end-year logjam, and we hall continue to urge ICES to take that step. Although it was not able to respond last year, this year it hopes to finalise its advice two or three months earlier. I am sure that that will be welcomed by the fishing industry, which will have time to consider the advice in detail.
  Last year, the industry faced the harshest scientific advice and cuts in quotas ever. This year, the situation was yet more difficult. First, the ICES advice was the most severe ever, recommending stringent cuts in TACs for a large number of stocks. In a number of cases, it recommended setting TACs as low as possible—for example, for cod in the North sea, Irish sea and west of Scotland and for Irish sea whiting and northern hake.
  1096
  Secondly, the Commission went beyond the scientific advice, proposing even more stringent cuts than those recommended by ICES for stocks that are caught with cod and hake. For nephrops and flatfish, it recommended a 20 per cent. cut in fishing. Such a cut was not recommended by ICES.
  The UK has always followed a science-based policy and has taken positive action to preserve stocks when necessary—for example, putting in place last year's Irish sea cod recovery programme. We continue to take scientific advice seriously, but we are not willing to go beyond it as the Commission tried to do in its proposals. I made it very clear to the industry that we would follow the scientific advice even when that meant making difficult decisions. It is hard to justify going beyond such advice, even if it is linked to a mixed-stock industry. We raised that point in the Council.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister mentioned the Irish sea cod recovery programme. If area 7 in the Irish sector is to be closed, should there not be a concurrent closure of area 6 in the west of Scotland around the Firth of Clyde? If that area is not closed, boats will presumably come from elsewhere to fish there.
  Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Lady's point. Displacement is an issue if areas are closed. As she will appreciate, it is a year-on-year recovery programme. Therefore, we consider the details each year, and we can adapt or change them. We also consult the industry and consider the consequences of our actions. I shall certainly take that point into account when we start to look at year 3 of the recovery programme.
  I recognise that the Commission's justification for going further than the scientific advice was to protect cod when it is taken as a by-catch in many fisheries. Cod stocks in the North sea and the west of Scotland are at risk of collapse, as hon. Members are well aware. Hake stocks are also in a poor state. Many other stocks are now also assessed as being either outside safe biological limits or fished at excessively high levels.
  Taking measures to enable cod stocks to recover is a key priority, but that should be done through carefully targeted measures to reduce fishing effort, protect spawning cod and juveniles and improve the selectivity of fishing gear. Those are all proposals that the industry itself strongly supports.
  Although tough decisions had to be taken and negotiations were difficult and protracted, the outcome of the Fisheries Council was balanced. It is true that the cuts in TACs and quotas will hit the industry hard, particularly after the cuts that were applied last year. We cannot ignore the science, but where there was scope for pulling something back, we did so.
  The UK successfully argued that the proposed cuts in some cases went beyond the science, and we achieved smaller cuts than the Commission had proposed, while still respecting the scientific advice, particularly for flatfish and nephrops.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister has rightly said that the quotas situation is very severe. The cod recovery plan, although certainly necessary, will severely restrict opportunities for fishing. We know that the finances of many of the white fish processors are very

  1097
  fragile. The Minister has previously responded to arguments for financial assistance by saying that he rules nothing out. Will he be in a position today to rule something in, because the industry badly needs encouragement and assistance?
  Mr. Morley: There are consequences to the recovery programmes. I understand that and I concede it to the industry. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, I have told the industry that I do not rule anything in or out at this stage. I shall say more about that during my speech.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morley: Although we have a full day's debate, which I am sure hon. Members appreciate, there is a time limit on speeches. I have a great deal to get through, because it is a very difficult year and there are complex arrangements. I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that I want to make progress.
  Mr. Howard: As long ago as last October, and before, the Minister told me that he was giving serious consideration to taking action in respect of light-dues and satellite monitoring costs. The position of fishermen in my constituency is absolutely desperate. Does the Minister accept that urgent action is needed, and will he now announce action on at least those matters?
  Mr. Morley: I said that I would mention that during my speech, and I shall. There are issues that we need to consider.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is introducing the debate with characteristic moderation and understanding of the issues. Does he accept that the mood in the industry is sombre? Indeed, there are those who say that morale in the fishing industry has never been as poor as it is now. The Minister mentioned effort; effort and resources are clearly out of balance. What consideration is he willing to give to a decommissioning scheme, taking account of the value of the boat, its track record and the value of its licences?
  Mr. Morley: I am willing to consider decommissioning schemes, but they have consequences; while they have positive points, they also have negative ones. I am also well aware of the impact of decommissioning, particularly in the regional context. However, at this stage we rule nothing in and nothing out. Decommissioning schemes are very costly and we do not have the money within the MAFF budget to cover them at this time. I want to make that very clear to the House. I shall touch on how I propose to address these issues in the context of my remarks.
  In the Council of Ministers we brought about the changes that I have described, which the industry welcomed. We also clawed back quotas for haddock, whiting and nephrops, and for flatfish stocks in the North sea. The cut in the hake TAC was reduced from 74 per cent. to 41 per cent. Again, that cut was not based on the ICES advice; we went far beyond that. Our quotas were
  1098
  improved also because The Hague preference was applied to a number of stocks here I considered it to be in the UK's national interest to invoke it.
  As result of those changes, the total UK quotas agreed were some 40,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent terms than in the Commission's proposals, not the 4,000 tonnes mistakenly reported in a written answer on 19 December on the outcome of the Fisheries Council.
  It was clear that the Commission would not support the invoking of the Hague preference on North sea cod this year, for a number of reasons. First, it was possible that, like last year, the industry would not be able to catch the full quota that we would have gained. Last year I was severely criticised by the industry, but it did not manage to catch the quota agreed at that time.
  Secondly, the Commission was resisting all The Hague preference invocations on stocks subject to new recovery programmes. That meant that the Irish were not able to invoke The Hague preference—to our detriment, incidentally—in the case of western hake.
  Hon. Members should be aware that The Hague preference is available only by virtue of political agreements, even though it is well constructed and an integral part of relative stability. When The Hague preference is applied, it clearly has impacts on the overall outcome of negotiations.
  This year's settlement on North sea whiting has been unpopular with the industry. I entirely understand that, and I shall try to deal with some misunderstandings about it. The Commission originally proposed withholding from the allocated TAC 9,270 tonnes to cover whiting catch in the industrial fishery, principally the pout fishery. It argued that the level of by-catch regularly exceeded the 1,500 tonnes allocation decided in the three previous years. That meant that the TAC was constantly being breached.
  I argued that that proposed allowance was excessive, and I was supported by our only ally on the matter—the Danes. They provided data showing that the Commission's proposal for a by-catch of almost 10,000 tonnes was not justified by the catch and bycatch figures.
  In the closing minutes of the Council, I succeeded in getting 4,125 tonnes deducted from the by-catch allowance and awarded in full to the UK human consumption quota, using The Hague preference. That leaves a by-catch allowance of 5,145 tonnes, which is unallocated. There were claims that it had been given to the Danes, but that is not how the system works. The bycatch is unallocated by the Commission and it is in line with the ICES advice.
  The Commission thus had some scientific justification for increasing the whitefish by-catch on the industrial pout fishery. I differ from the Commission, however, in my view, which I made clear, that human consumption fisheries must take precedence over industrial fisheries. If a problem arises, the industrial fisheries should be scaled down, not the human consumption catch. That is an issue to which we shall have to return in the Commission, and I intend to do that. Hon. Members may be pleased to hear that despite the pressure, the industrial pout fishery will be excluded from all the closed areas in the cod recovery plan.
  Dr. Norman A.Godman: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has just said.

  1099
  I was about to ask him whether industrial fishing would be excluded from the closed areas. What will be the outcome of the common fisheries policy review? Will industrial fishing be dramatically reduced? It has a disastrous effect on commercial fishing stocks.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend knows more than anyone in the House the impact of the industrial fishery on the North sea. He will also know that I have consistently argued for tighter controls on the industrial fishery. I shall comment on that on more detail in a moment.
  The North sea cod recovery plan has rightly attracted a great deal of interest. We know that North sea cod stocks are in poor shape and that something dramatic had to be done to protect them. The industry recognises that, as hon. Members know. It is no longer enough simply to cut TACs, although that must be part of the measures to reduce effort. Hon. Members have raised the matter over the years, so I am glad that the Council agreed on the need for a North sea cod recovery plan.
  I was a little surprised at the industry's initial reaction to the minutes of a working group in December, which I had not seen. The minutes came from the Commission and reached the fishing industry before I saw them. They were based on discussions between officials and the Commission, and were not a firm proposal for some recovery plan that had been drawn up before the industry had had a chance to comment. Although I welcome the press release today from the World Wide Fund for Nature, which has supported the recovery plan—it is a good outcome for the fishing industry—I should have hoped that WWF would ask me what the situation was, before it leapt to conclusions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised the matter with me directly: I took immediate steps to ensure that that was not the case and to reassure the fishing industry, which I did within two days.
  Mr. Salmond: If the Minister remembers, I raised the matter when I sent him the minute, but I accept that he took immediate action once it was drawn to his attention. Will he, in turn, accept that the Scottish industry was right to be upset, angry and disconcerted by the contents of the original minute, whether official or unofficial, as the proposals would have been devastating for the whole Scottish fishing industry?
  Mr. Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, had that been the recovery plan, it would have been devastating. At that stage, however, ideas were being thrown out and options were being considered before they were put to the test with industry involvement. That is what happened, and that is exactly how it should have been. The initial proposals were not fair.
  The first stage of the cod recovery plan has now been agreed and will be put in place. It has been agreed in principle with remarkable speed with Norway, which is an important partner. It will be in place from 14 February until the end of April and will cover more than 40,000 square miles of the North sea. Those areas will be closed to all whitefish fishing to protect cod at spawning time, and the closures will be located in the north, east and south of the North sea.
  A map showing the location of the closures is being deposited in the Library of the House for Members to look at. They are being introduced using the Commission's
  1100
  emergency powers on conservation matters. The Commission has consulted North sea member states and their fishing industries in developing those powers. I very much welcome both that and the direct involvement of the industry in putting the cod recovery plan in place. I have always believed that the plan will be effective only if it is accepted by fishermen as credible, which is the point made by the hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. It is a realistic measure, which makes a positive contribution to the long-term sustainability of the North sea cod stock. I believe that the plan achieves those objectives.
  In the process, we have learned a great deal from the way in which we implemented and developed the Irish sea cod recovery plan. The UK was instrumental in ensuring that fishermen were directly involved in advising on appropriate technical conservation measures and the selection of closed areas to protect spawning fish. The setting up of the Irish sea and North sea recovery plans is an important and exciting development in terms of adapting the common fisheries policy in future. It includes regional elements and involves the industry by allowing it to use its expertise in applying measures for its benefit. Those plans are now seen as a model for the development of other recovery plans: work on northern hake stocks is going on and work on west of Scotland cod will start shortly. The industry's involvement is crucial.
  I was in regular contact with the industry and my own officials throughout the negotiations. Of course, there were concerns, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on how the closures would impact on the beamer fleet in his constituency, and those concerns were taken into account. I know some of my hon. Friend's local fishermen are not happy with the outcome because beamers have been excluded from the closed areas. However, in the Irish sea cod recovery plan, we excluded Belgian beamers from the closed areas. It is difficult not to be consistent in our approach. However, I am glad to say that blocks are available for beamers from my hon. Friend's constituency to give them fishing opportunities while the closures are in place.
  I am sure that hon. Members accept that the emergency closures are only the first part of the cod recovery programme, and that we must look at other issues. Thus the closures can be seen as only the beginning of the process, not the end.
  Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the Minister's recognition of the vital role that fishermen's organisations played in getting the answer right this time. They benefited from the fact that emergency procedures were applied, which allowed them to deal directly with officials. Does the Minister accept that, in future, we shall be back to politics and nations again? Is he optimistic that we can achieve real zonal management and real reform of the CFP?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I am. In the United Kingdom, we have spent a lot of time talking to other member states and believe that there is a lot of common ground on that kind of approach. Recently, I had the opportunity to talk to the Swedish Minister—Sweden, of course, takes over the presidency of the Council for the next six months. A Green Paper on CFP reform will be issued under the Swedish presidency in 2002. The Swedes are very supportive of the kind of approach that I have outlined—

  1101
  a region-based approach involving the industry. I believe that we can make progress by continuing to advance that issue.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Before the Parliamentary Secretary moves away from the Irish sea cod recovery programme, will he confirm that the inshore fleet at Fleetwood was not initially consulted? For many weeks, its boats were the only ones that were tied up. Beamers were fishing offshore for their quotas, including plaice and flatfish, but were taking a huge by-catch of cod at the same time. They were bought off by being given an extra channel quota, for which our fisherman had to make room. Is it not time to award compensation to the Fleetwood inshore boats, as it is they that suffered? I saw the other day a quotation from Mr. David Armstrong, who said that he was never in favour of an Irish sea cod closure in the first place.
  Mr. Morley: Ah; here is another Tory spending promise. Clearly, the Opposition will find extra money after making their £16 billion cuts in the Government budget. They appear to have a creative way of using accounts.
  Mr. Moss: Answer the question.
  Mr. Morley: I shall be glad to do so. During the first year of the closure, we put observers on to the beam trawlers to examine the impact of beamers in the Irish sea. We discovered that those in the Fleetwood area were not taking a significant by-catch. Indeed, the main concentration of spawning cod in the Irish sea was on its western side, where this year's closures have been made. We obtained the Commission's agreement for exploratory voyages to be made by the Fleetwood inshore vessels during the closed period, to assess the impact of the inshore fleet, its by-catch and its effect on cod stocks. We found from those surveys that its impact was minimal, so it was exempted for year two of the closure programme—an exemption that would have applied even if we had made closures on the east side of the Irish sea.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he listened to the Fleetwood fleet and to the local fishermen who came to MAFF to meet him and his officials? Was it not in response to their requests that he put the scientists on the vessels to provide a much clearer idea of the by-catch and of the impact of the closure both on the inshore fleet and on the beamers?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. Not only did I receive that delegation, which she organised and led, but I recently visited her fishing port, where I spoke face to face with fishermen. They welcomed the fact that we had amended the recovery plan in the light of their views. Indeed, we have recently gone somewhat further by suggesting to the inshore industry the use of existing sea fisheries committee powers to introduce a horse-power limitation within the six and 12-mile limit, to provide more protection for the inshore fleet. We are dealing with the problems, and I think that the Fleetwood fishing industry accepts that.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Before the Parliamentary Secretary moves on from the
  1102
  cod recovery programme, will he confirm that, if North sea cod closures apply from mid-February until the end of March, the diversion of fishing capacity could have serious consequences for nephrops fisheries? Unless adequate compensation is provided to the cod fleet, there may be a disastrous effect on the prawn fishing industry in other parts of the North sea.
  Mr. Morley: The outcome of the recovery plan for our nephrops fisheries was good, as the main prawn fishing areas have not been closed. The fisheries, will, therefore, be open. I appreciate that there is always the risk of displacement. We will consider that carefully, but let us examine the results before we do so.
  Hon. Members have mentioned aid. We cannot directly subsidise the fishing industry and I do not believe that the fishermen themselves want to end up with a subsidised industry. Financial issues must, however, be taken into account. They include the impact of high fuel charges, although such charges have fallen in recent weeks in terms of world price changes. As I told the industry, we needed to secure agreement on recovery plans and gain an indication of the consequences, issues and problems that we might have to face, one or two of which have been mentioned by hon. Members.
  After completing that process, we will meet to discuss the priorities and assessments that must be made. That meeting has been arranged for 30 January. It will provide an opportunity for the industry to put its point of view and to inform me of the priorities that it wants me to consider. Such proposals will include decommissioning schemes, which we will discuss.
  We must also evaluate the impact, because there are many imponderables. For example, a rise in fish prices as a consequence of reduced catches would limit the impact on the industry. We cannot predict that; it may happen in different ways in different areas. However, there is no point in trying to make a case to the Treasury with figures that are plucked out of the air. We must consider the purpose of the money, what it will achieve, the outcome and the way we will spend the money. The only justification for such an approach is tackling some of the long-term structural problems in the fishing industry. It is appropriate to consider those problems and to spend public money on them. We must discuss the matter, consider it thoroughly and make the case, which must be detailed and properly presented.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has committed money for a compensation scheme for the oft-maligned north-east salmon drift net fishery. Will he assure us that, if the scheme gets under way, with private finance matching the large sum of money that he has promised, it will be genuinely voluntary and that no licence holder will be required to participate in it if he does not choose to do that?
  Mr. Morley: I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the scheme will be voluntary. The Ministry's agreement is based on a voluntary scheme. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations supported the scheme on the basis that it was a voluntary buy-out. It is also conditional on match funding from the private sector and riparian interests.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend that fishing does not want to be subsidised.

  1103
  Perhaps it is unique among European industries in that. However, it wants to survive, and it will not do that without some form of support. It is therefore ludicrous that we continue to press charges on our industry that European industries do not have to bear. They compound the problem of survival. For example, the Irish are paying a subsidy to take scientists on board vessels for exploratory trips, whereas the British industry is charged for that. It is also charged light dues, and harbour dues are higher for our industry than for any other competing industry. The burden of charges must be considered with the problem of subsidy.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the fishermen whom he represents. I accept that some charges in the United Kingdom are different from those in other European countries. However, some costs are considerably lower in the UK than in other European countries. When we discussed fuel and the French package, the French Minister complained of unfair competition from the UK because of our low social taxes and the lowest corporation taxes in Europe. There are two sides to the argument. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that.
  Mr. Salmond: For probably the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Although it is true that French support is only marginally higher than support in this country, Irish support boat for boat, or compared with gross national product, is 10 times our support for fishing. The Minister must give some commitment to a step change in the Government's attitude to support for a natural resource industry. It has a fundamental claim to support in times of crisis.
  Mr. Morley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman compared the United Kingdom to a similar-sized country, such as France, and pointed out that the total support that both countries provide is similar. Of course, I shall consider the issues that he mentioned. I accept that there are matters to be considered in relation to our support.
  However, I emphasise that we provide financial support. We have announced a package under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance funds. They are structural funds, which are adminisered by the Scottish Executive in Scotland and by MAFF in England. The schemes cover a range of support for the industry. However, I accept that they are not adequate for dealing with some of the issues that the industry wants to tackle. That is why we must consider our case, which must be carefully argued and properly costed. We must also have a clear idea of what it will achieve.
  Sir Robert Smith: I want to move on from subsidy to investment. What about a one-off investment in sustaining the fishing grounds to match the catching power that the Government license? Our children and future generations could then eat fish that are caught in our seas, and we would not have to import them.
  Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. There are schemes such as labelling, for example, to promote sustainability, but there are farther issues that we, and the industry, need to explore.
  I want to make progress now because, although we have a generous amount of time for the debate, I am aware that there is a time limit on contributions from
  1104
  Back-Bench Members. We have dealt with the recovery plan in some detail, and quite rightly so. Despite the difficulties that the industry is facing, it is one of the most encouraging signs that we have achieved this international co-operation, and achieved such a degree of industry involvement in putting the measures in place. It could be argued that they should have been introduced a long time ago. Nevertheless, we are addressing the matter now, and we are making progress. I welcome the contributions of all involved.
  I shall deal with some of the other events of the past year. We have gone out to consultation on a shellfish licensing scheme. That is an important step in trying to manage the potential for increased effort on shellfish. Hon. Members have made the point about displaced effort, for example. There are mixed views on the scheme from some sections of the industry, but the overwhelming view from the shellfish sector was supportive of this approach, as was the recommendation of the industry conservation working group. We are, therefore, consulting on a measure that has been proposed and supported by the industry.
  To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), hon. Members are aware of my concern and that of the industry about industrial fishing. I was pleased that we made progress last year on the closure of a sand-eel fishery off the Northumberland and Berwickshire coasts. That closure was linked to seabird reproductivity. The impact of the closure will be monitored, and scientific assessments will be carried out.
  I am also pleased that there was a bilateral agreement at the December Council between the United Kingdom and Denmark to examine the impact of industrial fishery TACs and by-catch. I pay tribute to the Danes on that issue. I have been a lone voice on industrial fishing in the Council of Ministers, but the Danes—who have a principal interest in the industry—have taken a very responsible attitude to the matter. They have always said that, if we could demonstrate scientifically that there was a problem, they would address it seriously. I pay tribute to their approach.
  The joint study will consider possible reductions in the size of the sand-eel TAC, and adjustments in by-catch arrangements that would reduce the allowances of by-catches of fish for human consumption. The Danes have invited UK scientists to sail on their vessels as part of those studies, and they have also extended an invitation to the UK fishing industry. I welcome that.
  We are carrying out a study on the implication of by-catches in a wide range of fisheries, not only in connection with cod and hake. At the December Council, the Commission undertook to introduce proposals to revise TACs, particularly in the nephrops sector, if we could demonstrate that the by-catch was limited. That would mean that we could increase the nephrops quota in the North sea and the Irish sea by 10 per cent. if we could demonstrate that the by-catch take was very low. We are currently working with the Commission on that, and we hope to make progress as quickly as possible.
  The proposals on deep-water species put forward by the French were not accepted by the December Council. We shall return to that issue in the following year. In relation to deep-water species, TACs are not necessarily the right answer, because there is an issue of effort management involved. Furthermore, as this matter concerns an

  1105
  international fishery, we need international regulation. Introducing regulation limited to the EU would allow vessels from non-EU countries to continue working in those deep-water fisheries. We shall pursue that issue through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
  We want much more effective management and control of fisheries policy, and we support proposals from the Commission to ensure that equal standards of enforcement and control are applied across the EU. We have also been reviewing the operation of fixed-quota allocations, which are in their third year. They have been an advantage and have brought benefits, but it is right to review them and to obtain the views of the industry.
  On the inshore fleet, I am glad to say that, through prudent management, we have been able to keep the majority of our fisheries open to the under-10m fleet on an annual basis. We shall continue to pursue that objective despite the reductions in quota, and try to give the inshore fleet as much protection as we possibly can.
  I have, however, to flag up the fact that there has been a sharp increase in the construction of vessels of between 9 m and 10 m. That has been a matter of concern and is the reason why we have monthly catch limits in the nephrops fishery in the North sea. We have to watch the situation very carefully. If there is increased effort in the sector, I would have no hesitation in taking further action to restrain activity. Fishermen as well as managers have to bear responsibility for their actions, and they know that if they increase effort in a particular fishery there will be consequences for all fishermen concerned.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is not the problem that, very often, fishermen in historical fishing areas such as my constituency of Hastings and Rye are being invaded by people from other areas with more powerful vessels who purchase licences from hobby fishermen? If there is to be a reduced effort, should not decommissioning apply also to the small, under-10m fleets?
  Mr. Morley: I am prepared to consider any case that the industry makes, although decommissioning of the under-10m fleet is not a particularly attractive proposal for all types of reasons. I have met fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency, at a meeting that he organised in Hastings. He will know that at that meeting we issued a national consultation document that included a proposal on restricting the adjacent areas into which the inshore fleet is able to move, to stop large movements of vessels putting pressure on fish stocks. Those proposals were generally not accepted by the United Kingdom under-10m sector, and I accept the industry's views.
  My hon. Friend will also know that another very important change resulting from the meeting that he organised was in the so-called rule-beater issue—in which fishermen cut off bits of their fishing vessels to make them under 10 m, but bolt them back on again after their vessels are measured. He will be pleased to know that we have given those people one year to ensure that their vessels are either permanently under 10 m or, if they are over 10 m, to get a proper licence. The time limit has expired and that practice is now prohibited in the United Kingdom.
  1106
  We are also taking action to ensure that engine horsepower is correctly registered and licensed. We are making good progress on that.
  As hon. Members will be aware, we have implemented in the United Kingdom economic link conditions for flagged-out vessels. I am very glad to say that those conditions have resulted in a significant increase in landings in the United Kingdom and in significant extra quota, which has been returned by flagged out vessels for the use of UK fishermen as a contribution towards their economic link conditions. Significantly, the number of foreign-owned vessels in our fleet has dropped sharply, and continues to drop, from more than 160 vessels in 1997 to fewer than 120 now. The trend is still downwards.
  As hon. Members will also be aware, we have introduced new enforcement measures that are having an effect in improving enforcement.
  I am very pleased to say that, as hon. Members will know, we have announced a £1.5 million package to fund safety training courses. We considered how to apply money within the United Kingdom fishing fleet, but the feeling was that safety training and a safety culture must be the top priority so that we can deal with some of the safety problems. We shall therefore be providing safety updates for experienced fishermen who have been exempt from basic training requirements; courses on accident prevention and risk awareness for all fishermen; and a training package for new entrants that encompasses current basic safety training in sea survival training, first aid and firefighting, and introduces basic training in risk awareness and accident prevention. With the money that we are committing, there will be no charge to fishermen for the courses.
  We are also pursuing the fish industry strategy that was recommended by the Agriculture Committee. We hope to receive the strategy by the end of this month and make it available for discussion with the industry. The next high-level meeting, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister, will be announced shortly. It is an opportunity to consider the strategy issue.
  We expect information on the common fisheries policy review to be available probably in March. It is an opportunity to consider the future of the common fisheries policy and to discuss the type of changes that hon. Members and the industry feel are appropriate. We have had a good discussion on it.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the Minister accept that what we are engaged in is not a review of the common fisheries policy, but a report on the operation of the common fisheries policy to date? I gather that the report is to be published shortly, but in any case it has to be published by the end of this year. Is not the Minister misleading the House by again repeating the notion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, interventions should be short; secondly, the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the suggestion that any Member would mislead the House.
  Mr. Gill: I unreservedly withdraw any such imputation, Mr. Deputy Speaker I think the Minister would accept, however, that there is a difference between the words "review" and "report". What we are getting is a report on how the industry has operated under the common fisheries

  1107
  policy. We are not being given an opportunity to change the fundamental principles of that policy, whatever the Minister or anyone else may say.
  Mr. Morley: That is simply not correct. This is an opportunity for a full review of the common fisheries policy and for the introduction of changes, and there will be a debate. The Green Paper will present options, and although the report will to an extent specify how the policy has been operated, that is not to say that we cannot argue for changes in the United Kingdom—and we will argue for changes. I believe that there is support for the changes advocated by us and, indeed, by the fishing industry, and for the excellent joint proposals of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
  I hope that this also serves as an opportunity for the Conservatives to explain just what their proposals are. We would be very interested to hear an explanation. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is a decent man, with a balanced view of the common fisheries policy—although his heart is not always in what he says about it. I hope he will explain what the Conservatives mean by "national control". Will it mean, for example, that all European Union vessels will be excluded from UK waters? Will quota be confiscated for vessels that have fished in our waters for as long as we have? If so, how will it be distributed?
  What will happen if the Council of Ministers, surprisingly, does not agree to proposals that must be agreed by a unanimous vote because they require a treaty change? In that event, would the Conservatives withdraw from the European Union? I know that there are sensible voices in the Conservative party—though not very many—that do not approve of the proposals. I was interested to read the comments of Struan Stevenson MEP, the UK Conservative spokesman for fisheries in the European Parliament—or perhaps he no longer holds that post, following the publication of his letter. It refers to contributors who
  argue for the repatriation of the CFP, failing to mention that such a step would indeed require a change of the Treaty, if not our full withdrawal from the EU.
  Is that Conservative party policy?
  Struan Stevenson also says:
  I find it tedious, however, to listen to those who repeat the same old half-truths and obfuscations in a bid to promote withdrawal from the CFP as a viable option.
  Let us stop playing word games and join together in fighting for the sensible devolution of fisheries management to the people that matter—the fishermen themselves.
  That, to me, seems not very far from what the Government and, indeed, the industry advocate.
  If the Conservatives go for national control, what will happen to our vessels fishing outside our national waters? I urge Members to look at the map of the cod recovery programme, which shows that nearly all the principal areas of cod fishing in the spring—the most important areas for the cod-fishing industiy—are outside our territorial waters, adjacent to Germany, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. I should be interested to hear an explanation of what "national control" means, and I think that the industry would as well.
  Although much of the news has been bad, I believe that the fishing industry has cause for optimism. It is wrong to use the common fisheries policy as a scapegoat for all
  1108
  the industry's problems. It has its weaknesses, and there is a case for change, but if we use it simply as a stick to beat the European Union with and as an excuse for our industry's failings—and it must be said, for Government failings in the past—we do the industry a disservice. Worse than that, if decisions are taken that cannot withstand a challenge in the European Court, we shall end up in a situation similar to that resulting from the Factortame judgment. To date, the Government have had to spend £10 million in compensation for an illegal decision taken by the previous Administration.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the Minister really think it sufficient to describe an Act passed by this Parliament as some illegality that was struck down by Europe?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's comments show the difficulty the Conservative party is in. He does not recognise the fact that the Conservative party signed up to the European Union and therefore has to accept the rules that go with that. Illegal decisions cannot be taken, because they have consequences. His party signed up to the treaties, so the least he can do is recognise that those treaties bring legal obligations.
  The bright side of the current situation is that there has been unprecedented involvement of the industry in dealing with those conservation issues. There is a new realism in the fishing industry and in the Council of Ministers. There is real dialogue on conservation and sustainability of a kind that did not exist before, and that represents an opportunity for genuine change in fisheries management in this country and in Europe. Fisheries management should not be an issue for political knockabout.
  In the past, Ministers have ducked tough decisions, but I have made it clear that I have always been prepared to be open and honest with the industry and the House. When tough decisions have to be taken, I will take them. However, I want the industry to be involved and I have made sure that it has been involved. We cannot go it alone on conservation in European waters when we share waters with so many countries and we need to manage so many fish stocks.
  We need that co-operation, and I believe that co-operation is there to be fostered both in the Council of Ministers and with the fishing organisations of other member states. Let us build on that good will; let us build on what we have achieved so far in relation to the recovery programmes; let us face up to our responsibilities and our national responsibilities; let us stop looking for scapegoats. Finally, let us try to work together to give this country's fishing industry what it deserves: stability and a sustainable future for its prosperity and for the strength of our coastal communities.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I begin by offering our condolences to the families of those fishermen who have lost their lives at sea during the past year. I hope that the next year will be a lot safer for those who risk their lives every time they go to sea. I thank the Minister for honouring the commitment that he gave in European Standing Committee A: when we were

  1109
  discussing total allowable catch and quotas, he assured us that he would attempt to make room in the new year for the main annual fishing debate.
  The Minister said that fishing was not a subject for political knockabout, but at the end of his speech that is exactly what he indulged in. It is nice to be called a decent chap and all that—[HON. MEMBERS: "That was the knockabout!"] That was the knockabout, but fishing is incredibly important to many of our communities. Although it could be argued that it is not as important as many other industries in terms of percentage of gross domestic product, it is certainly paramount for those involved and for many coastal communities.
  It is surprising that in a speech lasting almost an hour, the Minister hardly referred to the common fisheries policy. He hardly referred to the position in which we find ourselves only two years before fundamental changes may be made. I listened carefully, and not once did he refer to a plan to sustain our fishing fleet and fishing industries in their present form. The problems inherent in the CFP are indeed coming to a head, with the recent scientific advice on declining stocks in European Community waters and the recent decisions on the cod recovery programme in the North sea.
  The European Commission Green Paper on the CFP review is due this spring, as the Minister said. Indeed, I understand that its publication is imminent. Under article 14 of the basic CFP regulation, the Commission is required to produce a report on the CFP by the end of the year. That will be the basis for the final decision on changing the CFP by December 2002. In that context, these are a crucial two years for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
  The fishing industry throughout Europe faces considerable problems, some of which were alluded to by the Minister. Those problems occur not only in this country, but in other countries in Europe. Here, it seems that the industry receives precious little support, either financial or political, from the Government. Declining fish stocks and slashed quotas are not the only difficulties, important though they are. To those must be added the massive hike in fuel costs and the costs of regulation and red tape to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) alluded.
  If the industry's spokesmen are to be believed, massive changes are on the horizon through job losses, tie-ups and bankruptcies. So serious is the industry's plight that many fear for its viability in the short term. Perhaps that is the game plan. Multi-annual guidance programme 4 failed to achieve reduced capacity, but that will indeed be achieved over the next year by the imposition of draconian cutbacks in TACs and quotas.
  There is a real fear, backed by considerable evidence, that fleet reductions will be disproportionately higher in the UK than elsewhere in Europe. It seemed to me and to many others that the initial proposals from Brussels for the closed zone in the North sea under the cod recovery programme could not have been better designed to decimate the Scottish fleet if Brussels had started out with that aim in mind.
  Against that backdrop, the House of Lords European Union Committee published its report entitled, "Unsustainable Fishing: What is to be done with the
  1110
  Common Fisheries Policy". It did not take the Committee long to answer its own question and identify the problem. One of the first paragraphs concludes:
  The CFP, in place for the past 17 years, has totally failed to achieve its fundamental objective of ensuring that fishing capacity and effort is consistent with self-sustaining fish populations and food chains.
  Fishing effort has continued at an unsustainable rate despite repeated warnings from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas and reports from Committees of both Houses of Parliament.
  The report continues:
  These warnings have been largely ignored for the last decade primarily because of a lack of political will in the Member States of the European Union.
  It is interesting to note the choice of words that follows, because it represents a damning indictment. We are told that the policy has not "partially", "frequently" or even "usually" failed, but that it has "totally" failed to achieve its fundamental objective of matching effort to resource. That must indeed be the fundamental objective—otherwise why set the TACs and the quotas each year?
  The words "lack of political will" sum up the problem. Of the 15 member states sitting round the Council table, two have votes but no fishing industry. Each national Minister is judged on how much he or she can squeeze out of the deal. I almost said "negotiations", but I thought better of it. Quotas are set artificially low, then Ministers return home in triumph as the limits are increased. We have all done that—Conservative Ministers as well as Labour—and the duplicity and disingenuousness has finally come home to roost. If the CFP has not got it right in 17 years, how much longer should we give it before we accept that it will never work in its present form?
  The derogations will end in December 2002, so there is an opportunity to achieve a fundamental change. Change is definitely coming; it has to. On that, everyone is agreed, but that change might take a direction that runs counter to British fishing industry interests, much, I suggest, to the surprise and chagrin of those working for those interests.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting point about duplicity and misinformation, of which he said Conservative Ministers had been guilty in the past. I often suspected as much, but I had never heard it admitted so openly. Would the hon. Gentleman care to name the Conservative Ministers guilty of that duplicity?
  Mr. Moss: The hen. Gentleman knows exactly what I meant. The negotiations in Brussels are normally based on the amount of fish quota that Ministers can obtain or extract for their fishermen. The Ministers then return waving a piece of paper and claiming victory. The basis is wrong, and Ministers from all countries play the same game.
  The problem lies in the legal framework of the treaties. Since we joined the EEC in 1972, successive versions of the acquis communautaire have enshrined the words "equal access". When Spain. Portugal, Sweden and Finland joined—in 1986, and later—they signed up to that wording, and that is what they are expecting. To that end, the House should note the vote on the matter two days ago in the European Parliament. I shall return to that later.

  1111
  Contrary to the view in some quarters, the CFP did not start in 1983, although to be sure, what started then was a form of the CFP. Everyone agrees that the six and 12-mile inshore limits are derogations that can be extended after December 2002 by qualified majority voting in the Council. But the concept of "relative stability" as currently applied must be a derogation also: it must be a temporary deviation from the principle of "equal access".
  There is considerable self-delusion in the industry and in MAFF on this matter. In its written submission to the House of Lords report, MAFF stated:
  All the major elements of the CFP will be rolled over automatically beyond 2002 unless there is a Commission proposal to change them.
  However, if the Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, has to find a way of accommodating the principle of equal access, there is no automatic rollover of the current relative stability. Given a fixed—or should I say shrinking?—total allowable catch, the only way to make room for the fishermen of Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and the countries queueing up to join the EU will be to take share from those who currently enjoy it. That means that countries currently enjoying quotas will have to have it those quotas reduced. To share a cake among a greater number of recipients requires that each receive a smaller portion.
  The Minister—no doubt advised and prompted by MAFF—gives the impression that all will be well. He says, "Stick with the present line, trust the Council and the Commission and the UK industry will be safe and its future secure." He gave that assurance to me in the debate in European Standing Committee A just before Christmas.
  On top of the huge reductions in quota for many species announced for this year, we now have the decision in the cod recovery programme to shut down vast areas of the cod-spawning fisheries in the North sea. That will affect the catching of all species, not just of cod, during the closure period.
  The measures will have a devastating impact on the UK fishing industry, and especially on the North sea ports. Unless the proposal is managed correctly, it will simply force fishermen in the North sea ports to target other species. They have to live and to pay the mortgages on their boats and houses. Their turning to other species will, in turn, prove devastating to the stocks of those other species.
  Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for 10 minutes. He has described the problems facing the UK industry and set out the problems of cost, but he has not said what the Tories would do to rectify them. He has described the problem of quota reductions, but has not said what the Tories would do with regard to the quota settlement at the end of the year. He has also described problems with the CFP, which all hon. Members agree exist. When will he come out and make a statement of Conservative policy on those matters? What do the Conservatives believe should be done?
  Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman should be patient, as I shall come to that presently. If I have time, I shall also cover the Liberal Democrat policy—such as it is.
  Given the present parlous state of the industry, what do the Minister and the Government plan to do? We know that the Minister's plan A is to go gently, not rock the
  1112
  boat, and let the CFP find its own solution, but where is his plan B? We heard precious little today about his plans to secure the future of the UK fishing industry. All we got was more waffle, along the lines of, "We will hold discussions with the industry. Structural support might be considered. We cannot promise anything." The industry has had enough of promises and discussions. It needs action and some support.
  There is wide agreement in the industry that drastic action is needed to rebuild stocks, especially of North sea cod, to a sustainable level. The need for that recovery programme is not disputed, but its implementation might be open to question. How does the industry survive while the programme is in place?
  The Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that the total value of white fish landings last year was about £275 million. Any major reduction—say, of 40 per cent.—would drastically reduce the income of the British fleets. The NFFO and the SFF have suggested to me that a support package of £100 million each year over the next three years would
  put the fishing industry on its feet on a profitable as well as an economically sustainable basis.
  That is not a huge amount of money in the scheme of things. It is a substantial sum, but not out of balance in the context of the saving of an important industry, with thousands of jobs at stake. The point has been made already that such support could be seen less as a subsidy and more as an investment—the Minister referred to the recent report from the World Wide Fund for Nature that espoused that view. With the right conservation measures and sustainable fishing effort, our fisheries have the potential to be many hundred per cent. more productive, and the tax yield from an industry operating on the basis of that sustainable resource in the future would be a good return for the Treasury on the investment.
  It would be harsh and unfair to expect British fishermen to bear the brunt of the draconian conservation measures without some short-term support. The measures will go beyond the closed areas: no doubt there will be closed seasons, increased mesh sizes and more selective fishing gear. All of it will be designed to bring about a reduction in the fishing effort.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about being willing to support the industry have a rather hollow ring. During 18 years of Conservative Governments, the fishing industry and its organisations and representatives constantly pleaded for Government support and financial aid for restructuring and decommissioning. In the 1980s, the only money ever provided was for a decommissioning scheme, but it went to the owners, not to the industry or the workers. The only alternative offered to providing money was limiting days at sea, because that was cheaper.
  Mr. Moss: I understand that there were two decommissioning schemes, and substantial money was given in grants to the fishing industry over the years. One of those grants was the safety grant, which this Government removed when they came to power. So the hon. Gentleman's argument, taken in the round, is groundless.
  I agree that the amount of money that I suggested is substantial, but MAFF's budget this year promised £26 million to the pig industry, and not a penny has yet

  1113
  been paid. If nothing has been paid at the end of the financial year, that money will be lost. Moreover, more than £200 million was promised to secure a future for the farming industry. By our calculations, only £100 million of that has reached the pockets of the people it was intended to reach. It is clear that there is money even within MAFF to help with some of the problems that I have highlighted.
  Support is needed at the local level, as well as on the larger scale. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) intervened earlier on the subject of the fleet in his constituency. I was in Hastings recently, and I know that fishermen there face a total ban on cod fishing later in the year, as the new targets and quotas for area 7 will have been fished out by the time the traditional period for cod fishing comes around in November. There will be no compensation available for that fleet.
  I met hake fishermen in Newlyn only the other day. They are facing bankruptcy by the end of the year because of the 41 per cent. reduction in the hake quota. They cannot catch anything else, but there will be no compensation for them either, even though they have contacted the Minister to discuss the matter.
  The Minister mentioned Fleetwood, and made great play of the success of the Irish sea cod recovery programme. That was a disaster for Fleetwood fishermen, who were tied up for 11 weeks with no money and no social security, only to be told now that that was not really necessary in the sector to which they had access. These are inshore boats; they cannot sail very far offshore. The Minister knew that. To the fishermen's chagrin, outside Fleetwood were two beam trawlers fishing for so-called plaice and flatfish quota but catching huge quantities of cod. If they were not, why were they moved down to the south coast and given a Dover sole quota, one of the most precious quotas that can be obtained?
  I was in the Tamar estuary where dredging is taking place under the raft Ministry of Defence proposal, and the material is being dumped on fishing grounds off Ramer Head. Those are spawning grounds, and the fishermen are rightly asking where the compensation is for taking away a much-needed fish resource. It seems that joined-up government is not taking place, and that the MOD and MAFF are not talking about this.
  Mr. Morley: The dredging spoil on the Tamar, which has been dredged before, is being deposited in an area that is designated for dredging spoil. I am surprised that the fishermen in the area have not, to my knowledge, contacted MAFF to express their concern, because I would be only to willing to reassure them.
  As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has promised £100 million every year for three years. I think that the House would be very interested to know whether he is making a firm £300 million commitment.
  Mr. Moss: The Minister knows that I did not promise £300 million over three years. [Interruption.] No, I did not. I said that in correspondence with me, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation had said that by their calculations—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen more carefully. That is what the NFFO and the SFF said
  1114
  the industry needs to continue a sustainable business over the three years. The Minister has apparently not had the same letter as I have. His communication with the NFFO seems worse than mine.
  Let me get back to the subject of the Tamar estuary. The Minister says that he has not had representations from fishermen. In fact, they wrote to him before Christmas and have not had a reply. This is yet another instance of fishermen's lives being put in jeopardy and their receiving no consideration or compensation from MAFF.
  Let us come on to the Liberal Democrats' policy and see what they believe in.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Moss: I wish to make some progress. One of the big ideas being floated at the moment as a way of managing the common fisheries policy in the near future is zonal or regional management. That policy is espoused by the Liberal Democrats. Although the Minister alludes to it now and again, he has not so far said, nor did he today, that it is the Government's policy.
  The idea came from a study at Hull university, which was jointly commissioned by the NFFO and the SFF. It built on the idea of zonal management committees, originally put forward in 1998. What is proposed are regional councils, supported by advisory committees, whose proposed management measures would be rubber-stamped by the Fisheries Council. The advantages of the new model are said to be greater involvement by fishermen; greater flexibility to respond to stock levels; more rapid response on conservation measures; greater ownership of the hard conservation choices; and, with a greater vested interest in long-term resources, greater acceptance of more stringent enforcement measures. On balance, that looks like a sensible programme.
  The proposal was examined in depth by MAFF officials and evaluated in the middle of last year in the internal paper to the Minister entitled "2002 Review of CFP: State of Play and Next Steps", which delivered a damning indictment of the proposals. Interestingly, the Minister has never communicated those conclusions to the House or to the industry in anything like such direct, clear-cut and honest terms. Yet the advice to the Minister in the document about zonal management is:
  It will be important to explain to the industry that changes of this kind are simply not negotiable.
  The paper concludes:
  While contributions to the regionalisation debate are of course welcome, the study does not really take us any further forward… As it stands the model proposed would require treaty changes to operate…would require major changes to the present institutional and legal framework of the CFP…
  We should remember that this is Liberal Democrat policy as well. The document goes on:
  It shows only the most minimal understanding of EU institutional structures and why things are as they are…No consideration has been given to the clear reluctance of the Commission and Member States towards this approach
  It concludes—and this is the clincher—
  Such ideas are, therefore, in the main, non-starters.

  Mr. Andrew George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us later what Conservative party policy is in relation to fishing. We will be most fascinated to hear it.

  1115
  In describing the policy of the NFF and NFFO at the Tory party conference, the hon. Gentleman said that they were barking up the wrong free. He clearly does not support what the industry is saying in this regard. We are quite capable of defending our own policy, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will at some stage tell us what on earth Conservative party policy is.
  Mr. Moss: Again, the hon. Gentleman must be more patient. I will come to it presently.
  My point is that, according to MAFF's analysis, without treaty change the proposals are a non-starter. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of treaty changes to attain this? I have yet to hear them say so.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in his presentation of the document. It is an internal memorandum from experts on the procedures of the European Union, commenting on a report drawn up by people who are not. I have always made it clear to the industry that some aspects of the proposals are more achievable than others. Aspects that would require a treaty change—which would require unanimous agreement—are clearly very difficult. There are no two ways about it. However, that is not to say that we cannot achieve much of what the industry is arguing for. Ultimately, this is advice given to me, and I make judgments on the basis of it.
  Mr. Moss: That was an extremely helpful intervention. The Minister is saying that treaty changes, although difficult, are not impossible. Does he wish to correct me on that?
  The Minister has not shed a great deal more light on that policy, although he has said that treaty changes are not impossible. However, he has not come clean about the issue today, and he did not come clean about it in his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on 25 October last year. Nor did he come clean in his response to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) in the fishing debate in European Standing Committee A in December.
  At first, when the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was upbeat when responding to questions about CFP reform. He said:
  I would not be afraid of arguing really quite radical steps in terms of regionalisation and zonal management …
  The Minister's response to a question put later by Lord Perry of Walton, as to whether he was persuaded that it would be wrong to advocate zona management being devolved from Brussels, was disingenuous to say the least: He said:
  It depends whether it needs a Treaty change or not …
  The Minister had been told by his officials months earlier that zonal management would require treaty changes. Why was he not forthright with the House of Lords Committee, and why has he not been forthright with us today?
  Furthermore, there is no mention in MAFF's written evidence of the need for treaty changes. It says that a strengthening of the regional perspective, involving the stakeholders in fisheries management, can be achieved within the current EU legal and institutional framework. It cites the Irish Sea cod recovery programme as an example of such regional co-operation. However, enough has been said about that programme for us to realise that
  1116
  it is nothing but an imposition from Brussels—made in the usual way, with little consultation on the ground and no say from local communities and fishermen. Certainly, no power was put into their hands.
  As the ideas of the NFFO and the SFF on zonal management are non-starters, one is left querying what MAFF really meant by "strengthening the regional perspective". If truth be told, what MAFF and the Minister mean—he has not demurred—is that zonal management will simply be a talking shop that has no power whatever and will have a purely advisory and consultative role under the umbrella of the Fisheries Council. The final say—the real power—will remain with Brussels, as we witnessed only this week when that power was exercised over the cod recovery programme.
  That is not reform of the CFP—and certainly not the radical steps hinted at by the Minister. The regional—or zonal—plan will do nothing to solve the problems of discards or of declining fish stocks. New conservation measures will not be facilitated if all decisions remain with the Council. The problems of equal access and non-discrimination post-December 2002 will not be addressed.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman relies heavily on MAFF officials. What is it about the performance and achievement rate of MAFF officials in fisheries negotiations over the past 20 years that convinces the hon. Gentleman that they are unerringly accurate? For example, did not MAFF officials advise the previous Conservative Government that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 would be legal?
  Mr. Moss: The Minister himself answered that question when he said earlier that although he receives advice from MAFF, he makes the final decision. That lies with him.
  The NFFO and the SFF are not promoting ideas about zonal management solely for altruistic reasons. The proposals for each zone allow member states with quota in that zone to form the committee and to take decisions—the current share-out of total allowable catch under the principle of relative stability would be solely at the discretion of the members of that committee and would be a way of cementing the status quo.
  How would such an arrangement get around the principle of non-discrimination—especially for Spain and Portugal? How would it stand up to a challenge in the European Court? How does it sit with the huge majority vote in the European Parliament only this week to end discrimination and allow equal access? That majority backed the equal access principle for the CFP post-December 2002.
  What is more worrying is the fact that the Parliament threw out three important ingredients of the current arrangements: relative stability; an amendment on protected areas, such as the Shetland box; and the zonal management proposals. All those amendments were voted down. There was also a refusal to confirm the six and 12-mile limits that are so close to the hearts of the Minister, the Government and the Liberal Democrats.
  I realise that that was not a vote of the Council—nor did the proposals come from the Commission or fishing industry interests as a whole—but it offers a significant pointer to the way things are going and must have come

  1117
  as a body blow to the UK industry, which has been promoting zonal management and has set a bottom line at current relative stability.
  Anyone who believes that MEPs from countries with a strong vested interest in promoting equal access—Spain and so on—were not lobbied and briefed by their respective Governments and fishing industries is living in cloud cuckoo land. Although that vote is the first real salvo, the impetus and momentum are clear; it may already be too late to change direction through rational argument.
  There is unprecedented demoralisation in the fishing industry. Fishermen are looking down the barrel of the bankruptcy gun. Livelihoods have been ruined; families are under great tension; and the industry has a deep sense of grievance that yet again it has been hung out to dry—that it is an expendable force.
  The Minister constantly denies that there is a crisis in the industry, but that is not what I hear on the ground. It is time the Government followed the advice of the House of Lords Committee report and admitted that the CFP is a complete failure and is in need of such fundamental reform that it would be wholly unrecognisable.
  If the Government will not make radical proposals and if the Liberal Democrats will not produce workable proposals, we will. This is what the hon. Member for St. Ives has been waiting for so patiently. The only way to bring about those vital conservation measures—so necessary to yield a sustainable resource—is to have national control over our own waters. When we return to Government, we shall establish that control; that will effectively put an end to the current CFP arrangements. In our determination to achieve that goal, which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on more than one occasion—
  Mr. Morley: That is all right then.
  Mr. Moss: In our determination to achieve that goal, we shall not take "no" for an answer. In achieving our aims, we rule nothing in and nothing out. The CFP will no longer exist in its pure form once national control has been established. The policy will no longer be common to EU waters, nor will it retain the equal access principle at its heart.
  At the beginning of the debate, the Minister made great play of the fact that he wanted to hear what our policy was. I refer to his words when he was in opposition. He said:
  We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and—
  wait for it—
  national control of fishing waters within our country's limits… We must say that the current situation is unacceptable and that there is a better way which meets the criteria of the CFP, but which gives all member states greater national control and a better way of managing fish stocks leading to a sustainable fishing industry. If we do not meet that objective, we will have no fishing industry.—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 25–27.]
  Will the Minister tell the House how his statements in 1996 differ markedly from what I just said?
  Mr. Frank Doran: The words of my hon. Friend the Minister cited by the hon. Gentleman
  1118
  seem perfectly consistent with the arguments for regional and zonal management. I have been pondering the Opposition's policy. Yesterday, Europe—which the hon. Gentleman seems to dislike intensely—made a decision to ban fishing in certain parts of the North sea for three months. His policy would ban it to UK boats for ever. Can he explain that?
  Mr. Moss: That is not the policy. If the Minister meant what he said in 1996, national control must mean control principally by the nation state; there is thus, in effect, a veto on what happens within its fishery limits—however defined. In answer to some of the Minister's questions, we are not saying that, under a policy of national control, countries with historic fishing rights in those waters will not continue to have those rights. We are saying that they will fish under licences and regulations determined by the national Government. That is national control—it is not zonal management.
  Mr. Doran: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to respond. The policy is still nonsense; if we assert national control, countries that allow our vessels to fish in their waters will do likewise unless we reach agreement about their vessels and our vessels—in which case, we are back to a CFP.
  Mr. Moss: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is complete nonsense. Decisions on the CFP are taken by the Council of Ministers in Brussels—that is where the final power lies. In 17 years, the CFP has proposed barely one sensible conservation measure. Fishing stocks in EU waters—if I can call them that—are in their current plight because the right decisions were not taken at the right time, under the voting powers of nation states—perhaps with a Mediterranean interest—which did not want the mesh size and technical gear changes that we now believe are so important. Not before time, the Scottish fleet has introduced square mesh panels and that is a step in the right direction. However, for 17 years, those sensible decisions have not been made under the CFP; now that there is a crisis in cod stocks, quotas are being slashed right across the board. That is because the right conservation measures were not introduced early enough. To come back to the hon. Gentleman's key point about co-operation, we would co-operate in the same way as we do with Norway now. We have a bilateral arrangement that works perfectly well. There is no reason why such arrangements should not be achieved in the future.
  The zonal management idea has merit in terms of management, not control, of the fish stocks in areas such as the North sea. I can envisage co-operation between nation states with a vested interest. There may be well be agreements between the states to manage the zone in a sensible way. It is a question of where the real power lies. In the end, the power has to be vested—it seems to me and to my party—in the national Government. Although there could be co-operation and agreement, the veto would be important. If ideas were put forward with which a state did not go along, that state could veto them and adopt its own conservation measures under its own control.
  Mr. Doran: So could other people.
  Mr. Moss: That is true, but we are talking about conservation measures that have not yet been implemented.

  1119
  The crisis is upon us. It is no good the Minister saying that the CFP will solve the problems. It has had 17 years to do so and has patently failed.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moss: No, I shall finish now. The CFP has failed and must be replaced by a system that has at its heart the primary objective of conservation in order to secure a sustainable resource for future generations. We believe that our proposals stand the best chance of meeting that objective. How will future generations view us if we allow one of the richest sea resources in the world to be pillaged to extinction, all through a lack of political will? That, in our opinion, would be not only criminal but immoral.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the Minister has already said, a 15-minute limit will apply from now on to Back-Bench speeches.
  2.52 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a triumph and an achievement to have our first full day's debate on fishing for many a year. It is a shame that so much of the time has been wasted with a 40-minute speech in which nothing was said at all. This, along with the debate in the European Standing Committee in December, is the best opportunity that we have had to discuss fishing for many years. It is a pity that fishing has had to come almost to the brink of extinction to give us that opportunity.
  Today's debate is not just the regular discussion of the Council meeting and ministerial approaches to it. There is a crisis of survival in the industry. It has been identified in the documents that are pouring out from many sources. Fishing News has headlines such as "North sea madness!" and "Whole industry could disappear". The House of Lords Committee has conducted an inquiry into unsustainable fishing. Most telling is a World Wide Fund for Nature report entitled "Choose or Lose: A recovery plan for fish stocks and the UK fishing industry". I commend it to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that he has already seen it, but it is the basis of a good, sustainable approach to developing fishing.
  It is at this time that we see how we have reached crisis point as a result of the halting, inadequate response up to now of Governments of both parties and of the Commission. I do not intend to enter the argument about the common fisheries policy, much as I would like to. It is a diversion from our discussion this afternoon, but there is no doubt that we are in this situation as a result of its inadequacy. Although it proclaims itself as a conservation policy, it has not been effective in conserving fish stocks. It has involved deals, political negotiations between states, and doling out stocks that were not there. It is a political, not a conservation, policy. It has lurched from feast to famine. It is enforced by an inadequate system of quotas, and it is inadequately policed and controlled, especially at the ports of landing in Europe. I therefore have no confidence and the industry has little confidence in the CFP.
  1120
  The CFP also seems to favour the interests of some countries, especially Spain. It is interesting to note that when Spain does not have access to Moroccan fishing waters because the Moroccans want to develop them for themselves, the Spanish fishermen laid up in consequence are paid by a combination of Spanish Government funding and European funding, which we are financing. Such a benefit is never extended to British fishermen.
  Mr. Salmond: I hope that the whole House is listening to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the Catalonian fleet. In the view of many of us, such an approach is absolutely necessary as a short-term measure before we go on to a longer-term structural approach.
  Mr. Mitchell: I can only second that observation. That policy shows the way. It shows what a national Government determined to defend the interests of their fishing industry can achieve in negotiations, in contrast with what a Government can achieve when their fishing industry is not at the forefront of their concerns. In that sense, Scotland will be in a stronger position than the United Kingdom, where fishing represents a smaller part of the interests of which the Government must take account.
  The stocks are now on the brink of collapse, and political failures are compounded by a natural conservation problem. I do not know about the effects of temperature changes on the migratory and breeding habits of cod, but they clearly have a part to play. They have been compounded by the inadequacies of the policy.
  The United Kingdom brought the richest fishing grounds to the European pool. I do not wish to provoke the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but we gave them away to a CFP. We have most to lose. Our stocks have been pushed below levels at which they can produce an economic return on a sustainable basis, which is what we should aim for.
  Europe is not yet dealing adequately with the crisis. Yesterday's cod closure is welcome. I think that the proposal came from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. However, industrial fishing for sand eels is still allowed to go on, which must be destructive of the marine environment and the ecology in which cod breed. An increase in mesh sizes for hake in the Bay of Biscay has not been imposed because of the power of Spain and France in that area, yet hake stocks there are crucial to hake stocks everywhere else. That is damaging to the interests of fishermen in the south-west.
  My hon. Friend the Minister told us that the pout fisheries will be excluded from the closed areas. I am delighted to hear that. The Commission proposed a mesh size of 140 mm. We have not accepted that, but it would be crazy if we had larger mesh sizes for cod and the vessels were competing with industrial boats with 20 mm meshes in the same waters. Although it will be excluded for the period of closure, pout fishing will come back after that period, with the same effects and the same damage.
  The Commission also proposes to increase the allowance for industrial by-catches. My hon. Friend the Minister fought an effective fight against that, but it was insane to propose an increase in the industrial by-catch of fish caught for fish meal to be fed to pigs and for salmon farms when that fish could go for human consumption.

  1121
  That represents a distorted perspective that shows no concern for the well-being and development of the industry.
  I second the proposals made by the SFF. We should have a complete ban on industrial fishing at this stage of the crisis. It is still damaging the ecological system and the food chain in our waters and we cannot have proper conservation without dealing with it.
  The Commission should have adopted square mesh panels. It is a delight to see that the Scottish Executive have made them mandatory on Scottish vessels and English vessels fishing in Scottish waters, but they should be mandatory on all vessels. It should be a European policy. In Scotland, such action has substantially reduced the catch of juveniles. The SFF estimates that that catch has been reduced by 20 to 40 per cent. That is welcome, and the policy should be applied universally.
  The problem is that the Commission and the Council deal with broadbrush measures. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has given his unremitting and consistent support to sectional, regional and zonal management measures. Such measures should involve all the stakeholders in those regions because they can work only if the regions co-operate with one another and have an interest in policing themselves.
  The NFFO's and SFF's sensible views, about which the all-party fisheries group was told yesterday, represent the basis for moving forward. So how do we move forward? First, we must work with the industry. Interestingly, when oil prices increased, the Government set up a forum to deal with the road transport industry. The Scottish Executive have now set up a working party to deal with the industry, and such arrangements are needed in Britain. That is not a criticism of the Ministry or my hon. Friend because he has assiduously consulted the industry. He has listened, consulted and visited more than any Minister of whom I have had experience in a long association with fishing. However, structure is needed to bring in the industry's voice.
  Secondly, finance is required. Again, my hon. Friend has been a Minister of maximum good will, but minimum money. MAFF has its own financial problems, but the cutting of fish safety grants was a very retrograde step, which destroyed people's faith in its perception of the importance of fishing. The real problem is not so much with MAFF, which has limited funds, but with the Treasury, which takes a negative approach and does not recognise the benefits of fishing.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend refers to the Treasury's response, but does he think that it might not be a negative response, but an ill-informed response and that it is incumbent on all Members who represent fishing communities to ensure that the Treasury is better informed so that the issue can be corrected?
  Mr. Mitchell: I would not want to be critical of the Treasury under its current management, but it does not rush around looking for opportunities to spend money. It has certainly had a blind spot in respect of fishing, but the question is how long it can get away with that blind spot. The serious criticism is that it has been reluctant to draw
  1122
  down the European money that is available. There is a reluctance to use the Fontainebleau formula and provide matching funds for European money. The WWF calculates that, between 1995 and 1998, the United Kingdom found 25 million euro to release 124 million euro, while Spain put up 389 million euro and drew down 1.15 billion euro—a stark and disastrous difference.
  Mr. Morley: I am afraid that the Fontainebleau agreement works very much against this country's interests. The small print, negotiated by the Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, works against this country because, although the rebate was agreed, we cannot gain access to European money. Any money that we get from Europe is deducted from the rebate and, as a result, we have to find the bulk of the money ourselves. That disadvantage is unique to this country, but we have to live with it.
  Mr. Mitchell: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes, but if the money is unfortunately not available from Europe, there is a greater pressure on national Government to put up the money that we cannot get from Europe because the industry still needs financing. The money has to come from somewhere, so someone must provide it. Many of the sales to quota hoppers took place because of our reluctance to invest in decommissioning early enough, for example, and people were in a desperate financial position.
  Most of our fishing competitors in the North sea and other British coastal areas have some form of aid or subsidy. As usual, the French led the way, but pressure produced a response: not a direct fuel subsidy in every case, but ways were found to get around the problem that were acceptable to Europe—but nothing happened here. That is disastrous because those industries are being better financed and subsidised to survive and to compete with our industry, which is more exposed to financial pressure than they are.
  We need a firm, clear and comprehensive recovery programme to produce sustainability and to bring the stocks and the fishing effort into balance, so that, as the stocks increase, so can the effort. That demands money. The inevitable consequence of leaving things to market forces is that people will sell their quota and licences to those best able to buy them—the foreigners, who are being subsidised to keep their industry going. The industry will be sold off bit by bit.
  We need to restore fish stocks. The WWF gives an interesting example, showing that with proper conservation, control and investment, the return from catches in the channel could be 1,500 per cent, more profitable than the current effort, in which too many vessels catch minmal quantities of fish, pressing on diminishing stocks. "Invest now; benefit later" has to be the slogan. Some of the money will have to come not only from Europe, which has never done justice to fishing in the way that it has to agriculture, but from the Treasury. We need a comprehensive plan to save and develop fishing.
  We have to wake up to the fact that the fisheries are a national resource and that communities depend on fishing. We must wake up to the disastrous social and economic costs of closing down fishing. One job at sea supports 12 jobs on shore. Such matters cannot be left to market

  1123
  forces in the way that they are now. We cannot knock the heart out of the fishing communities. We cannot knock the heart out of Grimsby, which faces problems because of restructuring in the food industry generally and can do without further job losses in fishing.
  The programme must be comprehensive and sustainable; it must finance not only decommissioning, but investment. Sustainability will not be achieved for five—perhaps 10—years, so the industry needs a steady flow of finance to ensure that it can plan and think ahead. The programme must be worked out quickly, in consultation with the industry.
  3.8 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I hope that I may be forgiven if, instead of dealing only with the present, I look back into the past a little. However, I cannot refrain from making one remark about the present. I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), especially in his statement that his colleagues propose—if they are returned to Government—to withdraw from the fisheries section of the European Community, and, if they cannot do so fully, they will leave the Community altogether. Many of us have seen that coming, and it is good to have it put plainly so that the press and everyone else knows what we are facing. I might add that it also gives a complete assurance that they will never again be returned to power.
  Mr. Moss: It is important for the record to say that I never once used the word "withdraw" in relation to the CFP or the European Union.
  Sir Edward Heath: Well, I can return to earlier matters, not because I have no proposals to make but because so much of what happened in the past has immensely damaged the attitude towards this country and the Community. I have a clear example of that. An article under the headline, "How Heath betrayed our fishermen" says:
  One of the murkiest episodes in the history of Britain's involvement with the European Union was Edward Heath's surrender of the richest fishing waters in the world as the price of UK entry into the Common Market.
  There could not be a greater lie about the proceedings of our membership of the Community. Every item that Christopher Booker quotes is unjustified. For example, he says that article 38, which is the basis of our membership in this respect, is illegal. That is not the view of the Commission, the Community or any lawyer who studies it seriously. However, he has decided to promote a completely unjustifiable opinion that is bound to deceive many people who read it and who will wonder why we are acting illegally.
  Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  Christopher Booker cannot quote anything that I said to back up his argument.
  Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  1124
  Why would I have done what Christopher Booker suggests? I was born by the sea; I lived by the sea for 60 years; I swam in the sea; and I fished locally. One year, I won the local fishing championship. I fished for six hours, between 10 and 4 o'clock, and caught 146 lb 12 oz of the best cod. I do not know how many Prime Ministers can say they did that, but it is all on the record. That has been my life for a long time.
  I have no desire in any way to damage fishing or anything connected with the sea. I represented my country internationally in ocean racing for three years, and we won the first event completely. Those experiences are all very dear to me. People who argue that I wanted to break up the fishing industry and lose the benefits of it, especially for those whose lives were based on it, could not be more wrong.
  As for the action that we took as a Government, we must look back a bit, in particular to the first years of office when the emphasis was on deep-water fishermen. That is forgotten now. It was only in the second half of the 1970s that people thought about inshore fishermen, for the simple reason that we had thrown away everything with regard to offshore fishermen. We had tried to hang on to offshore fishing for as long as we could. Indeed, we put in the Navy to protect the fishermen around Iceland, which it did, very successfully. After a rather stuffy dinner at No. 10, I arranged with the Icelandic Prime Minister that we would only put so many ships in at a time. Of course, our chaps were clever enough to be able to fish continuously, and we did not lose anything. We got almost the same amount of fish—in fact, in one case, we got more than we had ever landed before.
  The 200-mile limit was then introduced, which put an end to that activity. I wanted our people to fish in deep waters elsewhere. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Joe Godber, did a great deal to help them. We made plans. It was useless fishing off the coast of west Africa because the Russians were there in full strength, so we thought about fishing off the west coast of south America.
  We sent out the exploratory force. It reported that, although the water was deep, there was ample fishing territory. The only problem was that the product was rather unsightly and, therefore, fishermen would have had to take with them the equipment to chop off the nasty fish heads and scrape off other bits, so that they had beautiful fish when they landed. However, we could not persuade them to do that, so that part of our fishing fleet just disappeared.
  The emphasis naturally moved to the home fleet. By that time, we had negotiated with the Community, but the matter of fishing was not settled in time for my agreement with President Pompidou, which settled everything for our future. There have been arguments about the common fisheries policy since 1963.
  The argument that the policy on fishing was produced to do us in could not be more fallacious. The French battered away to get the matter settled. It was not finalised until almost Christmas, when I had finished my talks with President Pompidou. We managed to get 10 more years of our existing policy, and we made the most of it.
  Dr. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way
  Sir Edward Heath: No, I am short of time.

  1125
  It is clear from the figures how successful that policy was. In 1970, there were 21,443 fishermen. In 1975, there were 22,134. By 1985, there were 22,224. That proves that what we did was right. It produced results. There can be no justifiable criticism of that. I am prepared to take responsibility for everything I did and the 10 years of fishing that we got, but I cannot be responsible for what happened after 1985, although Mrs. Thatcher negotiated and got almost the same arrangements for the next period.
  More changes are now required. I do not question that; I rely on the wisdom of those people who have the power and authority to produce changes that will benefit us and the fishing industry, and that should satisfy the country. We must kill unjustified lying nonsense, which is continually poured on to the British people and the rest of the world.
  Dr. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one chance.
  Dr. Godman: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that I had brothers fishing in Icelandic waters during the fisheries dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland. The Icelanders always believed, and still do, that his Administration and the Wilson Administration behaved in a high-handed way towards them with regard to their very important fisheries stock. On the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations to enter the European Economic Community, a widespread belief still exists in the fishing communities that he and his officials did not pay enough attention to the concerns of the fishing communities.
  Sir Edward Heath: Some people in Iceland might believe that we were tough, but we did not think so. I gave the Prime Minister of Iceland a good dinner, but he would not give me everything I wanted, so we had to put in the Navy. We finally reached an agreement and, fortunately, we did not lose much.
  In the later period, deep-sea fishermen had lost out and the inshore fishermen saw their chance. They realised that they had to get everything that they wanted worked into an agreement. That was entirely understandable. I did not question it and we did our best to enable that to happen.
  My close association with the sea, and my love for it and all those people who work on it, is unchangeable. I am proud of what we did for fishermen. It is monstrous to have articles, such as the one to which I referred, published week after week. They damn everything that we did and are based on lies. I am surprised that a respectable Sunday newspaper should publish such an article. I am glad that we are able to have the debate and I wish the Government well in what they do.
  3.19 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I have to be in my constituency this evening, so I have advised my hon. Friend the Minister that I may not be here for the winding-up speeches. I apologise for that.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was valuable. I read the original articles, and he has illuminated some issues for me. That is one positive thing to have come out of the debate.
  1126
  We normally have our annual debate on fishing just before, or in the middle of, our debates on Europe. Fishing debates always have a frantic quality and they have not been satisfying in all the years that I have attended them. We argue about the crisis that the industry is about to face because of the quota discussions, and we have the usual arguments about Europe, which have become a bit tired. The debates always follow that pattern.
  The fact that we are having this debate about a month after the annual round of quota discussions is helpful. We are having a much more measured debate, which is exactly what the industry needs. It faces very difficult times, and it is important that we make a proper assessment of the issues without the usual pressures being placed on us. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the business managers for holding the debate at this time. Perhaps we could think about having it at this time of year in future.
  Another interesting thing to come out of the debate is the further illumination of the Conservative party's policy on the fishing industry. I have already had a chance to have a go at the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), so I shall not say too much about its policy, particularly given the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Perhaps I should shut up and leave Conservative Members to deal with their own problems.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tried to convey the fact that he was close to the industry: he has done a national tour, visiting ports and talking to fishermen. As far as I know, he has not been to Aberdeen yet, but he is very welcome to come at any time.
  Mr. Salmond: Oh no, not an invite.
  Mr. Doran: We always get that from the nationalists; I shall ignore that comment.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is as aware as anyone that all sectors of the fishing industry—both the catching and the processing sides—face a crisis. The policy that he spelled out today would turn that crisis into a disaster. If the Tory party were to achieve a unilateral declaration of independence for the North sea fishing industry, a disaster is precisely what we would have. That fact, at least, has emerged and it is important that we and the fishing industry have heard it.
  All those who speak in the debate will refer to the problems that the industry faces. Its biggest single problem is a shortage of fish. We could spend all day arguing about the possible reasons for that, but I doubt whether we would discover the true ones. There are a variety of reasons for the problem.
  Yesterday, the European Commission announced an agreement on a cod recovery plan, which is important for several reasons. It will present the industry with further problems, because job losses will inevitably result from the restriction on fishing efforts. However, the plan recognises that this country and other European countries need to build a sustainable fishing industry. It is clear that we were not heading in that direction and that emergency action was necessary. We got that yesterday. It is important to see the plan as emergency action, because it is a short-term measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that a long-term strategy was necessary for the industry's future.

  1127
  It is important to avoid too much talk of a crisis. The industry has a good future so long as we put in place measures that will enable it to get over the immediate crisis and to develop sustainable fisheries. We should not talk down the industry.
  It is also important to recognise that all sectors of the industry face problems. The main concern in my constituency is in the fish processing sector, which is struggling to deal with the reduced numbers of fish available. In north-east Scotland, two major processing firms have closed in the past few months with the loss of a couple of hundred jobs and we face more closures. That serious problem has several aspects, which we discussed in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall recently, so I shall not go into detail now. However, Members with an interest in fisheries know just how serious the problems are.
  Every crisis and every difficulty present opportunities. People in the industry may find that comment a bit harsh and brutal, but I believe that the industry has opportunities now. I can see no better time than the present for tackling the industry's problems. Everyone accepts that our catching efforts far exceed the supply of fish and that rationalisation is needed. According to my politics, the word "rationalisation" is nasty—it usually means job losses. We have to face and accept that prospect, but the Government must accept that they have a responsibility to play a part.
  The way ahead was set out by the Select Committee on Agriculture in its report of 1999. Its valuable survey of the industry and the direction in which it pointed us—it called for the development of a long-term strategy—are fundamental to the industry's future. No other business with which I have been connected has to cope with the fact that it does not know the supplies of raw material that it will have for the following year until the December of the previous year. The figures come out at the end of December and are implemented on 1 January. The industry must plan on that basis, and I do not know how any industry could cope with that. Something has to change.
  I shall not set out specific ideas about what we could do, because the principle is important. We know that people will leave the industry anyway because of the crisis in supply, so we should take this opportunity to adopt a principle that will cushion the impact by introducing a long-term strategy.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has been asked to respond to the Select Committee's recommendations. We know that he will receive the response next week, but it is unfortunate that we did not get it before the debate as it would have made the debate much more worth while. I do not criticise my hon. Friend for that. As he told us in a European Standing Committee in December, the timetable was planned some time ago. It has not been a secret. None the less, having the response would have made the debate more meaningful.
  We need to move on from examining the causes and effects of the crisis to considering how we shall deal with them. We have the short-term cod recovery plan; the next stage is to introduce a plan for zonal management that will provide a cushion for the industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister and referred to the sense of injustice that our industry feels at the
  1128
  treatment that other European Governments give to their fishing industries. From my discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and those on the processing side of the industry, I know that those grievances are strongly felt. For example, Spanish fishermen are paid not to fish off Morocco while an international dispute is debated. In a recent meeting with the SFF, I learned that the Irish Government had started to pay fishermen to take scientists on research trips that would have been carried out anyway. That is one way of providing help to the industry and, although it might be a back-door method, it has been welcomed by Irish fishermen.
  The SFF contrasted that approach with the treatment that it received when a public scientific institution sent it a letter saying that the institution would be happy to involve the federation in research if it paid £50,000. Such a contrast is hurtful.
  Mr. Morley: It was not MAFF.
  Mr. Doran: It certainly was not MAFF, but the letter was from a publicly funded institution. That is a sign of the pressure that it is under, too. While a longer-term strategy is being considered, it would be interesting to see how the Government could use their imagination to put our fishermen on a par with those in some other countries.
  As we have a short time in which to speak and I have only a few minutes left, I shall refer to the key elements of any long-term strategy. First, it must be genuine and must involve the whole industry. No strategy worthy of its name would be effective if it dealt with only one part of the industry. That is a special plea by me for the interests of the fish processing industry.
  It is also important that the strategy be a UK plan. I am a Scot and I represent a Scottish constituency, but I think that it would be extremely damaging to the industry as a whole if either the Scottish Executive or the UK Government produced plans that dealt with only one part of the Kingdom. It is important that there be a level playing field, that we talk about a UK strategy involving the whole of the UK industry and that it be long term. It must also be the start of a rolling process, rather than being just one fix which is forgotten about until we are in our next crisis.
  A key element of any long-term strategy must also be Government support; there must be an element of financial support. When I hold discussions with the industry it draws a comparison between one part of the food industry, fishing, and another, agriculture.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned some of the figures that the SFF has come forward with. He spoke of £100 million. The first figure that the SFF mentioned to me was £75 million, but then the processors spoke of £100 million and so the SFF said £100 million. It is clear that the figures are not properly worked out yet, as the federation accepts. It may be less and it may be more than the figures that we are talking about.
  The figures will be worked out properly only when, if there is to be a decommissioning scheme, the Government have made it clear what sort of decommissioning it will be. Will it be a decommissioning of boats? Will it be a decommissioning of licences or quotas? Those are the sort of questions that need to be sorted out round the table in discussions between the industry and the Government. However, financial support of some sort is necessary.

  1129
  There are other examples which MAFF can examine to see how the Government can engage with the industry. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby about the Minister's involvement and engagement with the industry. Nobody could have done more. However, things can move along much quicker when structures are put in place to formalise a relationship. They can energise an industry.
  My other major local industry in Aberdeen is the oil industry. Two years ago, the Department of Trade and Industry established the oil industry taskforce. Those in the industry entered it with a certain amount of scepticism, but they now talk about their relationship with the Government. Every oil company involved in the North sea makes a tremendous investment in the process, which is now called "Pilot". We see it as the future of the oil industry in the UK, because that is exactly what is being debated: encouraging companies to become more competitive, sharing expertise and experience, and making sure that everyone sings from the same hymn sheet. That is the sort of strategy that the fishing industry needs.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), I agree that this is a very welcome opportunity to debate longer-term issues facing the fishing industry. Those hon. Members who look forward to the occasions when we can debate fishing matters in the House may feel that we could replicate this pattern in future years—prior to the quota negotiations, debating them in a European Standing Committee, and then having an opportunity afterwards to look in more general terms at important issues facing the industry. I congratulate the Minister on persisting—with other hon. Members, including Back Benchers—so as to secure this time, which enables us to debate what is happening and the many challenges facing the industry.
  There is some optimism that negotiations in Europe will allow fishing nations to look at a multi-annual approach to quota setting, which other Liberal Democrat Members and I have been pushing for for some time. Given the crisis facing the industry and its stocks, there is acceptance now that we need to stick robustly to the real science in terms of stock assessment. Many of the criticisms of the outcome of the negotiations are that the science was not stuck to, and that we needed a more sophisticated settlement to take into account the patterns of fish and fish stock decline in waters around this country and elsewhere.
  The Minister gave us some reason to hope that there is wider political agreement that we can negotiate with some optimism the establishment of a regional approach to the management and empowerment of regional committees on the common fisheries policy. Despite scorn from the Conservative Benches, that has widespread support in the industry and among most sensible and right-thinking people who are genuinely concerned about the industry. That, too, gives reason for optimism.
  I welcomed the very illuminating contribution of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), particularly his prediction that the
  1130
  Conservatives will never come to power again, particularly if they support certain policies. Whether their spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), was trying to dance around the subject or not, the right hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head: those policies are what the Conservatives really believe in, and they will never be given any semblance of power until they can be taken seriously on an important issue such as fishing and come up with practical proposals.
  I would have welcomed a contribution from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that elucidated to the House and the country what the Conservatives really believe. We heard their description of the problems in the industry, its costs and the problems with the quota settlement, and their criticisms of the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of establishing regional management committees. They are entitled to make those criticisms, but we heard no proper elucidation of Tory policies.
  The Minister has been managing his ship with great care. My criticism of him in this Parliament is that in the main he has been acting in a piecemeal fashion, dealing reactively with problems as they come along. The fact that he has now accepted the Select Committee's approach and that we can anticipate learning shortly the strategy for the longer-term future of the UK fishing industry is welcome.
  Problems have arisen on the Minister's watch, however. Some have been solved, or partly solved, but overall on the question of fish resource, which is fundamental to the industry, there has not been good news. I am not saying that the Minister is responsible for removing those fish, but the fact is that at the end of the day fish stocks have declined, in some cases to a perilous state, so that radical action is now required—action that those concerned about the industry will very much welcome.
  Very serious problems face the industry, both the catching industry and the processing sector, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central referred. Stocks are in decline. I think we all agree that quotas are too blunt an instrument to use simply to manage the future of the fishing industry. The Minister described in helpful detail the stock recovery programmes, which are among the challenges that we face. I hope that shortly after the Green Paper from the European Commission is published, the House will have a chance to debate the reform of the common fisheries policy. That will be an opportunity to discuss what can be achieved politically in Europe. Given the views expressed by the industry and most hon. Members, we should push for a decentralised and empowered regional approach. I hope that we will be able to develop that.
  There is a growing interest in the use of technical measures, such as closed areas, closed seasons and mesh sizes, which would enable the industry to target its fish more selectively, by size. The Minister referred, for example, to the problems facing hake fishermen, who face this year a devastating 41 per cent. cut in quota in the area 7 western approaches.
  As the Minister knows, a larger mesh is used by British—mainly Cornish—fishermen fishing in area 7 and catching prime hake, whereas Spanish fishermen fishing largely in the Bay of Biscay and operating under the same quota need to catch 200 times as many fish to achieve the

  1131
  same market value, because they use a smaller mesh. We need a more sophisticated approach to allow us to target fish more effectively across European waters.
  When the Minister sums up, perhaps he will deal with the difficulties that are likely to arise from the Scottish Executive's decision to impose square mesh panels in its fisheries, although that requirement has not been imposed around the rest of the UK coast. The industry in Scotland welcomes the decision, but there should be an opportunity to examine whether the use of more selective gear could be taken up throughout the UK.
  On the problems facing fishermen in my area, Cornwall, the Minister has looked into the issue of fishermen who have gone off-quota to non-quota species—for example, the tuna drift net fishery. The Minister and Europe rightly took a strong line on the problems of cetacean by-catch in that industry.
  The hon. Gentleman may know more from conversations with his scientists, but I understand from the industry that research in this country and abroad has demonstrated that the use of pingers can be effective. If cetacean by-catch can be reduced to almost nothing through that approach, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reopen negotiations on the closure of that fishery. That would help fishermen in the south-west, who are under great pressure as a result of the reduction in stocks.
  Much has been said, mainly by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, about Liberal Democrat policy. I welcome the fact that he has taken the time to study some aspects of it. The policy was published some six years ago at a party conference, and had been worked up over the previous 15 years. When it was launched, the policy, which the hon. Gentleman rightly described as a devolved approach to the CFP, was met with derision from other political parties, of course, and from the industry.
  We have continued, in a measured way, to push the merits of the policy, refining it as we went along. It is interesting that, as other hon. Members have described, the industry has come up with its own policy proposals, which almost exactly mirror the original Liberal Democrat policy. The industry describes its policy as zonal management, and we describe ours as regional management.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not want to take any credit away from the hon. Gentleman, but we should acknowledge that the first politician who pursued the policy and took it through the European Fisheries Committee was the late Dr. Allan Macartney, from the north-east of Scotland.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lesson in history, but whether the policy was developed in separate vacuums we shall have to investigate. Whoever claims credit for the origin of the policy—whose gestation, as I said, was many years before its publication—it was met with great derision when it was published. Perhaps the late Dr. Macartney found that, too. However, it is now the only realistic game in town.
  Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he telling the House that the Liberal Democrat policy that he has been expounding is the same as the proposals from
  1132
  the NFFO and the SFF? Does he believe that that zonal management policy or regional policy will require treaty changes, and would he agree with that?
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. His colleague, Struan Stevenson, was one of the Members of the European Parliament who issued a joint statement from the European Parliament Fisheries Committee hacking zonal management proposals. I do not know whether Mr. Stevenson will he taken away and given a stiff talking to, or whether Labour Members will call him Nigel. The joint statement called for

  greater regionalisation of the CFP through the establishment of a comprehensive series of regional management units and regional advisory committees based on the use of the ICES areas and sub-areas.
  That is a Conservative politician speaking in a European context, with an understanding of the needs of the industry. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire continues to ask from a sedentary position whether treaty changes will be required. If we are to achieve such a change, it needs widespread political support, which the Conservatives do not have. It needs widespread political support, and not only across this country. All sensible people support it. Clearly, it has received widespread support in the European Parliament from all parties, including, oddly enough, the Conservative party.
  Mr. Gill: Why is the hon. Gentleman finding it difficult to answer the perfectly straightforward question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), and say whether his proposal requires a treaty change? Surely, the answer is yes or no. Will he give the House that answer?
  Mr. George: It will be interesting to see what the European Commission comes up with in its Green Paper next month. When we are in a position to see what it believes will have widespread political support across European member states, we can begin the negotiations on what kind of treaty change, if any, will be required. However, we are more likely to get the kind of change that most rational people believe is required for the future of the fishing industry if we have more widespread political support across Europe.
  We are also seeking to secure continued derogation for the six and 12-mile limits around these shores, and to make those a permanent feature of the common fisheries policy. We have pressed the Minister on those matters, he has taken them on board and I very much welcome his approach. We would certainly encourage him to achieve those ends if possible. It would also be welcome if, through his offices, it were possible to outlaw industrial fishing. I am pleased to hear that his negotiations with the Danes are making progress.
  The Conservative spokesman had an opportunity to lay out his policy and justify it to the House. He clearly has not persuaded the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who has experience of being in government and taking decisions with all the responsibility of power. No doubt, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke at a fringe meeting at the last Tory conference, he got the pulses of the rank and file racing when he claimed that the Conservatives were "going the whole way" and taking back full national control of the industry.

  1133
  That statement was not from any Back Bencher, but from the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, commenting on the proposals of the NFFO and SSF—which were discussed earlier—said those organisations were
  barking up the wrong tree.
  He believed that the answer was to take back national control. Clearly, as I have already pointed out, that view is not universally shared across the Conservative party—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Moss: Yes, "barking" is the word. The advice that I read out to the Minister from his own MAFF officials concerning regional policy, zonal policy, the NFFO and the SSF proposals stated that those proposals are a non-starter. Treaty changes are possible, but the hon. Gentleman did not give a straight answer, yes or no, to my question about whether the Liberal Democrats would support fundamental treaty change to empower those regional and zonal management arrangements. To have any power to do anything, treaty change would be needed.
  Mr. George: I should be interested to hear what MAFF officials say about Tory policy. If we want to have a laugh, let us read what MAFF officials say about that.
  We should get down to brass tacks and look at what Conservative Members are proposing now. Every time they utter a word on the issue of fisheries, squadrons of flying pigs take off all around the country. Moreover, if we look at their record, in 1983 they negotiated our quota share and botched that. They failed to grasp opportunities to invest in the industry throughout their period in power, when other European nations were investing in their industries.
  The Conservatives presided over the biggest loss of licences to flag-of-convenience vessels ever, and they cost the country what could eventually be £100 million—money which could be invested in the industry—in compensation to foreign-flag companies, which were thrown off the register following the botched Merchant Shipping Act 1988. They negotiated Spanish access to western waters six years before they needed to.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman is going to defend the Conservative record or apologise for it, I should be glad to give way.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman regard an Act as botched when it was passed by both our Houses of Parliament and then struck down by the application of European legislation? Is that the Liberal Democrat party's definition of "botched"?
  Mr. George: What was botched was the advice that the previous Government either received or took. Clearly, whether they received or took it, they botched the matter. They knew what the situation was at the time and what was likely to happen. Now the Conservatives are operating on the entirely fanciful notion that they can pull out of the common fisheries policy.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may like some information. We know what the Stevenson policy is in the
  1134
  European policy, and we know that it is not what we might call the Moss policy in this place. In the Scottish Parliament, the Tories are fully behind the Stevenson policy. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the Conservative party's policy on fishing is in the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. George: I would make a choice there. If we can determine the development of the Conservatives' policy on fishing by their behaviour and comments today, although I do not know what their policy is in the Welsh Assembly, I would guess that it is probably for the birds.
  This is a serious debate about the future of the fishing industry. The industry is at a point of crisis and needs to make sure that any future plans ensure that sustainable fishery can continue in the long-term future. We need a sustainable fishing industry and sustainable stocks, and we need to make sure that our processors have output supplies.
  Already in this debate it has been mentioned that WWF has produced an excellent policy proposal, which is certainly worth serious consideration in future discussion. Adopting an approach that involves a recovery plan for both stock and the industry will take concerted effort and will require, as WWF indicated, investment rather than subsidy. WWF is not simply playing with words, as it is a question of investing in the future. The costs attached to that policy are unclear, and, having discussed them with WWF, I am currently undertaking inquiries to try to get an indication of what they are likely to be. I would welcome the Minister's comments and advice on that.
  Even if that policy were to cost in the region of £0.5 billion over a five-year period, as it would establish a sustainable fishing industry in the long term, all parties—and I shall certainly ask Liberal Democrat Treasury spokespeople to do this—should look seriously at whether it is an investment that the country is prepared to make. We need to look seriously at how we will haul ourselves out of the crisis that the industry is in at present. I look forward to future opportunities to debate that.
  3.59 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: It is with pleasure that I participate in this debate on an important and serious issue. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for visiting Fleetwood again and for showing his willingness to come and listen to the concerns of the whole fishing industry—not only fishermen but the onshore operation and all the other elements that are involved. My hon. Friend impresses everybody with his knowledge of the industry and with his commitment to seeing what is happening on the ground and in the seas.
  I want to restate some of the issues that were raised with my hon. Friend during his visit and about which the Fleetwood Fish Forum has written separately to him. They are important and we want them to be addressed, as there is huge strength of community feeling about the industry. We have heard some references to the House of Lords report on unsustainable fishing, which is an interesting document. Paragraph 4 of the report speaks of the relatively minor economic importance of fish in the national economies of EU states and of its disproportionate impact on coastal communities.

  1135
  I agree with that view. In my constituency, 1,000 jobs are at stake in a small town. The issue is not just about jobs. It has to be looked at in the historical context of a town that started as a fishing village and grew into the third largest port in the country. That town has now seen its fishing industry decline. We all want to halt that decline, to rebuild the fishing industry and to protect what we have. Paragraph 85 of the report proposes the following objective for reform of the common fisheries policy:
  To expand and make more accessible socio-economic restructuring and support for fishing communities where fishing capacity is reduced, and to introduce short-term transitional assistance to alleviate the immediate economic consequences of the introduction of more rigorous conservation measures.
  Yes please. That sums up the feeling in my constituency exactly.
  The Fleetwood Fish Forum is unique, as it brings together catchers, processors and merchants, as well as representatives of the port authority and the local council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, it is vital for all elements of the fishing industry to come together and try to ensure the continuation of a viable industry. Although those elements sometimes have competing interests, they are forming a united force in Fleetwood and arguing the case together.
  The Irish sea cod recovery programme is now in its second year. Lessons should be learned from its first year, especially as we are now considering the introduction of similar policies in the North sea. Last year, the closure of the fishing grounds came with short notice and caused serious problems for Fleetwood. Those problems affected not only the inshore fleet, which was tied up, but the merchants and processors. If less fish is being caught, less will be landed, less will be sold in the auction hall and less will be processed. In other words, everybody is affected.
  That is not to say that my local fishing industry did not agree that something had to be done. As has been pointed out, the main problem is the shortage of fish, which must be dealt with. However, that must be done without destroying the industry. Any programme must ensure that there is an industry that can take advantage when cod and other fish stocks recover.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: First, why is there a fish shortage? It is largely because of overfishing. Secondly, when cod goes, it does not always come back. What occurred off the coasts of Canada and Iceland shows that, once cod is overfished, it disappears for ever.
  Mrs. Humble: In a way, that intervention makes my point for me. The Irish sea has been overfished for a long time, but that is not all; it is now being fished by vessels that were not working in the area 50 or 100 years ago. Giant beamers are scooping up everything from the sea bed, after which nothing is left. That is why I shall go on to speak about technical measures such as horsepower limitation.
  I noted with interest the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) about the inshore fleet in Fleetwood. When last year's closures were announced, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who agreed to meet a delegation representing the Fleetwood fishing industry. We raised several issues with him, including the effect on the inshore fleet of tying
  1136
  up vessels. I also raised with him the matter of compensation, as I have since done in correspondence. I understand that none of the nations involved in the Irish sea cod recovery programme paid compensation to their vessels.
  This afternoon, however, we heard the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire refuse to say whether a Conservative Government would pay compensation. That is not what some people in my constituency are saying, so I shall take that message back to them. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary received the Fleetwood delegation, he listened to its concerns and introduced changes to the Irish sea programme. I am very pleased that the eastern Irish sea has remained open in this year's programme and that Fleetwood's vessels have not been tied up.
  One issue remains to be clarified: the scientific advice on which the Irish sea programme is based. As my hon. Friend said, he agreed to put scientists on some of the vessels to examine the effect of their activity on cod and some of the other stocks. He will know that there is a dispute between my local fishermen and scientists about some of the scientific data and about the impact on cod of the beamers' efforts in catching plaice and sole. My local fishermen certainly believe that sole and cod are being adversely affected by some of the fishing practices of the powerful beam trawlers from Belgium and the Netherlands. Such trawlers may catch female sole before they have reached breeding maturity, and also have a significant cod by-catch, which includes juvenile and breeding cod and so affects the fish stocks' ability to recover. I fully support the Fleetwood fish forum's proposal to increase mesh sizes above the current 80 mm level, as well as its request for more scientific trials to establish the impact on remaining stocks of fishing by the beamers.
  As I understand it, last year's trial occurred in April. I am told that the cod had by that time been dispersed in the Irish sea. The main cod season in the area seems to be February and March. If that is the case, it is vital for an independent and properly supervised trial to occur at that time in order to assess the impact on cod and other stocks of plaice and sole beam trawling.
  The fishing community is now much more willing to listen to scientific advice. In the past, the fishermen have often relied on their anecdotal accounts of where the fish are, where they are spawning and how many of them there are. Scientists have provided other accounts of fish stock levels, and the industry is now more willing to accept a scientific analysis of the basis of fish supply. It is important for us to continue to reassure fishermen in respect of the scientific advice on the basis of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his European Community colleagues make their decisions. I hope that he will consider conducting a trial that is seen to be independent and to be dealing the cod at the time when, according to fishermen, they are present.
  The adverse impact of the closure on my fishing community prompts me to urge my hon. Friend to consider mesh sizes and horsepower reduction as more effective conservation measures. When my hon. Friend came to Fleetwood, we discussed with him the possibility of a horsepower restriction on a box inside the 12-mile limit. That would benefit the inshore fleet and be a good start in conveying the message to fishermen that such

  1137
  measures need to be examined. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to consider the matter further and offer some reassurances.
  Other hon. Members have referred to financing the fishing industry. Like them, I have read the WWF report that was published last year. It makes some interesting points, as does the more recent Select Committee report. We need to consider financial support not only for fishermen but for the onshore industry, which needs to examine modernising port infrastructure. Many facilities in the port in Fleetwood were designed for a time when we had a large distant-water fleet. That fleet no longer exists, and we need to consider the port infrastructure. However, the funding is not available to help us to do that. European Union structural funds are available through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, but it is difficult to find the necessary matching funding to access it.
  Paragraph 94 of the Select Committee report states that no further support should
  be available for the modernisation and renewal of member states' fleets.
  That is all right for member states that have already accessed funds and modernised, but our vessels in Fleetwood are 25 to 30 years old. They need modernisation and support to enable them to compete when the recovery plan makes fish available for them to catch. I understand the problems of scrap-and-build, and of replacing low horsepower vessels with more powerful ones. I have already argued that I do not support the concept of having much more powerful vessels in the Irish sea. However, I urge the Minister to consider the sort of help that can be given to the ageing British fleet. My constituents believe that they are at a disadvantage when compared with other European countries. They would like to compete on a level playing field.
  Paragraph 93 of the Select Committee report states:
  Funds for new vessels should be generated from the industry itself.
  How? The equity in many vessels that fish from Fleetwood has reduced as quotas and catches have reduced. Those vessels are no longer a viable proposition. Fishermen cannot go to a bank manager and say, "Please give me money", when that manager has seen from television reports that the fish are not there to catch. Where will those fishermen go? We must consider the efforts that we can make in the short and medium term to support our industry so that it can compete and fish for the stocks that we are trying to protect for the future.
  Despite all the difficulties, there is still optimism in Fleetwood. People continue to work together; they want to do that, and they offer positive solutions. They do not throw up their hands in horror and say, "Oh dear, we're all going out of business. We won't accept scientific advice or new technical measures, and we won't work together." The opposite is true. They want to work together, consider technical measures and what they can do to help the industry to succeed. Hon. Members should encourage them to do that.
  Last year's WWF report mentioned financial help. My hon. Friend the Minister said that MAFF has no money. I shall back his attempts to get money from any other source because that is important.
  1138
  I shall sum up, because other hon. Members want to speak in this important debate. Total allowable catches and quotas do not protect breeding and spawning grounds; they do not help to redress the imbalance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has run out of time.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister will not be surprised and is doubtless pleased to hear that I did not agree with all his comments. However, he began by rightly drawing attention to the fishermen who died this year. We always have such an exchange, and it is no empty or idle formula. Those of us who know something about the fishing industry appreciate that it is a desperately dangerous way of earning a living in this day and age. The Minister was right to draw attention to that at the outset.
  It is inevitable in such debates that we consider the past and the future. We have heard many references to the history of the matters that we are discussing. That is necessary, because we can begin to work out our policy for the future only by understanding the past. Any fisherman who passed through London and decided to come to the House today to listen to the debate would ask two questions. First, he would ask, "How did we ever get into this position?" Secondly, he would ask, "What is to be done about it?"
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 14 January by Christopher Booker. My right hon. Friend took strong exception to it, and I can understand his view. The same argument has been used by authors other than Mr. Booker, and my right hon. Friend has a remedy in law, if he wishes to take it. However, parts of the article should be considered because it did not consist only of argument. The implications of two quotations should be considered.
  Mr. Booker used the 30-year rule to find several documents that are available to everyone. He discovered that Ministers and officials used an ominous phrase to describe what they were about to do to the British fishing industry. On attempting to defend it, they said that it was not worth wasting "limited negotiating capital" on it. If the implications of that are not sufficiently severe, the article quoted a memo from the Scottish Office on 9 November 1970. It stated:
  in the wider UK context they—
  the fishermen—
  must be regarded as expendable.
  I am grateful to Mr. Booker, but it does not take access under the 30-year rule to reach that conclusion.
  On the morning of 13 December 1971, the late Geoffrey Rippon gave away control of our national waters. In the afternoon, he made a statement to the House of Commons to say that he had achieved the opposite. The exchanges in Hansard are worth reading. After Geoffrey Rippon's opening address, which set out his great triumph in protecting British sovereignty, he was quizzed by several Labour and Conservative Members. The most searing comment was made by Lord Healey, who said:
  First, is it not clear that anyone who studies the Minister's statement will be unable to agree with him that the agreement that he has reached on fisheries is not a purely transitional agreement

  1139
  giving no guarantees whatever after 1982? Is it not the case that the Minister has abandoned the undertaking to secure continuing arrangements subject to a review in which Britain would be able to veto any changes in these arrangements? Yet these are undertakings that he gave to the House in the last debate, and, indeed, at his own party conference a few weeks earlier.—[Official Report, 13 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 54.]
  Lord Healey said that within minutes of the announcement about the common fisheries policy.
  In the same year, a White Paper was circulated to every house in the country. I was younger and more innocent then, and had not appreciated the role that irony plays in such matters. The White Paper stated:
  There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty.
  No question at all—we had just lost it. I understand the way my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup feels about the brief but turbulent period of his premiership all those years ago. However, his judgment on those times is not universally shared in the House or the country. Many believe that the historical record shows that some people thought, perhaps entirely genuinely, that their actions were worth taking. Many years after he left the House, Geoffrey Rippon was asked why he did not explain in the afternoon what he had done in the morning. He said that it was because he would never have got it through the House of Commons. There were then, and there still are today, those who find "Ode to Joy" a more comfortable tune to march to than "Land of Hope and Glory". That may be difficult for a Conservative to say, but it is also necessary.
  One of the things that Mr. Booker said—the Minister has said it too, and the Liberals will always say this sort of thing, because a tendency to do so will always out—was that the Tories were not entitled to criticise what has gone on in the past, and that they should not be allowed to do so because of the historical record. It is necessary, sometimes, for political parties to admit that they got it wrong. Until the Conservative party was able to admit that it had got the common fisheries policy wrong, it was in no position to make constructive proposals about how to rectify the matter. That is why it was necessary for the Conservative party to come to terms with what was done all those years ago in 1971.
  It might seem that what was done in 1971 could exonerate the Labour party. In addition to the comments that I read out from Lord Healey, others were made on the issue by Lord Shore—Peter Shore, as he then was. Judged at that time, one might say that the Labour party was in a position to criticise. However, it has now adopted the same agenda. In saying that the common fisheries policy not only constitutes the problem but contains the seeds of a solution, it is adopting the big lie that was perpetrated all those years ago. We are therefore entitled—latterly—to brand the Labour party with that.
  The Labour party now argues that the CFP in its present form has within it, in some peculiar way, the seeds of redemption for the fishing industry. It does not. The common fisheries policy is based on the proposition of discard, and the proposition that millions of fish may be thrown back into the sea, dead, every year. In 1998 alone, an estimated 45 million saithe were thrown back. That was not a mistake or a misapplication of the common fisheries policy, but specifically because of it.
  Other abominations happen within the common fisheries policy. The House often discusses under-age fish being caught under the terms of the CFP. People who do
  1140
  not know the history of the policy believe that we should be able to introduce technical measures to deal with that. However, the reason that certain species of fish are caught under-age is because it is written into the CFP arrangements that that can be done. The Spaniards like eating under-sized fish.
  The rape of the fishing grounds by industrial fishing has not happened by accident. It is all about the common fisheries policy. It is the inevitable consequence when a country that owned four fifths of the waters of what is now the European Union gives them away under equal access provisions, and receives in return two fifths by volume, or one sixth by value. That is what we get when countries with no interest in fishing—indeed, they need not even have a coastline—are entitled to invoke the principle of equal access. That is the business that we are in.
  The one date that the Minister did not dare to mention was 2003. I can well understand that, because many people think that we are dealing with the full effects of the common fisheries policy now, as bad as it is. However, that is not the case. Those of us who have examined this issue know that we are operating under exceptions to the CFP, and the consequences of that will come home to roost in 2003. If that happens, there will be total equal access to our waters. I do not know what shabby deal the Minister has already struck to ensure that he will not have to admit to the House that such total equal access is in place. However, the price demanded will be very high.
  If we examine the history of this matter, the reasons behind it, and the agenda of setting up a Greater Europe, and consider what has happened to our fisheries since then, we cannot say that the common fisheries policy can possibly come to the aid of our fishermen. There is only one solution to this problem, which the Conservative party has, to its credit, finally grasped. That is the concept of national control.
  The Minister and his royal satraps, the Liberal Democrats, may chortle away about some Conservative MEP. I do not know how these things are done in the Labour party—nothing at all is done in the Liberal party—[Interruption.] I will say this to the Minister, because I would rather deal with the organ grinder. It is not MEPs who establish party policy in the Conservative party. That is done by the leadership of the party. I understand why Ministers scratch around trying to attack a policy that they know is the right one, resulting in their coming up with the names of obscure Conservative MEPs. However, if that is the best that the Minister can do, it is not good enough.
  Mr. Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: Even though this is supposed to be a serious debate, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Quinn: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in the European Standing Committee, we raised the issue of the culling of seals. On that occasion, I quoted the leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament,

  1141
  who has visited my constituency. He suggested that Conservative policy was to cull seals because of their effect on fish stocks. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that is Conservative policy, or does he stand by his earlier comment about how policy is formulated in the Conservative party?
  Mr. Nicholls: Fishermen all over the country, including the west country, are seeing their whole way of life devastated and destroyed, yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a clever point by talking about seal culling. That is contemptible.
  The reason that national control can work is not because it will be conceded by Europe. Of course, it will not be—any more than Lady Thatcher's original budget rebate was conceded. That rebate was not negotiated. It came from a Government and a Prime Minister who had the confidence to say what they meant, and to believe in what they said. They were prepared to say, "This matters to us desperately, and therefore we are going to have it."
  There is no possibility of the Labour Government approaching fishing with that degree of resolution, and anyone who doubts the forecast need only look at the history books. In the dying years of the previous Conservative Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—then the Minister responsible for fisheries—made it clear that, to deal with quota-hopping, he was prepared to say that no other progress could be made at any other treaty negotiations until that point was conceded. He said that because, belatedly, it mattered that much.
  At the time, the then Leader of the Opposition said that the issue mattered to him that much as well. He also said that when the Labour party won the election, his position would be the same. What happened? When Labour came into office, Ministers said that there was no support for their position, so they would give in. The issue did not matter enough to them. The fate of the British fishing industry matters enough to us that we shall not take no for an answer.
  Even a debate as serious as this must have its lighter moments, so I shall turn for a moment to the Liberal party. It does not understand that its policy—which it claims is the policy of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—has been comprehensively rubbished by the Government. The Government, not the Liberal Democrats, would have to lead with such a policy.
  The Minister is looking through his papers and cannot find the submission put to him by his own civil servants, saying what they thought of the Liberal party's policy. I will send him a copy later. I have many such documents, if he ever runs out. However, it was scathing in saying that the policy could not work. For the Liberal Democrats to say that they had the paper commissioned by people who did not know what they were talking about is not on.
  If we carry on applying the CFP, we shall have to come back every year for more of the same. More dead fish will be slung back in the sea and there will be less hope for the British fishing industry. What is need is a party that has the guts to admit what it did wrong in the past and to face the consequences of that. We also need national control, and that cannot come a moment too soon.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I was also pleased that the business managers and the Minister listened to what many hon. Members said in the Standing Committee about the need for a debate. Our procedure on this occasion needs to be closely looked at for future reference, as it is much more businesslike and removes some of the fireworks that have appeared in previous debates.
  I am speaking on behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) decided to concentrate on the history of the situation rather than the future. I represent a community in Whitby that had a tendency to look far too much to the past rather than the future. However, my fishing community—just like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—which includes fishermen, fish merchants and other producers, has worked together to create a forum that looks after the interests of the north Yorkshire coast. That community is very much looking to the future.
  As the Minister knows, I am keen for him to visit Scarborough and Whitby soon to meet people who would like an opportunity to engage him on the subject of the industry's future. There is great optimism among people working in that vital part of my community.
  In an intervention on the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I touched on the issue of the amount of fish taken by seals. When the Minister comes to Scarborough and Whitby, my local fishermen will want to raise that issue with him. I hope that he will take this as early notice of one question that he will be asked, and that he will seek scientific advice to deploy when the occasion arises. I understand that, in the House of Lords Select Committee report, Lord Jopling said that seal culling is vital to preserving fish stocks in the North sea. It is a problem around the British coast and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
  I have been told by the fisheries forum in the north-east of Yorkshire that about 1,000 of my constituents are involved in the fishing industry, which plays a vital part in the area's economic life. Indeed, who would ever think of Whitby and Scarborough without thinking of its sea fish and the beautiful scenery in the port area? Although we are in many ways a community that has been declining since about the 1860s, those who work in the industry have innovated and literally changed tack, going out to look for other fish stocks and other ways of making a living.
  The Minister will recall that I raised in correspondence with him the important issue of recreational fishing, which brings considerable extra revenue into the Whitby community. I am sure that that issue, too, will be raised with him when he visits—as will the salmon fishery on the Esk and, especially, the shellfish industry in my constituency.
  The shellfish industry is a recent notable success, but that is due partly to the environmental catastrophe affecting our cod stocks. The northward drift of cod, combined with increased North sea temperatures, has given juvenile shellfish a better chance of survival. Some marine scientists say that a shellfish's chance of reaching maturity have increased to about 50 per cent.

  1143
  Consequently, the shellfish industry is flourishing, mitigating some of the effects of lower landings in the area. In recent years, landings at the ports of Scarborough and Whitby—unlike those of my colleagues from the Aberdeen area, which has had 40 per cent. reductions—are down by about 16 per cent.
  The primary argument has been put strongly in today's Yorkshire Post. One of my constituents, Mr. Arnold Locker, the managing director of Lockers Trawler Ltd., of Whitby, has eight cod boats. He said that, because of yesterday's announcement, in the next year those cod boats will switch to catching prawns. His decision demonstrates the spirit that exists at the Whitby quayside, where people in the private sector are innovating and going forward.
  Arnold Locker employs 56 crewmen and 40 people in a cod-processing factory. The Yorkshire Post rightly reports that morale is at rock bottom and that there is real difficulty in persuading and motivating crews to go out together to earn a living in the North sea. Mr. Locker said:
  we've had to change from cod to prawn and it's going to cost me £1 million in gear, a cost which will have to be borne by everyone, owners and everyone.
  It's a very worrying situation because we're still waiting for the technical measures to be announced on mesh size for nets which will dictate whether or not we can go for prawn.
  Mr. Locker's statement epitomises the type of story that I have been hearing regularly from my constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) clearly said, there can be no other industry that has such difficulty in forward planning. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister's preference for multi-annual targeting and a more structured long-term strategic approach to managing our industry.
  I have noticed in the past few months that there is a new attitude among those who work on the quayside, those who want to go to sea and those work in Scarborough and Whitby's fish processing companies. I think that there is a growing realisation that solutions will be based on an international response. Although the cod recovery programme has been welcomed, the welcome comes with a small caveat. We desperately need transitional support for people such as Arnold Locker, so that they can implement the changes necessary to sustain work and businesses in communities such as those in Scarborough and Whitby.
  Those communities are very remote from the main centres of our country. The community that I represent has qualified for objective 2 structural funding because of the decline in our fishing industry and its failure since the second world war. We have to change, set up partnerships and go forward. I still believe that there is a role for the regional development agencies it that process. The Minister may be aware that, over the Christmas period, I had meetings with the Yorkshire Forward RDA to try to persuade it to take a greater and more comprehensive interest in the serious economic needs of Yorkshire's relatively small communities. Such an interest is vital to the communities that I represent.
  The impact of yesterday's announcement was summed up by Mr. Ian Duncan, the secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Last night, in conversations with people from Scarborough, I was asked to quote him in the debate. He said:
  1144
  We were expecting to lose a leg. Yesterday we lost a foot.

  That summarises the feelings of people in coastal and fishing communities around the country. An amputation is occurring in the industry.
  The Government are making real efforts to launch a concerted attack on social exclusion and poverty in many communities. However, if they do not act in areas such as Scarborough and Whitby, we shall be wasting good objective 2 funding and innovative action. Without that action, jobs will be created for the long-term unemployed in some areas, while the 1,000 people working in the fishing industry in my constituency will continue to face problems.
  The current situation is not in kilter. I urge the Minister and all hon. Members who represent fishing communities to follow the initiative that I and other members of the all-party fisheries group are promoting to lobby and to argue the case for fishing communities with the Treasury. If there were ever a need for a joined-up approach, this is it.
  I commend to the Minister a document that I think he mentioned himself—the World Wide Fund for Nature report entitled "Choose or Lose", by Malcolm McGarvie and Sarah Jones and published in December 2000. It deals with the recovery plan for UK fish stocks, and I consider it to be a very learned report. The executive summary provides a good blueprint, if taken in conjunction with the document produced by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, entitled "Zonal management: a new vision for your fisheries".
  The report shows how the fisheries industry can be sustainable. It is, as I have said, a blueprint for what should happen after we have completed the five or so years of the recovery plan—a plan that is being brought about through international partnership, international effort and the good offices of the Minister, who has argued the case for a sustainable industry. Sustainability, however, cannot be delivered by the industry or the fishing communities alone; it will require the help of the Treasury—of central Government—through whatever mechanism is necessitated.
  I told my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) earlier that I did not think the Treasury was taking a negative attitude. I think it is taking an ill-informed attitude, and that it behoves us all to fill the vacuum.
  I understand from the document released in Brussels yesterday that the plan must be implemented by 1 May 2001. Some weeks remain to us, but there is a missing component, which is not in the control of the fisheries Minister: we need a certain approach from the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—indeed, an approach from Departments across Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any innovation is taking place at the highest level of Government, and whether the effects on remote communities are being considered.
  The parallels are clear. These strike me as being similar to problems that have faced the coalmining community, or indeed the steel industry's problems in the Minister's own town of Scunthorpe. We need a national initiative—a UK across-the-board initiative. The key partners, along

  1145
  with central Government, local government and regional agencies, must unite in producing a sustainable plan that is properly funded.
  The Minister visited my constituency several times in a different capacity—as countryside Minister. If he does so again we can promise him an interesting and challenging day. I hope that whenever that day comes—in the next few weeks, perhaps—he will address some of the issues that I have raised.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As it is Burns night, I have spent most of my time here trying to find a quote from the bard that would sum up the Minister's opening speech. I came up with Burns's "Epistle to Robert Graham". Graham represented Dumfries in this place in the late 18th century. The poet wrote:
  Pity the best of words should be but wind.
  That is appropriate, because these were the best of words. The Minister is the first fisheries Minister in living memory, or at least in my memory, who has known much about the industry, and that is to his credit. If his knowledge is not translated into action, however, all his fine words will serve the industry and our fishing communities no better than his predecessors, who knew and, perhaps, cared so much less.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) summed up the position. I find that our paths are converging increasingly, which no doubt worries both of us. He said that the Minister was a Minister of maximum good will but minimal money. What I want to do is persuade the Minister that that maximum good will should be translated into maximum financial support during the difficult period ahead.
  I want to concentrate on the cod recovery plan, before saying something about the future of the common fisheries policy—if, indeed, there is one—and how that future can be sustained not just north but south of the border. As was appropriate, the Minister began by paying tribute to those who have lost their lives at sea. That should remind us all that this is a special industry full of special people and special communities, to whom we owe a special obligation.
  I would not argue that the economic pressures on the industry and the safety issues are always directly related. Many fishing incidents are not due to economic pressure. However, the combination of younger skippers and older boats going to ever more distant waters is increasingly dangerous, and economic pressure is a factor in the safety concerns to which the Minister rightly drew our attention.
  The cod recovery plan is, of course, much better than the original. I have the infamous "sausage" here, whose design may or may not have been drawn up by David Armstrong. Some say that it was drawn up by a MAFF official, no less. In any event, this map would have decimated the Scottish fishing industry. There is no doubt about that. It is the one thing on which I agree with Tory Front Benchers: the map could have been designed to aim not a sausage but a dagger at the heart of the Scottish industry.
  Here we have the new—as of yesterday—corporate company plan: a much more sensible plan, which owes much more to the contribution of fishermen themselves.
  1146
  However, as has been said by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, it involves not minimal but substantial sacrifice—the sacrifice of fishing opportunities over the coming months in the short term, let alone what will happen over the next five years.
  A phenomenal amount of effort has been involved. If we had been told a few years ago that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the NFFO would come up with a plan involving the closure of fishing areas and the unilateral pursuing in Scotland of the square mesh panel as a conservation device, we would have found it difficult to believe. Yet all Members now receive letters from the various environmental organisations saying that the fishermen are right.

  All the efforts of the leaders of the fishing industry, especially in Scotland, to carry their members down the line of conservation will be reduced to nothing unless the cod recovery plan is supported by an economic recovery plan for the fishing communities.
  The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but he seemed to refer, in relation to the £100 million, to "plucking figures out of thin air", as if attacking the industry for talking it in terms of such a sum. The Minister shakes his head. I do not know whether he is denying the quote or trying to redress what he said.
  Why should such a sum be regarded as out of the question? The Conservative Government had to compensate vessels sailing under flags of convenience to the tune of £100 millon. The Government obviously and rightly regard the west midlands car industry as a strategic industry, and several hundred million pounds has been offered to major car companies to sustain employment. Fishing employs 25,000 people in Scotland and, I suspect, about the same number south of the border. It is a major strategic resource-based industry and it is entitled to look for roughly similar financial support in current circumstances.
  If the Minister was saying that he wants to see more detailed projections, fair enough. If he was dismissing out of hand an economic claim for such support, that was fundamentally wrong, given the economic sacrifice that will be made. Although he did not use the phrase, he meant that the Fontainebleau agreement had been an albatross round the neck of the fishing industry over the past 15 years. He was absolutely right, and he and I long argued with Tory Fishing Ministers about that very point. He was correct that, under the terms of the agreement, 71p of every £1 given in aid to the fishing industry would be funded by the UK Exchequer, but that still seems to me a net gain of 29p in each pound. That should therefore be pursued.
  The industry has been caught on the rough end of the Fontainebleau agreement and the rough end of the UK rebate. Given that billions of pounds have come back to the UK Treasury over the past 15 years as a result of the agreement, and given that fishing, by the Minister's own admission, has suffered under that agreement, is not the industry entitled to ask, "Shouldn't we get a fraction of that money, which has been acquired to our detriment?" That is why I should be delighted to be part of a cross-party delegation to the Treasury. I hope that we can make that very point and that we shall have the Minister's support in making it.
  The economics of the industry are fragile, but the Minister must act, and act quickly, on one area. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) said

  1147
  that one of his boats, deprived of the opportunity to fish for cod, will switch to prawns if it can afford to regear. That will not be the only cod boat that diverts to other fishery, whether for other white fish species or prawns. More boats in Scotland pursue prawn fishery than any other fishery. If major white fish boats divert to prawn fishery, the knock-on effect will destabilise it and will progress, species by species, as the diversion of effort causes chaos in the industry.
  The Minister must respond to that. There is no point in waiting to see if that happens, saying, "It might not, and fish prices might go up." It is going to happen. The Minister was told by one of his own Back Benchers that it is happening in his constituency, and I can tell the Minister that it will happen in mine. This is a classic example of when a compensated lay-up scheme should be employed as a short-term measure for the next few months. I have not suggested such a scheme as a long-term policy, but emergency lay-up must be used to restrict effort and to allow the cod recovery plan to take emergency effect. The Catalonian fleet is laid up at European expense and, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, at ours. This is precisely the time at which to employ such a device.
  I do not mind the Minister taking time to think about decommissioning, although I do support it. I remember the decommissioning money in the early 1980s disappearing up the Humber; I remember the disaster of that decommissioning scheme. I remember, too, that it so poisoned the view of the Tory Minister responsible that he blamed everyone apart from himself and refused to introduce a decommissioning scheme in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was sensible to do so. He must find a way to act now to stop the effects of boats diverting to other species. If he does not do so, all the sacrifice, or a greater part of it, made under the cod recovery programme could destabilise other scarce white fish and prawn fishery. He must respond to those concerns.
  I have heard it said—not by the Minister, but by other Ministers in another Parliament—that things are perhaps not too bad, in that although quotas are much lower this year, catch was lower than quota for many species. That overlooks a frightening point. The finances of the white fish boats and many white fish processors have been shot to pieces. Young lads in my constituency go to sea for £10,000 to £12,000 a year. The Minister noted the danger of a life at sea; such remuneration will not keep people in the industry.
  The processing sector has long paid low wages in many factories, and they are certainly not getting any better. Those of us with processing factories in our constituencies know that there is pressure on overtime, which many people needed as part of their substantive pay. It is no longer there. There is already pressure on low-paid workers. The industry's finances are in a severe condition. One cannot say that conditions will not get any worse than last year. They probably will, but last year crippled the industry's finances. That is why I say that an economic recovery plan must address those points. It must support and encourage the catching sector and the processing sector.
  There are many ways to calculate the overall support given to the British industry, compared with the industries in other European countries and in relation to the size of the fleet. The Minister says that the French Minister often moans to him about tax, but I asked the Library of the
  1148
  Scottish Parliament last week to relate the financial transfers into the fishing industry to the size of a country's national wealth. That is a realistic way to look at the matter, and the figures are overwhelmingly clear.
  On that basis, Ireland's support for its fishing industry is 10 times the UK support level. The support given by Portugal and Spain is six times the UK level. Support in Denmark is five times the UK level, and in Sweden and Finland it is twice the UK level. The support in France is only marginally above the UK level. Those competitive fleets and industries enjoy far greater support than ours.
  The Minister said that the industry could expect to receive money through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance budget, but that is a mere 1 per cent. of the budget for rural affairs in Scotland, never mind the total budget for public spending. I am sure that the situation south of the border is no better. It might even be worse.
  The fishing industry has not had its hand in the public purse or received substantial financial support. It is in deep trouble, and is entitled to financial support over the next few difficult months, and over the longer term.
  That brings me to the future of the common fisheries policy. I shall not join in Conservative attacks on the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but a Scottish Office paper released under the 30-year rule responded to a demand for a meeting by one of my predecessors, the former Member of Parliament for Aberdeenshire, East, Patrick Woolridge-Gordon, by stating that, in the wider UK context, fishermen must be regarded as "expendable".
  It is not a figment of fishermen's imagination that the industry has been traded away for other UK objectives. That has been a clear pattern over the past 10 or 15 years in European negotiations, such as those on enlargement of the EU and accelerated Spanish access to the west coast. The industry wants priorities to change.
  The CFP can be sustained only if there is equivalent funding with other competitive fleets, and if the Government give our industry as great a priority as the Danes and the Spanish give their industries. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I shall quote him another few lines from the same Burns poem that I mentioned earlier:
  Lord, send a rough-shod troop o'Hell
  O'er a'wad Scotland buy or sell,
  To grind them in the mire.
  I am sure that the Minister would not want to be ground in the mire by his refusal to offer support for an industry in its time of need.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Alan Campbell: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn). I make no apology for echoing some of the points that they raised.
  I want to speak briefly on behalf of the fishing community in my constituency, principally in North Shields and Cullercoats. North Shields is an important fishing port in terms of the region that it serves and forms a significant part of the employment base in my constituency. An estimated 450 jobs depend on fishing in

  1149
  North Shields. That number is small when compared with some of the figures quoted by other hon. Members, but the jobs are important to us none the less.
  It is stating the obvious to say that the announcement on closed areas in the North sea will prove very difficult for fishing communities, especially in the short term. Ironically, however, there will be a sense of relief in parts of North Shields. I understand that there was a proposal from some of our colleagues in Europe that areas adjacent to the north-east coast would be included in the list. I am delighted that the British delegation argued strongly against that, and that that will not now happen. That is the right decision—otherwise relatively small boats from North Shields would have been pushed further and further afield, making safety more of an issue. However, the measures proposed on closed areas will have a significant impact on fishermen the length and breadth of the east coast.
  I listened with great care to comments from the Opposition Benches. I am to some extent sympathetic to and certainly acknowledge the concerns of fishermen in their hostility to the common fisheries policy. The CFP appears to have very few close friends, which is why it is in need of such radical reform next year. However, we should not take lectures from the Conservative party, which signed up to it in the first place and were in office for most of the time it has been in operation.
  I understand that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) came to my constituency at the end of last year. I say "understand" because he did not do me the courtesy of telling me that he was coming. He must have warned the fishermen, though, because they immediately put out to sea. I understand from press reports that he gave the clear impression that any future Conservative Government would pull out of the common fisheries policy. As I understand it, he has effectively repeated that statement today.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of national interest and national control, yet he complained that the shortcomings of the common fisheries policy in the past were due to states fighting for their national interests on quotas. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) quoted, as an authority, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), a former fisheries Minister, and I am quite prepared to accept his words as quoted. However, the hon. Member for Banbury further said that people cannot argue for repatriating agriculture and fisheries policy without recognising that that would effectively mean withdrawal from the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policy and that that is achievable only by withdrawal from the European Union. That is evidence that while bandwagons look like tempting vehicles in opposition, they do not make very reliable ones in government.
  As a Government, we have a responsibility to the fishing community and the 450 jobs in North Shields. We also have a responsibility to the wider community, and withdrawal from the EU would put at risk 60,000 jobs in Tyne and Wear alone.
  Mr. Nicholls: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that if we were to come out of the European Community all those jobs would simply disappear?
  Mr. Campbell: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. In a month's time, Atmel will reopen the
  1150
  Siemens factory in my constituency, creating 1,000 jobs in the short term, and we hope that the figure will double over the next few months. Atmel came largely because we are a member of the European Union. My point is that we must do what we can for the fishing community but, at the same time, there must be a balance.
  The fishing industry will face problems when it comes to the closed areas. The fishermen who I talk to do not hesitate to use the word "crisis". As we have heard, in some areas, the fish are simply not there for the taking. In the North sea last year, only 80 per cent. of the cod quota was actually found. If the fish stocks are simply not there, this is not an academic argument about whether we have the right to take fish. In accepting the emergency measures, we have to make sure that when they have come to an end—successfully, we hope—we have a sustainable UK fishing industry. As the House of Lords Select Committee report pointed out, there is no certainty about the ability of the marine eco-system to put right decades of damage, or the speed with which it might do so.
  Like the fishermen of Scarborough and Whitby, North Shields fishermen have always had to adapt to difficult and dangerous circumstances. As one fishermen told me recently, "If we can't take cod, we take haddock." However, the extent of the quota cut and the closed areas will inevitably lead to competition for other species, thus adding to the pressure on prawn fisheries—as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) confirmed. We need short to medium-term help while stocks recover; in the longer term, we must address the imbalance between fleet and stock capacity.
  North Shields fishermen complain to me about increased compliance costs—I suspect that they have always done so. However, as the situation gets more difficult, it is harder for the boats to survive. For example, the cost of a Maritime and Coastguard Agency survey is about £70 an hour; for a fairly small boat that means an up-front cost of about £1,500. There is no longer an inspector at North Shields, so a journey has to be made to Glasgow or Hull.
  Light dues, which I understand were introduced by the Conservative Government, can be between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Some fishermen find it difficult to accept the dues; they argue that equipment already installed on their boats means that they do not need the lights. Nevertheless, they have to pay the dues.
  The relatively high costs of fuel have been mentioned. No doubt it is true—as we have been told—that it is illegal to subsidise fuel. As has been pointed out, however, the French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese appear to find ways around that.
  There are costs in complying with safety standards. I do not want to give the it impression that fishermen do not care about safety or that they want to cut corners—of course they do not—but the want to know that, if the costs of safety compliance are high, help may be available to enable them to cope. Such costs might be as much as £10,000 or £15,000 for a fairly small boat.
  There are also the costs of training grants, although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already reassured us on that matter.
  The costs I have given may appear to be quite small individually, but added together they mean that an awful lot of fish would have to be caught before a boat could make a profit. I realise that my hon. Friend has heard these concerns before, so I underline the point made by other

  1151
  hon. Members: perhaps the Treasury should be listening—as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) implied.
  As well as helping fishermen ride out the storm and remain in the industry, we need to take a longer view. That might mean considering help for fishermen who need to or want to leave the industry. There is an imbalance between fleet and stock capacity that could well be addressed by a properly funded decommissioning scheme. There is a case for compensating boat owners, but it is just as important that we consider compensation and alternative employment opportunities for the people who work on the boats. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the review of salmon drift-net fishing in the north-east, which recommended buying out the remaining 71 licences in order to conserve salmon stocks—funding for which appears to be available.
  I hope that the Treasury will realise that there is an urgent need for transitional aid, and that the structural funds of £60 million already pledged for the next few years will find their way to other regions as well as to the south-west. Fishermen are not subsidy junkies—nor am I—but, as times get harder, there is a strong case for help.
  If a factory in North Shields employing 450 people was in danger of going out of business, and if that was symptomatic of a problem in a countrywide industry, I should want measures to be implemented. I should want a taskforce both to save those jobs that could be saved and to help people who no longer had a future in that industry to make a transition. I strongly support the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) about the success of the oil and gas taskforce and what could happen if there were a similar structure for fisheries. It would also give us the opportunity of bringing in players such as the regional development agencies to address issues of regeneration and employment onshore as well as at sea. As an island nation, we have made alarmingly little investment in our coastal communities, and that includes fishing.
  The story is not all bad. We have some good things to say about the time that the Government have been in office. My hon. Friend the Minister has negotiated robustly for better than anticipated deals on quotas. We can point to the success of establishing the economic link between vessels and ports. We have targeted European funds at coastal areas affected by the decline in fishing and for the first time, the whole of my constituency qualifies. However, in the current difficulties experienced by our fishermen, it is time that we stepped up our efforts.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Given the prospect of an early general election, this may be my last opportunity to take part in a fisheries debate. At the risk of sounding somewhat immodest, I think that I can take some credit for having put the fisheries issue higher on the political agenda than it was at the beginning of the last Parliament. Hon. Members who follow these debates cannot pretend that they no longer know what the real issue is. The real issue is European integration.
  The full implementation of the common fisheries policy—in other words, equal access—is an essential component of European integration. The consequence for British fishermen is that many more of them have to be driven off the water. The industry is facing its biggest-ever
  1152
  crisis, but still Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members repeat the mantra of reform, which I have been at pains to explain in earlier contributions to fisheries debates is simply not available.
  There has been time enough for change, but in point of fact very little has changed. Fisheries debates follow a regular pattern. The Commission proposes drastic quota cuts; the Council of Ministers dilutes the cuts; fisheries Ministers return to their countries claiming victory, just as our Minister claimed victory this afternoon when he said that he had achieved a 40,000 tonne reduction in the quota cuts. Year in, year out, that is the well-trodden path.
  Let us be in no doubt where all this is leading. It is leading to the introduction of a permit system controlled from Brussels. The cardinal principle of the CFP is equal access to the common resource, and that principle will not change. It is enshrined in the treaties. Like other fundamental principles of the CFP, it will not be altered or amended by the report, often erroneously referred to as a review, due to be published shortly, but in any event not later than the end of the year.
  At the heart of this issue lies the question, "To be or not to be?" Are we in favour of equal access or against it; in favour of the CFP or opposed to it? If sufficient hon. Members so wished, they could say no by amending or repealing in part or in whole the Acts of Parliament that have translated Community law into national law. Whatever hon. Members may think of that proposition, there is no escaping the fact that they and they alone, together with Members of Parliament who have gone before them, are responsible for the present situation. By their votes in this place, they have brought the British fishing industry to its knees. It is no excuse to say that the treaties were signed under royal prerogative so Parliament could do nothing about them.
  What about the prerogative of Parliament itself? In fact, in the final analysis, the votes of parliamentarians caused the terms of the treaties to be put on to the British statute book. It is no use our railing against the outrageous dumping of more fish back into the sea dead than are landed, when it is the votes of right hon. and hon. Members, past and present, that have allowed that to happen. It is no use objecting to Spanish-flagged ships when the House has repeatedly voted to keep the CFP. It is no use criticising the Commission's latest proposals when hon. Members have, with few exceptions, voted to put the Commission in the driving seat and, indeed, to keep it there.
  Throughout such debates, regardless of who has stood at the Dispatch Box, truth has been at a premium. Lest anyone should doubt my word, let them read the revelations in The Sunday Telegraph on 14 January in an article by Christopher Booker, written following his access to the papers relating to Britain's negotiations to join the EEC that were released recently under the 30-year rule. What hon. Members have imposed on the British fishing in the past 25 years is death by a thousand cuts.
  Sadly, I can make little distinction between the parties. The honours—if that is what they are—are equally divided. The Minister is passionate about animal welfare, yet he presides over the most wanton and unnecessary holocaust that nature has ever experienced—the enforced dumping back dead into the sea of more fish, much of it perfectly saleable, than is landed. However, he is not alone in having on his conscience the guilt for endorsing a policy that, in its final form, will from 1 January 2003—this point was made

  1153
  eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—result in further cuts in the British fishing fleet and the creation of a single European fishing fleet, catching fish in European waters on European permits. That is not the accidental consequence of European policies; it is the deliberate intention of those policies. It is what the German Foreign Minister was talking about in London only yesterday—European integration.
  Hon. Members with fishing constituencies are bound to argue about the detail of the CFP, but if we concentrate on the minutiae, we shall lose sight of the fact that, in the final analysis, it is a collectivist policy that has failed comprehensively. It has failed the fishermen and the processors. Above and beyond all else, it has failed to conserve fish stocks, as confirmed by the recent House of Lords report.
  Hon. Members have a simple choice: either they believe that competence for this important industry should remain in Brussels; or they believe, as I do, that competence should be returned to the Westminster Parliament. That is the question, and it is high time that right hon. and hon. Members faced reality and told those in the fishing industry where they stand. I have no doubt that competence should be restored to the Westminster Parliament and that decisions on fisheries should be made by the fishermen's democratically elected representatives in the House. What we have now is not merely a democratic deficit, but a total denial of democracy. As the newly elected chairman of the Freedom Association, I find that totally unacceptable.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The difficulties facing the catching and processing sides of our fishing industry have multiple causes, but with appropriate co-operation we can alleviate the present crisis. The crisis has multiple causes, but there can be no doubt about the main cause—the depletion of certain fishing stocks. There are many reasons why fish stocks have been depleted, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the main one is the over-fishing of specific species and some of the marine life forms lower down the food chain. The appropriate comments have been made about factory fishing. Black fishing has contributed to the problem in the past, but we have now successfully reduced it significantly.
  There are other factors in the reduction of fishing stocks, including warmer waters—possibly as a result of global warming—the effect of predation and the common fisheries policy. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the policy is flawed. Indeed, I must agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on one issue—and one issue alone: it is an appalling waste to dump a scarce and precious resource back into the sea.
  The reduction of fishing stocks is not the only problem. Fish offal is also a concern, especially the price of fishmeal and its possible contamination with polychlorinated biphenyls. There are additional costs for waste water and regulations. It has been recognised that there should be no reduction in regulation as far as quality and safety are concerned. We have all learned the terrible lessons of BSE. However, there is a desire to minimise bureaucracy, and we should do everything that we can to satisfy that. There are also worries about exchange rates, fuel prices and other matters that are not exclusive to the fishing industry.
  1154
  The scale of the reduction in fishing stocks has to be recognised. The average tonnage per vessel decreased by approximately 28 per cent. in 1998–2000. It is estimated that for 1998–2001 there will be a reduction of more than 40 per cent. Catching has an immediate knock-on effect. It is reckoned that for every one job offshore, there are four jobs onshore. Reductions in fishing stocks will have a significant impact on the secondary fish processing industry and an even heavier impact on the primary processing industry. We need short-term measures to meet the crisis, but we also need a medium and long-term policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said.
  Some of the solutions need to be international. The Tory Front Bench's mixture of unilateralism and bilateralism is a little bizarre. At best, that would be a barren policy and, at worst—as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) so eloquently put it—it would be a policy for leaving the European Union altogether. Implicit in the intervention that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made on my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), and explicit in what the hon. Member for Ludlow said, was the idea that many Tory Members would like to leave the EU.
  I am pessimistic about an international solution for climate change. It will take a long time for the changes that were agreed at Kyoto to take effect. They are—in many ways—too little, too late. What is worse is that there is a deep pessimism that the attitude of the President of the United States, his new Administration and Congress could be a terrible block to international progress on climate change. We must hope that they will engage in dialogue with the rest of the world.
  I am much more positive about stock conservation. The cod recovery plan, which was agreed yesterday, is good. The decision to abandon the Banff and Buchan sausage and instead to fish in boxes in the eastern sector is a positive step. I also welcome the restriction of the spawning season. Those arrangements have partly been the product of the co-operative and positive attitude that has been taken by both sectors of the industry and the organisations that represent them, in co-operation with the Government and the Scottish Executive. That approach has had other positive effects.
  Scotland's adoption of the square mesh panel has been mentioned. It is estimated that it has led to 20 to 40 per cent. less catch of juvenile fish stocks. That has to be good and we must encourage that system of fishing to spread to other countries.
  Co-operation, dialogue and positive attitudes extend not just across industry, the Government and the Scottish Executive but, as has already been said, to nongovernmental organisations, such as the WWF, and to other groups such as local councils. I pay particular tribute to Aberdeen city council, which, with other councils, has done a lot that is positive for the industry. I know that the processing industry is grateful for the assistance that the city council gave it to help to resolve the waste water problems that the industry had with the local water authority.
  However, the basic point is that the amount of fishing will have to be reduced. I utterly agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that, if the amount of

  1155
  fishing is reduced, we should not concentrate on fish that are for human consumption. There must be a reduction in the amount of fish that goes into fishmeal and there is a strong argument for banning factory fishing in sensitive areas.
  There will be massive reductions in the tonnages of fish caught. That means that there must be decommissioning. That can be done either through a reduction in the number of boats that fish or through a reduction in the number of licences that are held. However, I recognise that decommissioning will have an effect in my area and that there will be a reduction in the 200-odd vessels that operate off the north-east of Scotland.
  The fish processing industry must also be restructured. I have already said that that is likely to affect the primary processors more than the secondary processors, although there will be an effect on both. Secondary processors can—and usually do—import materials that have also had primary processing work carried out on them. Although there will be reductions in both branches, we must retain sufficient capacity to allow for expansion if and when stocks improve.
  Assistance should be provided for decommissioning, structural change and, where necessary in certain areas, with retraining and job creation. However, we should concentrate on giving aid to those vessels that have modernised and the processors who have invested to add value and to comply with market quality.
  My hon. Friend the Minister asked whether the industry would want to be subsidised, and it gave a clear answer at a recent meeting. It said, "No, we don't want subsidy in the sense of continued subsidy, but we are looking for a one-off investment." It also used another powerful argument. It said that one of the arguments for subsidising farming—an industry that is heavily subsidised—was the need to preserve the countryside culture from which we all benefit. It argued that fishing is vital to maintaining our coastal culture, from which we all benefit and which is vital to the amenity, leisure and tourism facilities of this country.
  Although I argue for financial investment, I am reluctant to specify exact sums. I notice the problems that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) got himself into. However, I am reluctant to add to his embarrassment because I owe him a great debt of gratitude. He was responsible for forwarding to me my mobile phone bills for several months.
  The problem came about because my bills were happily being sent to Malcolm Savidge MP until the computer of the firm sending them decided that MP was my surname. It decided that the first letter of Savidge would be my middle initial, so it started to send bills to Malcolm S. Mp. When the bills were seen by the staff in the House of Commons Post Office, they decided that Malcolm S. Mp was more likely to be Malcolm Moss than Malcolm Savidge. The problem went on for several months, because it took a long time to persuade the staff and the computer to change their minds.
  As I said, I do not want to add to the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment, but when he referred to the sums, he was almost as embarrassed as he was when he referred to national zones and the possibility or impossibility of treaty negotiations. However, he was certainly not as embarrassed as he was when he was devastatingly criticised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley
  1156
  and Sidcup. None the less, the hon. Gentleman was embarrassed when he said that the fishing industry should receive £300 million and someone asked whether that was another Conservative party election promise to add to the £16 billion that it has already promised.
  Mr. Moss: For the second time, I rise to confirm that I did not say that we were committing £300 million to the fishing industry. Those are the figures communicated to me, and no doubt to the Minister, by the NFFO and the SFF as their estimation of what is needed to sustain them through the interim period. I made no comment on that, but the Minister certainly has not commented either.
  Mr. Savidge: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman did not say that he would commit himself to it. He could see it being added to the £16 billion gap in the Budget. Immediately a haunted look came over him, and I thought to myself, "He is haunted by the spectre of the shadow Chancellor." I would not wish to specify a sum, but I hope that the Treasury can look sympathetically on a one-off investment in the industry. I believe that by giving not just financial assistance, but all the other assistance that the Government are giving to the industry, we can continue fishing's vital role in our culture, our employment, our economy and a healthy life.
  To summarise my basic theme, I believe that through co-operation involving the industry and its representative bodies both internationally and nationally—with the Scottish Executive and their taskforce action group at the government level; with local councils; and with the other interested bodies—fishing can come through the present crisis and continue to make a vital contribution to our national life.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which has been excellent. I agree with those who say that, compared with the usual end-of-year total allowable catch rants that we all have in panic-stricken mode, trying to deal with details from Europe at the last minute, this is a much better way of dealing with the matter.
  The way in which the Minister introduced the debate was exemplary, and we are all grateful for that. It does not diminish the difficulties facing the industry, but the Government cannot be accused of running away from the arguments. It is right that we should acknowledge that.
  I also subscribe to the view that tribute is due to those who go down to the sea in ships and do business in big waters. I was disappointed, as I am sure the Minister was, by the number of fatalities this year. We all share that disappointment, and I am sure that the Government are doing all they can. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, the figures remind us all that the industry is a hazardous one.
  To make a Scottish point at the beginning of my speech, I think that the unique kind of industry that we have, based on share fishing and share fish boat ownership, embeds the industry in coastal communities in a way that is perhaps not matched in other parts of Europe. The future of coastal communities is deeply and closely related to the future success of the industry. Therefore, it is particularly important that we get it right.

  1157
  I think that the difficulty the industry is in now is as great as it has ever been, but there is some ground for optimism. I am worried because some of the banks are beginning to lose confidence in the industry's middle-term and longer-term prospects. We cannot ignore that.
  One of the principal and most optimistic lessons that we can learn from the past few weeks is that when the industry obtains access to the decision-making process at the highest level, it can make a positive difference. I hope that that lesson will be learned at all levels. I know that the Minister has been trying to promote that idea recently. It has been demonstrated over the past few weeks that the way in which the cod recovery plan has been amended for the better is almost directly attributable to the industry's participation at the decision-making tables of the Commission, which augurs well for the future. It gives the industry confidence if it feels that it will be able to continue to operate at that level and timeously; getting into the decision-making process at the right time is very important.
  In today's debate, the industry must be looked at in two different ways. We need to address the long-term approach and the short-term necessities. I agree with all those who said that conservation and sustainability must be the paramount concern in the long term. That involves measures such as the five-year cod recovery programme. I hope that the negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion in the coming weeks and months, and that the June Fisheries Council produces an agreement which everyone can support and use to move forward with confidence.
  On the unilateral decision by the Scottish industry to introduce square mesh panels, we have been arguing about those in debates such as this for at least 12 years. It is a great tribute to the Scottish industry that is has decided unilaterally to introduce such mesh. It is still early days, but I believe that the results will show the decision to have been a positive contribution to stock conservation.
  Despite the strictures from the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I believe that zonal management has a crucial role to play in future, and that the industry shares that view.
  Those are the key issues that we need to address. I shall make one or two brief points about the short term. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The cod conservation closure from 14 February through to the end of April is another tribute to the industry, whose leadership is taking a huge risk in trying to argue with the membership that that is the right way to go.
  The Government and the Treasury should provide backing through limited public finance. Of course, such things must be worked out carefully. One cannot wander into the Treasury with fag-packet calculations. The Minister was right to say that. The industry has some work to do, to calculate the finance that is needed in the short term, but if the cod closure is to be successful, it must keep the cod fishing capacity out of the other sectors of the North sea, otherwise, as was said earlier, there will be an inevitable and destructive impact on the nephrops fishery, which will be impossible to control in a sensible way.
  For the fishery around north Northumberland and the east Berwickshire coast, it would be disastrous if some of the big boats that had been prosecuting a cod fishery
  1158
  in the recent past turned to nephrops fishing in an uncontrolled way. That would be devastating for ports such as Eyemouth in my constituency.
  The Minister is right to gather further details of what is needed. Money is always short, although the Treasury is probably in a better position now than it has been in recent years when we have had fishery debates. That is a factor that must be taken into account. In the short term, some kind of compensation measures must be put in place to finance a successful cod closure from February to the end of April.
  Decommissioning is essential. If the figure of £100 million is decided on, that is a fair price to pay, especially considering the Fontainebleau rebate that we have had—since 1986 we have had to pay £2 billion a year less. That is a huge sum of public expenditure that we have not had to pay. When the fishermen see the balance sheet in the fisheries account over that period, they are right to seek such sums, with a view to achieving a balanced catch and a real biomass stock balance in future.
  Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: No, I do not have time.
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has plenty of time.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Not for the hon. Gentleman.
  I return to the nephrops problem that we have on the south-east coast, if I may so describe it. There is no danger of a 3 per cent. white fish catch in the prawn fishery prosecuted from ports such as Eyemouth. That may not be the case it in other parts of the North sea, where there may be a question about the by-catch, which obviously has to be taken into account. It is essential that the Minister does the necessary work to check the logbooks so that we can argue a case for removing the 10 per cent. restriction on the TAC.
  If that can be done, if money can be put into short-term compensation for the cod closure; if, in the longer term, we look at decommissioning; and if the industry is involved in all of those decisions until June and beyond, the Government will have gone some way towards making the best they can of what the industry faces at the moment. I do not think that there is any doubt that urgent measures need to be taken if the future of the industry is to be protected.
  5.40 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) has sat on my notes—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I shall try to compose myself.
  I had intended to concentrate on onshore fishing. Inevitably, in a fishing debate, the majority of the discussion has been about the catching side. I do not want to repeat many interesting points that other Members have made, to which, I am sure, the Minister will respond. Instead, I should like to pick up some of the comments made by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I tried to intervene twice in his speech but, despite my bright red jacket—a nice tartan that I am wearing specially for Burns night—I obviously did not catch his eye.

  1159
  Like several other hon. Members, I waited with bated breath to hear the Tories' solution to the fishing crisis. I listened carefully throughout the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. At first, I thought that the solution would be compensation for fisherman because they could not fish stocks that have been lost. However, as he developed his theme, and as he replied to hon. Members' questions, it was obvious that compensation was off the cards. After all, had compensation been a good idea, surely the Tories would have used it in the 18 years in which they were in power.
  I remember problems with herring fishing in the late 1970s, and I do not recall compensation ever being offered to fishermen then. Indeed, one complaint that we get in Aberdeen, particularly from processors, is that many skills in gutting and filleting herring were lost when those fisheries closed. Moreover, there was no help from the Government at the time. So compensation is not the Tories' solution. Eventually, the hon. Gentleman came out with it and said that they would return the waters around Great Britain to our national control—talk about locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
  The Tories had 18 years to find out whether that was the solution to the fishing industry problems, so surely they might have come up with it before. I was trying to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because I am still puzzled as to how returning the waters around Britain to national control solves the crisis of there not being enough fish. Do the fish who are presently in British waters say, "Alright, chaps, the British have control. We can now breed lots and grow very fast so that we will be there for the fishermen to catch"? Will fish spawning outwith British waters say, "Alright, chaps, let's go over the border into British territorial waters, where we will be under the British Government's control. We want to be there for all of the British fishermen to catch"?
  I know that I am being flippant but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why returning the seas around Britain to national control is a conservation measure, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is not the case, as our conservation and restocking needs are far more complex and must be dealt with through a more multi-faceted approach. No one simple answer exists; rather, a range of measures are needed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been listening and that he will provide help to the industry on that basis.
  It is by ensuring that the industry helps itself, along with help from the Government, that the current circumstances, which almost resemble the boom and bust of the fishing industry, will come to an end. We must end conditions in which there are plenty of stocks of a particular species in one year, but virtually none three years later. We must ensure a sustainable fishing stock to help the on-land processors, who are my main concern.
  My constituency probably contains most of the fish houses in Aberdeen. Some 1,500 people there have jobs that depend on the fishing industry. They work predominantly in onshore operations. Ironically, many of the fishermen who lived in my constituency and who have not yet retired now work on oil supply vessels. Although there are fewer fishermen in my constituency than there were previously, many highly skilled and dedicated fish processors remain. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out that such workers are
  1160
  often on low wages, but their pay is now being further squeezed because less piece work and overtime are available.
  Fish processing is a highly important industry in my constituency. I appreciate that neither my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, nor the fishermen, nor the fishing industry can magic the fish out of the sea and that a sustained and long-term strategy will be necessary to get them back. I am concerned, however, about the loss of skills and jobs in the short term. Some gutters in Aberdeen who will lose their jobs in the coming year because of fish shortages might go and do other jobs, but many of the women in such jobs are in their 50s and might decide that they are too old to find alternatives and take early retirement instead. Such people will be lost to the fishing industry. When the fish stocks have recovered, in three, four or five years' time, the skills of such workers will have been lost. That is my primary concern. I want to ensure that short-term help is available to ensure that people get through the difficult times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central spoke about the need not to talk down the industry. I agree with him on that point. Yes, a crisis exists and I do not want to play it down, but we must not talk only about the difficulties of the fishing industry. If we never talk about its potential, we run the danger of losing it for ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a valuable point in that respect. When a fishing boat owner goes to the bank for money to reinvest, the banker might say, "But there are no fish; why would I give you money that will go into a black hole?" Inevitably, such a cycle will become difficult to escape, which is why I am keen for us to consider the industry's future potential.
  Why do I have that optimism? Partly because the fishing industry does not resemble other industries. Some industries in this country, such as the coal industry, have ailed and almost disappeared. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) spoke in his maiden speech yesterday about the loss of the iron industry. The great Carron ironworks were situated in Falkirk, which was an iron town in 1971 but no longer has an iron industry. Such industries ailed because there was no market for their goods. They lost the markets that kept them viable.
  That does not apply to the fishing industry. People continue to eat fish; they want to eat fish. Perhaps we have not encouraged them to eat a variety of fish, and there may be a great deal more work to do. However, fish is a sustainable and renewable resource. If we can survive the short-term difficulty, the industry could again be vibrant and feed the people. People will always need to eat, and we must ensure that there are always fish for them.
  The fishing industry has a future because fish is perceived by many people as a healthy food. Oily fish in particular contains vitamins and essential nutrients. Many people who are worried about eating beef after the BSE crisis now eat fish. Some who describe themselves as vegetarians in the loosest sense eat fish as part of a balanced diet. People who object to some forms of animal husbandry, such as factory farming, know that fish are at least allowed to swim freely before they are ultimately caught and processed.
  No one has made the point that perhaps the industry should work with the Department of Health and the Health and Community Care Department of the Scottish

  1161
  Executive to promote different sorts of fish as part of a health campaign. Part of the cod industry's problem is that cod and chips is still most people's choice when they go into a fish and chip shop in England. In Scotland, the choice is haddock and chips, which we call a fish supper—the fish is always haddock unless we specifically ask for something different. Perhaps we need to educate the palates of the British people so that they accept, eat and enjoy a range of fish.
  I was interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) about the search for other deep-sea fishing grounds. He said that some were found off the coast of Africa, but fishermen would not go there because the fish were ugly. They were perfectly good fish, and a different way of presenting them had to be found.
  There is a job to be done, but we cannot do it if, in the short term, there are no fish for the processors in my constituency to process. Consequently, skills can be lost; retaining them is crucial. The processors realise that some restructuring is necessary and that they must consider the size of some fish houses and companies. They do not bury their heads in the sand, but appreciate that changes must take place. They are willing to work with the Government to ensure that restructuring happens. Again, they are looking for support to see them through that transitional stage.
  I am worried about one of the results of the drop in quotas that has been negotiated this year. Black fish had virtually disappeared from the north-east of Scotland. However, I have it on good authority that, three weeks after the new quotas were introduced, black fish were beginning to reappear. That is worrying. Lack of supply has led some people who would never have touched black fish because they did not approve of dealing in them to consider doing so. They have to make a hard decision between dealing in black fish and the survival of the company. That is an especially worrying aspect of the shortage of supply. I hope that it will not happen, because it would be detrimental to everyone and would do nothing for conservation of stocks, which is crucial for the survival of the fishing industry.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We have reached a crisis point, but there is a future. If we can get through it with Government help, and that of various other agencies working locally, there is a great future for British fish.
  5.55 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: I echo the gratitude that has been expressed for this full day's debate. Perhaps it was not planned that way, but, fortuitously, things have probably turned out the right way round for a change.
  In a moment, I shall focus on the key issue facing the Ministry, the Treasury and the fishing industry. First, I shall mention a few of the technical measures. When my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) talked about the square mesh, I noticed that the Minister reiterated from a sedentary position that that provision was definitely coming. However, that was also said in European Standing Committee A. when we debated the fishing industry. I wonder whether anything has changed to bring its implementation any closer.
  1162
  Obviously, it would send the right signals if we could apply the same conservation measures throughout United Kingdom waters. That would strengthen the Minister's armour when he was trying to persuade colleagues in other countries that such a measure was an appropriate way forward. I welcome the fact that the industry has taken such an initiative and recognised that these technical and practical measures are important to conserving fish stocks and bringing benefits to the industry.
  My next point has hot been discussed in the debate so far. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the history of the problems, and about what happened 30 years ago in setting up the common fisheries policy. I detect from some of the briefings to the all-party group that what happens in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation will have more bearing on some of our fishing grounds and the conservation of stocks when the boundaries of the international 200-mile limit change, and Rockall will no longer be part of the UK mainland. Does the Minister have a view on how that organisation is developing, how it views conservation and what its potential is for achieving conservation through its negotiations?
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) rightly mentioned processing, given the importance that it has for her constituency. There are also processing interests in my constituency, and they are affected by whatever happens in the fishing industry. We have also had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall, when the industry was focused on for the first time.
  My constituency interest is not confined to the fact that fishing is carried out from small ports there. The nature of the economy and the community in north-eastern Scotland is that we all sink or swim together. Fishing forms a major part of the economy in the north-east of Scotland, as well as of the Scottish economy as a whole. What happens to fishing is, therefore, extremely important to us.
  Fishing does not, perhaps, hit the radar so much across the broad scope of events in England, but the Government must recognise that it is an important industry in many coastal communities. Michael Park, of Scottish White Fish Producers, said that we have already had the highland clearances, and if the Government do not grasp how serious the problem is, there could now be a danger of coastal clearances. In communities where 50 per cent. of the people are dependent on fishing, if that 50 per cent. lose their livelihood, there will not be much left to keep the rest of the community alive. We need a strategy from the Government on the survival of those coastal communities in this new era of fish conservation.
  There have been three prongs to what has happened so far. The quotas have been set, and are now part of the process. Recognising the declining stocks, the quotas clearly had to come down, as one could not share out more than was available to be caught. We have now taken the step of introducing emergency measures, and the industry is working with scientific experts and with officials to try to produce a scheme that achieves the goal of emergency conservation.
  The Minister has recognised the role that the industry has played in those arrangements, which may be a precursor showing what zonal management could be about. As I think he realizes, however, further action will require more serious political negotiation between nations,

  1163
  and the issues are not simple. We therefore need to continue trying to reform the common fisheries policy and to formulate a common agenda. Unfortunately—as a general election is looming, and because of the issues at stake—I do not think that such an agenda will emerge from today's debate. Nevertheless, if the United Kingdom cannot agree on what is in the best interests of our industry, it will be difficult to convince and negotiate with colleagues in other parts of the European Union on the best way forward.
  A key point emerging from today's debate—Hansard has to go to the Treasury; the Minister could take it there himself to make the point—is that hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who made the same point, believe that greater Government investment is the foundation of restructuring the industry and creating a sustainable fishery. We have to match catching power to the fish available. We have to understand that, without that balance, there will not be a sustainable future for United Kingdom fishing.
  The financial issue highlights the great dangers of unilateral action in Europe and special opt-outs. The legacy of Fontainebleau for our fishing and farming communities has been to deny them an awful lot of the support that has been available to their competition. We are in a free and open market, but for those industries, we have tied our hands behind our back with the Fontainebleau agreement.
  In the good years, the Treasury has pocketed the Fontainebleau rebates. However, just as some motorists agree to pay a lower premium in return for accepting a greater liability should there be an accident, the Government and the Treasury will have to accept the consequences of the Fontainebleau agreement rebates which they inherited from the previous Government.
  The crucial point made at the all party fisheries group meeting on Tuesday was that Treasury funding should be regarded as a one-off capital investment to protect our nation's natural resources and to make it possible for our communities to reap a long-term return.
  Another point that was very strongly made at the meeting was that to fish, one needs a licence, a boat and a quota. Although there are concerns that previous decommissioning schemes never resulted in effective decommissioning, that situation has changed. If licences are removed, there will be fewer people putting their efforts into catching fish. The Government now have that mechanism to pursue an effective and targeted decommissioning policy, so as to get the balance right.
  As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in the immediate short term, to avoid the diversion of effort to other stock, we need immediate implementation of a lay-up scheme such as the set-aside schemes that operate in agriculture when there is overproduction. We need that type of scheme in the fishing industry to strike the right balance and to ensure that the measures which have been so effectively negotiated really deliver. Agreement to such a scheme would be a very productive outcome of a meeting with the Treasury.
  The all-party group is seeking a meeting with the Treasury. Older hands say that the Treasury will never meet us and say that we have to go through the Minister. However, as the Minister said, he does not have the
  1164
  money. The Treasury decides where the money comes from. Everyone says that one cannot treat the Treasury as a bottomless pit. However, the Treasury has to listen to a case involving an industry that is in crisis and transition.
  What is the alternative to decommissioning? Some Ministers might say that the market will sort out the industry: fishermen will go out of business, sell up and disappear. However, their licences will still exist and have a residual value. If boat operators facing serious financial problems—or even bankruptcy, in the most draconian side of the market—sell their boats, what happens? The boat and the licence go on the market, where they are bought by someone willing to pay a price at which they think that they can make a living. So the boat will still be out there with its catching power, licence and quota, still chasing fish. It is an ever-decreasing circle. As the numbers stop adding up for the new boat owners, they will go bust and put their boats and licences on the market at a lower price.
  Without decommissioning and the withdrawal of licences to reduce catching power, a balance will not be struck or sustainability achieved. Cod stocks may not recover. Nevertheless, we have to ensure that catching power is appropriate to the recovery measures.
  In my earlier intervention on the Minister, I made the point—he may have missed it—that the investment should be made by the current generation who got it wrong in managing their fisheries, so that future generations have a fishery on their doorstep. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South spoke of a sustainable fishery that constituted, in environmental terms, an extremely sensible way of providing protein and other valuable nutrients for our families. It is important to sustain an industry in this country rather than importing fish. After all, if there is a demand for fish and we have taken all our own fish, we must import them.
  All Aberdeen Members today said that we should not talk down the industry. If the Treasury gets it right—if the money is there to be invested, and to balance catching power with a sustainable level of fishing stock—we shall have a chance of creating an economically viable, self-sufficient industry with a long-term future. The industry has not relied on subsidy in the past, and we do not want it to ask for subsidy in the future. We want it to sustain generations to come, both in terms of fishing activity and as steward of natural resources in the seas for which we shall continue to have responsibility.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I feel doubly fortunate in being able to speak in the debate. For one thing, I was absent—in a Committee—for most of it, and I apologise for that. My other piece of good fortune results from the fact that Conservatives have taken so little interest in the debate that there is time for others to speak, even this late in the day.
  Mr. Steen: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman means by that. The Conservatives have used every slot that they were given; I am the last to speak. That is because the Scots occupied most of the debate, allowing no room for the Conservatives. That is why they are not here.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that it is inappropriate to criticise Members who are not present.
  Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the Scots, which includes everyone from Scotland. They cannot all be here.
  Mr. Foster: I agree. I merely thought it important for my constituents to know how great an interest the Conservatives took in the debate. Certainly, when I popped in now and again there were virtually no Conservatives present. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman at least is here to hold the fort on behalf of his once great party.
  I wish to speak briefly on behalf of the small boat fishing communities. I am thinking especially, of course, of Hastings and Rye, which has an inshore fishing fleet of about 70 small boats measuring less than 10 m—but about 1,000 jobs depend on that fleet, which works against all the odds. The Hastings fleet is still the largest beach-launched fleet in Europe. It is a tough job pulling those boats into the sea, but for centuries people have done it because they want to, and because it is their tradition. As for Rye, it has a tidal harbour providing a small window of opportunity, allowing the fleet to go out and come back once a day. Life is not easy for those inshore fishermen, but they do what they do because it is their tradition and, above all, their living.
  There has been comment about my hon. Friend the Minister, but I pay tribute to him. He has devoted enormous attention to what is perhaps just a small corner of Britain. Certainly, Hastings and Rye has benefited from his intervention on a number of occasions. As was said at the outset, he has made efforts to ensure that above-size boats do not steal my constituents' quota. In Rye, his recent announcement of support for a £1.6 million fishing quay has further demonstrated that he and the Government are keen to act for the benefit of an industry which, although not significant in general terms, is significant to us despite constituting a minority within a minority in terms of numbers. On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the Government's support, which contrasts so markedly with the Conservative wailings which, over many years, achieved nothing at all.
  It is important however to distinguish between the concerns of small inshore fleets such as that of Hastings and Rye and those of the rest of the industry. There are common concerns of course, which have been mentioned at length, but small inshore fishermen are a special case. As a minority within a minority, they have need of friends. Owing to the nature of their small under-10m craft, they are non-nomadic, which means that they have to catch their fish within 20 miles of port.
  Hastings fish market, which is perhaps a good barometer of events over the past few years, says that in 1999 its fishermen unfortunately had the lowest catch on record. Last year was even worse. Increased fuel costs have caused the fishermen problems, but that has nothing to do with the Government—although those from another party have suggested otherwise, quite wrongly. The fuel cost problems, added to the collapse in landings, mean that the fishermen have real difficulties that need to be addressed.
  A former Member for Hastings and Rye said that the constituency had only 1,000 fishermen, but there are now even fewer. However, the importance of fishermen to the
  1166
  Cinque port towns of Hastings and Rye cannot be measured by the number of people directly engaged in the industry. If it were not for the fishing village in the old town of Hastings, the net shops would fall into disrepair. I invite hon. Members to visit Hastings; it is wonderful to see the net shops in the old town, which has so delighted visitors over many years. I hope that it will do so for many years to come.
  The fishing industry is the reason why the tourist industry is so vibrant. Likewise in Rye: if not for fishing, why would the harbour stay open? Furthermore, if it were not for fishing, pleasure craft would not be able to take advantage of the harbour. In both towns, the fishing industry and the fishing fleets are central to the prosperity of the tourist trade and their survival is important beyond the industry itself. Fishing is an integral part of the fragile economy of Hastings and Rye. The Government have done a great deal to regenerate areas such as Hastings and Rye, so it is all the more important that we do not lose such an important industry.
  Let me make it clear that the fishermen of Hastings and Rye are true conservationists. The have fished the channel since time immemorial and know what they can take and what they should leave. The greed of the industrial sector has effectively stolen my constituents' birthrights. Be that as it may, they accept the need for total allowable catch and quota reductions, as long as they are fair and effective and as long as provision is made for their survival in the medium term. They are supported in that by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
  This country's fishing industry has never looked for subsidy, and much has already been said about that. However, I believe that it is looking for investment, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) said. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister could impress on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the fact that if just a little more cash could be made available, and if that investment were capital investment, the golden rule would not be broken. Making money available would represent investing in the true capital of our nation, because that is what the fishing industry is.
  Perhaps the time has come for a manifesto for the inshore sector, as represented by my constituents in Hastings and Rye and fishermen elsewhere in the community. In recent weeks, I have been particularly encouraged by the decision of Paul Joy and his colleagues in the Hastings and Rye Fishermen's Protection Society to join other inshore interests, from Denmark and elsewhere in the Community, to seek common cause with similarly affected groups.
  In December, a meeting was held in Denmark—it is nice to think that the fishing industry is prepared to look Europewide for solutions—and a 17-point plan drawn up. Although I do not have tune to go through those points in detail, three specific demands were made: for larger mesh sizes, which have been discussed; for a significant reduction in industrial fishing; and for small boats to be included in any decommissioning scheme that may be introduced. With regard to mesh sizes, local fishermen tell me that they already use 100 mm nets rather than the permitted 90 mm. Despite their plight, they acknowledge

  1167
  the importance of that size, and there is a need for action in the CFP to incorporate that most important aid to conservation.
  Secondly, the hoovering activities of the industrial sector in the central North sea are ambushing the cod that would otherwise reach the channel, including the juvenile fish that would be tomorrow's catch. These powerful industrial fishing interests must be curbed.
  Thirdly, if decommissioning does have a part to play in effort reduction, the small boat sector should be included. Hundreds of licences are sold on, often to new entrants to the market or to entrants who in the past may have been decommissioned from another sector. The past failure to include small boats in decommissioning has caused an increase in the number and efficiency of the boats chasing ever-decreasing stock. Many of the licences are held by hobby fishermen. When the licences are sold on, the effect of not removing them from the market is to increase the number of professionals who, with their more powerful machines, often take more than is allowed.
  I also want to make special pleadings for the fishing communities in Hastings and Rye. My understanding is that area 7(d), which covers the eastern channel, is allocated a quota for the whole Calendar year. That works to the disadvantage of the fishermen in my constituency. Locally, cod may normally be caught only in January, and then again in November and December. After January, the cod move down channel. Because of the way the quotas work, my constituents fear that their quota could well be exhausted before they are able to attempt further catches in November and December. They want the quota in area 7(d) to be split up by a monthly ration, so that there will be something left to be caught at the end of the year; that might not be possible with reduced quotas.
  My constituents understand the need for a Europewide solution to their concerns. I find it regrettable that Conservative Members should utter misconceptions that might mislead people in my constituency. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) visited my constituency last week. As a result, my fishermen believe that Conservative policy would be to withdraw from the CFP or to carry out fundamental renegotiation. I see that the hon. Gentleman nods, so clearly that understanding is justified.
  Whom would those negotiations be with, however? Of course there is a need to renegotiate within reasonable parameters, but talk of "fundamental" renegotiation—given that not a single other Conservative party in Europe is prepared to embark on that—in fact means withdrawal from the EU. That much was admitted by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the former Conservative fisheries Minister, some time ago. As representatives of the NFFO have recognised, cod spawning grounds, for example, are located off Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. How would unilateral action by the UK help in terms of affecting the cod supply chain?
  Many of my constituents would agree with the Opposition that they would like to leave the EU. Given the pressure on their livelihoods, at least in the short term, I can understand how that might seem a profitable suggestion. However, it would not be good for the nation or the fishing industry. I therefore hope that special account will be taken of the particular needs of the inshore fishing fleet in the negotiations that will soon follow.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Unlike the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), I have been present for most of the debate, although I missed the beginning. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a very interesting speech.
  I am sure that the Minister would agree that this has been an interesting day. I am only sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, but the grossly inconvenient rearrangement of the House's business on a Thursday means that one cannot both have lunch and hear the opening speeches in a debate at the same time. Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of our august party, was speaking at a Press Gallery lunch today. I felt that that was where my priority lay. That meant that I have missed my slot until now, at 6.20 pm. I hope that the House will forgive me for not being here at the outset.
  This has been a high-quality debate. Some regret was expressed that more Conservative Members were not in the House. However, the only point of putting in for a debate is if one is likely to be called. One can sit here, day after day, and never get called.
  One problem is that of 529 Members of the English Parliament, 10 have spoken, but six of the 72 Members representing Scottish seats have spoken. It is constantly true in this House that when Scottish Members speak—many of them put in for a debate and three Members representing Aberdeen constituencies were called—English Members do not stand a good chance of being called to speak. That is why the Benches behind me are not full this evening.
  Sir Robert Smith rose—
  Mr. Steen: I would have given way to the hon. Gentleman, but bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) refused to give way to me a few minutes earlier, even though he had nine minutes left, I am sure that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) will understand why, on this occasion, I will not give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman of course knows that it is always for the discretion of the hon. Member who is on his feet whether to give way.
  Mr. Steen: That is why I am not giving way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Sir Robert Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful to clarify that who is called in debates is a matter for the Chair and not for individual Members. If Members wish to speak in a debate, they should put in, take their chance and see if they are called. If more Scots Members put in to speak because English Members are at a lunch for their party leader, such a decision surely ties the Chair's hands.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is for the discretion of the Chair as to who is called. The Chair will always try and ensure that there is a fair representation. It is also, of course, the responsibility of Members to set their order of priorities when it comes to attending their engagements outside the Chamber or being present in the Chamber.
  Mr. Steen: That is why I have been here for the past four hours, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why the hon.

  1169
  Member for Hastings and Rye saw his priority as being in Committee. I am sure that you will agree, however, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is not right for the Chair to decide what priorities Members have. We have many priorities, such as Select Committees and Standing Committees.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now time for the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Steen: I am glad that you have reminded me that the House is waiting to hear what I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Every December for as long as I have been in the House, we have a debate on fish. Last December we did not, because the Government decided on a late Queen's Speech. I am sure that it was not organised in that way to avoid the fish debate in December. However, for years we have had a debate on fish before the Minister goes to Brussels. It centres on how much quota British fishermen should receive. The Minister waves goodbye, with a Union Jack, and fights for the highest quota for fish. Amazingly, every Minister I can remember comes back saying that he has done a wonderful job. The current Minister, who I think does a very good job, came back, like all former fisheries Ministers, saying that he had done a good job. He has carried on the tradition that the House expects from fisheries Ministers.
  It is worth remembering that Britain has contributed 80 per cent. of fish resources and is allowed to catch only 13 per cent. of that amount. The waters around Devon and Cornwall support more than 2,000 fishermen, working on 875 boats of all sizes, catching £75 million worth of fish. Their activity, in turn, supports 8,000 ancillary jobs. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 12 per cent. fall in the amount of fish caught in Devon and Cornwall. Over the same period, the number of fishermen has dropped by 17 per cent. Enforcing regulations on the industry costs more than £45 million a year to British taxpayers.
  I am sure that the House would like to be reminded that my constituency has the second largest fishing port in England and Wales—Brixham; that one of the most fruitful fishing grounds for crab and lobster lies off the south Devon coast; and that many people in my constituency are employed in the fishing industry.
  Every year, we debate how much fish and which particular species we should be allowed to catch. Although 17,500 British fishermen—mostly in northern Scotland—catch most of the British cod quota, they manage to catch only 60 per cent. of the 81,000 tonnes allocated. I focus on cod as a benchmark of the damage caused to our country's fish stocks since we joined the CFP; it illustrates that the raw material is no longer available.
  We are on the brink of an ecological disaster. The development of new technology for catching and storing fish—coupled with the use of huge diesel trawlers, powered with winches and wide nets—has contributed to the problem. Iceland realised that there was not only an ecological problem but an economic issue; that led to three cod wars—in 1958, 1973 and 1975. Iceland has unilaterally extended its territorial waters to protect its cod stocks.
  1170
  We have sophisticated sonar and satellite technology to pinpoint fish; high-tech, floating freezer factories scour our seabeds, hoovering up fish for processing. Cod symbolises what is happening in our seas. It is no longer simply a question of quotas when our Minister goes to Brussels—the fish are no longer in the seas to be caught. The question is how to sustain a fishing fleet, providing a living for British fishermen while also providing a living for the Spanish, the Belgians and the Dutch. That is what the debate is about. How do we look after English fishermen and how do we look after the Spanish, the Belgians and the Dutch? I hope that I am allowed to mention the Spanish, Belgians and Dutch even though they are not in the House.
  It is only too evident that there are not enough fish to go round for our fishermen and for those of other European countries. We can argue that the scientists are right. Climate change, the environment, north Atlantic oscillation, the shift of the gulf stream, pollution, predation by seals and a host of factors have contributed to our vastly dwindling fish stocks. Industrial fishing of sand eels and species at the bottom of the food chain removes food for higher species, such as cod and haddock.
  Alternatively, we can consider the unacceptable practice of other Enropean fishermen—especially the Spanish, who insist on flooding the market with baby fish. Each netful of baby fish caught before maturity is enough to destroy a full month's quota for a Brixham crew.
  Joining the CFP appears to have made matters worse for British fishermen, with laws declaring that the waters of member states—including British territorial waters—are regarded as common resources to be fished by all. Our waters contain 80 per cent. of western Europe's fish stock. In the 1980s, the European Union parcelled out new common resources by allocating quotas to each country, setting out how much of each species the fishermen of each member state were allowed to catch. Over-fishing has gone on for more than 20 years, aided by the development of increasingly sophisticated equipment.
  The issue is embodied in the cod crisis. In 1992, the Canadian Government implemented a ban on cod fishing in Newfoundland, throwing 40,000 people out of work. Eight years later, cod stocks have still not returned to 1980s levels; hopes have fallen that they ever will. Cod has been superseded in the oceanic league tables by species such as skate and dogfish.
  One way forward would be for the waters around the British coast to be repatriated so that Spanish, French and Dutch trawlermen are excluded and we could manage our own waters for our own fishermen. Another way would be to consider a moratorium similar to that in Canada—to replenish stocks by establishing the equivalent of a national park on the seabed. However, like the Canadians, we may find that it is too late to recover our stocks. Under the CFP we appear to have witnessed the slow death of the British fishing industry. We need now a radical and visionary approach to resuscitate the fishing industry and restore the ecological balance of the waters around our coast.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Moss: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the debate.

  1171
  It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) who, when he got down to the substance of his speech, made a telling contribution that I found interesting. He had some powerful arguments to make.
  Most hon. Members have agreed that this has been a useful debate. The case was made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that holding the annual debate at this time of the year made much more sense than holding it in the run-up to the total allowable catch and quota negotiations, simply because at this time we are less frantic about arguing for our fair share and our quotas. We have had a more balanced debate tonight, and certainly one that was more far-reaching and important, given events elsewhere, than a simple debate about TACs and quotas.
  There has been some disagreement about whether the industry is in crisis, terminal crisis or not in any crisis. Certainly, fishermen throughout the United Kingdom say that the industry is in the most difficult financial position that they can remember. That point was referred to by many hon. Members.
  Most of the debate was about diminishing resources and fish stocks and, of course, the real socioeconomic problems faced by the fishing industry and its associated industries. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) spoke at some length about the fish processing industry in her city on which the measures that we have discussed will have an impact.
  Given these most challenging times to the fishing industry, fishermen throughout the United Kingdom will be at first mildly astonished but later angry that, in this the major fisheries debate of the year, we have heard nothing from the Government about how the industry is to be sustained during the implementation of the conservation programme. Speech after speech made reference to the need for support during that period, and it behoves the Minister to respond positively.
  It was interesting that the Liberal Democrats came out with a nice argument. It is the first time that I have heard it because the Fontainebleau arrangement is criticised by most other parties. The rebate that we have enjoyed for many years is now stored up in the Treasury coffers ready to be spent on sustaining and helping out the industry. It is a reasonable point to make. At any one time, rebate moneys will be available for the Treasury to dispose of as it sees fit.
  Unfortunately, we have not heard much about the real causes of this sorry state of affairs. In the words of the House of Lords Select Committee, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the CFP, which has failed over 17 years to match effort to resource. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said, the problem is not just over-fishing, although that has of course been a contributory factor. A policy of single species quotas has automatically led to discards of perfectly marketable fish. That has happened for the 17 years that the CFP has been in place.
  There is no agreement on technical gear and mesh net sizes. We pay tribute to the introduction of square mesh by the Scottish fishermen. It is a courageous leap, but elsewhere such measures are not being adopted, and the CFP has failed to bring in sensible conservation measures of that type during the 17 years that it has been in place. While we are on the matter of under-sized fish, I pay
  1172
  tribute to the Minister because I know that he was appalled at last year's negotiations when the minimum landing sizes for a range of species were abandoned or reduced. That cannot be right if we wish to sustain the fishing resource.
  The Commission's Green Paper on the future of the CFP is due very soon, but it is vital that the debate on the CFP's future begins sooner rather than later. However, we have heard nothing about the Government's views on that review. Are they wedded to the equal access principle? Are they determined to maintain the derogated six to 12-mile limits? Are they concerned about the impetus to equal access shown by the European Parliament vote earlier this week? Does the Minister not have a view on any of those matters? I hope that he will answer some of those questions in his response.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that we have an obligation to fishermen to spell out the real position. No one is saying that we shall pull out of the EU. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) suggested that that was our policy, but it is not, and those who say that it is are repeating a fallacy. However, it is important to suggest the probable outcome of the CFP review—it will involve lower quotas for United Kingdom fishermen and a diminished industry.
  Zonal management has been discussed at length. We do not reject zonal management out of hand—[Interruption.] The NFFO and the SFF are to be commended for trying to find a more sensible way to manage resources within the CFP. They want to empower the zonal committees so that they can take the decisions on conservation measures that they think necessary and have been avoided in the CFP hitherto. However, if the concept is to be more than just a talking shop, treaty changes will be necessary, as the officials stated in their advice to the Minister.
  Neither the Government nor the Liberal Democrats have said unequivocally that they will press for such treaty changes to give real meaning to their policy of devolving effective power to zones or regions. If treaty changes are not forthcoming, there is every chance that equal access will finally make the finishing tape, with the inevitable consequence of a reduction in United Kingdom fishing quota.
  There was strong consensus in the debate on the banning of factory fishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Industrial fishing."] I mean industrial fishing by factory ships, which many of our inshore fishermen think is obscene. I recently returned from Cornwall, where local fishermen are banned from fishing in the mackerel box. However, Danish industrial ships are ploughing up and down and they must be catching huge numbers of mackerel as a by-catch, but no one does anything about it.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South spoke about a long-term sustainable resource for the United Kingdom, and we entirely agree with that. Drastic conservation measures are needed now precisely because the CFP has failed to introduce measures to prevent fish stocks from being depleted in the past. The House of Lords Select Committee report used the words, "Totally failed." They are its words, not mine. To answer the hon. Lady's question about conservation, the whole point of national control is to be responsible for proposing conservation measures, such as those that have been unilaterally

  1173
  introduced in Scotland. Those measures should be in place throughout the North sea because of the reasons that they have been introduced there. Those involved in the CFP cannot agree about that, although it has been discussed for 18 years.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moss: No, I want to finish the point, and I did not give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South when she tried to intervene in my opening speech. After 17 years, something a little more drastic needs to happen if we want to introduce the much needed conservation measures that will yield the sustainable resource that the hon. Lady mentions. Under those measures, we would determine the conservation measures, the technical measures, the mesh size and the fishing effort. The people fishing in those waters would have to abide by those regulations. That is simple.
  On our fleets fishing in other waters, our reciprocal arrangements with Norway work perfectly well, and there is no reason why they should not do so in future.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moss: I am finishing now.
  The Minister has been asked many questions about the support and subsidy given to the industry. He is indeed a good listener, but as many hon. Members have said, it is time for some answers.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I agree that we have had a good debate. I am pleased by the number of hon. Members who have participated. I understand why some of them like the format so much that they want to make it permanent. First, I was cross-examined for an hour by extremely well-informed Members; then we had a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Committee; and we have now had a seven-hour debate on the Floor of the House.
  There have been many contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), from my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)—an impressive full hand from Aberdeen—and from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) that I have received a letter from the Fleetwood Fish Forum and will follow up the sensible points that it raises. We also heard from the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who made a most detailed speech. He has obviously been spending a great deal of time with the fishermen in North Shields. From what he said, I suspect I know who they are.
  1174
  If the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was indeed making his last contribution to a fisheries debate, I have to tell him that I shall miss hearing what he has to say. I do not always agree with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Always?"] Well, I never agree with him, but he has been a consistent attender who has put and argued his case. I acknowledge that and respect his view.
  Contributions were also made by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) referred to fishermen in his constituency who have expressed an interest in monthly catch limits as a way to manage quota There are problems with managing quota on the south coast. At the moment, it is managed by the Ministry as part of the non-sector and sometimes we close down the fisheries to hold quota back for the winter and summer fisheries. I shall be only too happy to consider any representation that those fishermen may want to make on monthly catch limits. I will have to consult other fishermen, but I am always willing to consider management ideas that come from the industry. My hon. Friend is welcome to make a submission.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is an old hand at fisheries debates: he has participated in many of them and represents a substantial fishing port.
  It was interesting to hear the Conservatives' view. I think that I detected a slight hint of a U-turn towards the end of the debate Perhaps their policy on fisheries is going the same way as their policy on cannabis and on the tax cut guarantee which has quietly disappeared.
  We need to address the way in which we manage the industry and consider the future of the common fisheries policy in 2002. The fishing industry is dynamic. It never stands still; it is always changing and adapting. Huge innovation takes place within the industry, but that makes it more difficult to manage. For example, within the past 10 years, the size of the fleet has decreased, but catches have increased. The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned Brixham and the south-west ports, which are landing more now than they were before the common fisheries policy was introduced. That is all part of the problem of pressure on stocks, and issues of management are involved.
  I listened carefully to what hon. Members said about Council negotiations Ministers attend those meetings and argue for the best case for their fishing industries, which is understandable. If a Minister gets extra quota, it is also understandable that he will want to return to his country and mention it. He certainly will not want to come back and admit to having less quota than when the negotiations began.
  However, the days of making gestures are over. It is not acceptable to try to force the Commission to change its policy because people think it has asked for unreasonable cuts. The last Council meeting was the toughest of the four that I have attended since I became the Minister with responsibility for fisheries. It was clear that the Commission was not keen on conceding anything and, in some cases, it was right to take that approach. I made it clear to the fishing industry in our pre-Council meetings that I was not going to argue for paper fish—fish that do not exist. I would not do that last year for cod, and I was criticised. However, I will not argue for paper fish or for quotas that are unsustainable.

  1175
  There has been a welcome change in the Council, which means that we will not achieve dramatic changes to its recommendations because they are increasingly based on scientific advice. The Commission is increasingly reluctant to depart from such advice and, by and large, Ministers in the Council—there is always the odd exception—are increasingly prepared to accept scientific advice and take a realistic view. That is right and proper. The House of Lords published a good report, but it did not acknowledge the change that has taken place in recent years which makes it more difficult to achieve changes at the Council because it is more realistic.
  The argument about national control is partly one of definition. In my definition, we already have national control over enforcement measures that we can introduce in our own fleet; over the way in which we apply licensing restrictions; and over licensing aggregation to stop technical creep within the fishing fleet. We have enormous autonomy under the CFP at present. I support that, and I also support the regional approach to fisheries management. There is nothing contradictory in my position.
  I recognise that achieving radical change—to the concept of national control spelt out by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—would require a treaty change. The report from MAFF officials to which the hon. Gentleman referred was an analysis of the original concept of zonal management as produced by Hull university. That report did not relate to the proposal that came out of the NFFO and the SFF, which was different from the original recommendations made by Hull university. It was very different and much more realistic about what can be achieved.
  In theory, one can change a treaty Indeed, I have been involved, as a Minister, in getting a treaty changed. We were able to change the treaty of Rome, because the issue was relatively non-controversial. It changed the definition of farm animals from "animal products" to "sentient beings". That was a small and not particularly controversial change, but even that took a bit of arguing. However, that is very different from arguing for a change that would in effect lead to the repatriation of fishing limits and to the breaking up of the CFP, in the case of which one would have to obtain unanimous agreement.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that agreement could be reached by the mere fact of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) saying that we would get a change. I am sorry to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but other member states are not as impressed as he is with the right hon. Gentleman's powers. Not only is the suggestion from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire not credible: it is wrong to give false hope to fishermen when one cannot deliver such policies.
  Mr. Moss: The Minister told the House that there is a fundamental difference between the earlier Hull university report on zonal management and the final submission from the NFFO and the SFF. If the reports were different, are his officials now saying that the NFFO's proposals for zonal management do need a treaty change or that they do not?
  Mr. Morley: It very much depends on how one applies zonal management and what one wants zonal committees to do. I should make it clear that my view is that one can
  1176
  have a large degree of devolution and regional and zonal management within the existing framework of the CFP. That would not require treaty change. It is a question of agreement. This country has good relations with other member states, and we have been talking to them about these proposals. There is much common ground and, among the North sea states in particular, there is a great deal of interest in such an approach. We may not be able to achieve everything that is spelt out in the joint federation document, and the Federation would understand that. It may well be a step-by-step process, building on gains.
  There is an argument for the Council of Ministers being the final accountable body. Although I am very happy to let the Mediterranean states sort out issues such as quotas and management within the Mediterranean, I might want to make comments about environmental issues, for example. We have a tiny tuna by-catch quota, but we get roped into tuna matters because, although we have a tiny quota, we have a very big vote in these negotiations. It is right that the Council should be the final body, but it is possible to have such approaches within the framework of the CFP that would not require treaty change.
  Mr. Salmond: I understand the Minister wanting to see off the Tory Front Bench, but he heard from his own Back Benchers and from other parties about the industry's urgent needs in both the short and the medium term. He knows that the all-party body is going to see the Treasury—if the Treasury will see us. Unless he addresses these points and gives us some indication, some encouragement and some hope, many people within, and particularly without, this Chamber will be very disappointed in him.
  Mr. Morley: I have every intention of addressing those issues, because they are key issues. I have listened very carefully to the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I will not duck the issues; hon. Members would not expect me to.
  I should like to finish dealing with the arguments about the CFP and what can and cannot be done. The final point I wanted to make concerned the common resource. "Common resource" is a very unfortunate term. I wish that it had not been included in the CFP, particularly because the concept of common resource has been superseded by that of relative stability. While it is true that there is equal access, that access counts for nothing unless one has the quota allocation.
  Now we have relative stability, distributed among member states with their relative stability keys. We have a very good share of the principal stocks in the North sea that are of interest to us. We have some 80 per cent. of the total haddock quota. We have 50 per cent. of the cod quota—the biggest share of that. That will not change, and I predict that in the 2002 review, relative stability will not change. I also predict that we shall continue with coastal limits—the six and 12-mile limits. Those are fundamental issues within the CFP of interest to our fishermen, to us as a member state and to other member states.
  Mr. Andrew George: What the Minister is saying is enlightening and very important. Given that his officials are to analyse the implications of zonal management, which is supported by the Conservatives' European

  1177
  fisheries representative, if they can fathom what the Conservatives' proposal is, will they look at the possible implications? That might also help to resolve a private difficulty within the Conservative party.
  Mr. Morley: I am sure that when we understand exactly what the proposal is, my officials will be only too pleased to look at it in some detail.
  The issue of the CFP is important, but the idea of withdrawing and negotiating is not credible. That is why when people say that the end result would be withdrawal from the European Union they are right, because unless we comply with the treaty obligations that this country entered into, there is no option but to withdraw. That would have devastating consequences for this country. In those circumstances, would we have had the important announcement today that Nissan is to invest millions of pounds in this country, with all the benefits for the car industry, related jobs and our steel industry? I am not so sure. Ninety per cent. of the fish catch of the south-west is exported to the European Union, enjoying the benefits of a single market, with no tariff barriers.
  The cod spawning areas have been mentioned. They are crucial to our fleet and we have the largest quota, but they are nearly all outside our national limits. If we had no say in how the recovery plan would work, we could be severely disadvantaged if other member states chose to maximise their catch in spawning areas, which would have consequences for our fishing industry in the North sea.
  Fisheries management must be on a pan-European basis. I am not saying that the common fisheries policy is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but as the debate made clear, if we did not have the CFP, we would have to invent something very much like it for the purposes of fisheries management.
  Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I have only five minutes, and I do not want to duck the issue of support for the industry.
  There is undoubtedly a case for industry support. I questioned the sum of £100 million, not to disparage it but because I have no idea what it is based on or how it is supposed to be divided up. I do not know whether the bulk of it is for a decommissioning scheme or for other measures in the industry. I will have to speak to the industry about that. I will meet representatives of the English industry on 30 January.
  Support for the industry will have to be delivered through the structural funds. Some funds are available, and if we can obtain more, they can be channelled through the structural funds to the industry. Structural funds are administered by the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Executive administer the structural funds for Scotland, and I administer the English structural funds.
  There may be a case for a UK approach to the matter. I work closely with Rhona Brankin of the Scottish Executive. It would be sensible and logical for some of the issues to be addressed on a UK basis, but the administration of the schemes would be local. Hon. Members should not forget that there is a large local and regional element to the
  1178
  regional development agencies through objective funds, which can help onshore industries and can help restructuring by way of jobs and support.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: Briefly.
  Mr. Salmond: Some of us remember the early 1990s, when for three years the Scottish Office was in favour of decommissioning, but when that was vetoed by the then fisheries Minister in London. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Executive or Scottish Government could choose to access the money currently available for lay-up schemes which is identified in Commission documents? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying, or is he saying that that is not possible?
  Mr. Morley: I am saying that the regional funds are administered on a regional basis through the FIFG funds. Theoretically, there could be differences, and there are slight differences—for example, Northern Ireland has already announced that it will introduce a decommissioning scheme and it is using its funds for that. I know that that decision is welcomed by the Northern Ireland fishing fleet.
  It is right and proper that there should be a regional approach, because there are regional differences among the fishing fleet, but there is also a case for a UK approach. I co-operate well with Rhona Brankin and the Scottish Executive in trying to address the issues together.
  On tie-up grants, there is no comparison between tie-up grants and suggestions for a short-term closure of the fisheries that we are discussing, and what has happened in Spain. In Spain, an entire fishing fleet has been denied any fishing opportunities because of the closure of the Moroccan grounds. I am not sure whether that fleet will get back into those grounds, because the Moroccan agreement is not going very well. A large fleet and a great many jobs may have to undergo a decommissioning process in Spain.
  I feel for people in the fishing industry, wherever they may be. People should not think that that fishing fleet has anywhere else to go. They should not think that because the fleet cannot get into Moroccan waters, it will appear in the North sea. I have seen those fishing boats, and there is no possibility of that. If there is no Moroccan agreement, that fleet is finished. We should not forget that.
  The trouble with the tie-up grant is that it sometimes puts off difficult decisions. Also, it goes to the boat owners, not to the crew, and it could be seen as rewarding people who have contributed to overfishing by compensating them with state funding. It is not an altogether attractive proposal.
  Nevertheless, I am prepared to discuss all the options with the industry. I do not rule anything out at this stage. I do not want to mislead people. Unlike the Opposition in relation to some of their policies, I have been very honest about what we can do in MAFF. I am prepared to make the case for the industry to address long-term problems and encourage long-term sustainability and stability in the fishing fleet. That is why I want to talk to the industry and am willing to make their case.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That—

  1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and

  3. At that meeting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and

  (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Commitee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Touhig.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig.]

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Nick Palmer be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Mark Hendrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig.]

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

Bus Employee Pensions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: When I raised the vexed issue of the bus employees superannuation trust in February last year, I really believed that, almost a year on, the entire matter would have been drawing to a close. Regrettably, that is not the case. Looking at the previous debate, I smiled ironically to myself at certain comments that were made on that occasion. For example, I said:
It became clear to me at an early stage that it was important that the issue did not find its way back into the courts, where it might have been lost for months and might have resulted in the loss of significant sums of money because of legal costs.

I also said:
The matter of court proceedings continually raises its head, and there is no doubt that the trustees' legal advisers need to ensure that, if those proceedings must be gone through, they do not take up a lot of valuable time.—[Official Report, 11 February 2000; Vol. 344. c. 577–79.]
Here we are, almost at the end of January, and the matter is heading back to the courts, albeit for a reason different from that to which I referred previously. Precious time has been spent and lost, and more than £880,000 has been spent in legal fees.
I know that, when this matter was last debated, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), hoped that any court approval for completion of the distribution of the settlement would be possible by the end of 2000, thereby enabling payments to be made early this year. No doubt, like many right hon. and hon. Members and me, he will be dismayed at the current situation.
Correspondence that I and other Members have received from many of the pensioners who may be entitled to a share of the settlement shows the anger and frustration that they rightly feel about the delay in settling this affair. They are elderly people; many of them are not in the best of health and, as I said in the previous debate, some of them have even passed away, never having received what was rightly theirs. Even the trustees for the two funds in question indicated by way of the information bulletins that are issued from time to time that they hope to complete the process by the early part of this year.
Regrettably, the November-December 2000 bulletin, looking at the question of how long the court proceedings will take, could state only:
We cannot say, at the moment, how long these proceedings will take. However, the issues involved are complex and so the proceedings are likely to take many months.
Those comments are essentially no different from what was said in the early bulletins, except that the time scale is slipping.
During the previous debate, I explained the two different categories of pensioners: those who remained in the pension funds after privatisation, known as Standard Lifers, and those who transferred out—transferees. I felt at that time that the interests of the two groups would not and could not be best served by one firm of solicitors. I believe that a second firm should be appointed in order to avoid any conflict of interest that may arise. I know

1181
only too well that many people have questioned the sanity of introducing yet another team of solicitors into the equation, on the basis of cost and especially of time, as any court proceedings could be protracted.
I am aware that some interim payments were made to different categories of pensioners during last year, amounting to a total in excess of £35 million. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could give some detail of those payments, perhaps with special reference to taxation, which has been one of the problems.
The other main problem has obviously centred on the legal entitlement of certain groups and, in particular, the status of transferees. Standard Life beneficiary representatives are arguing that the transferees are not eligible to receive any surplus. As one might expect, that view is not taken by the transferees, who were told that all fund surplus would go to the National Bus Company. They maintain that they would not have transferred if they had known that that would not happen.
Although all that I have said so far indicates that the pension trustees are responsible for resolving all those matters, I am pleased that the Government have rightly taken a close interest. This debate offers my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary an opportunity to bring the House up to date on the current state of affairs. I hope also that he will give his perspective on why matters have not yet been resolved.
For the record, I remind the House that it was in September 1998 that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister commented on the raiding of the pension funds. At that time, he instructed lawyers
to stop the legal fancy dancing.
It is more than 18 months since the Government settled the litigation. What is at stake here? At the last count, there were almost 54,000 pensioners, of whom 44,000 are already of pensionable age and on relatively low incomes. The Government, and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, should not be making up for the sins of the previous Administration, who imposed the current problems on all the people involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is disappointed that she cannot be here to participate in the debate. In her absence, I pay tribute to her for her excellent work on this issue and for the support that she has given me. She has passed me a copy of a letter that she received from Jack Gibson, the branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union retired members association in Barnsley. The letter is dated 20 December last. She asked me to refer to two ex-work colleagues that Jack mentions in his letter. He wrote:
I can refer to two out of a large number of my ex-workmates. One was an inspector when I joined Yorkshire Traction in 1950 as a bus driver, he would then have been in the staff pension fund, known as the London Pension Fund. On the formation of National Bus Company, that became the National Bus Pension Fund, into which like others in the Fund, he contributed seven and a half per cent of his salary. He became an Area Superintendent and retired in 1987. He died in June this year, his wife in a nursing home at the time, died in September this year. What did they get out of this money?
1182
Jack went on:
My colleague Eddie Wignall, we have worked together on this issue since September 1996 following the Ombudsman's decision. Demonstrating at the D.o.T., House of Commons, appearing on BBC 2, Channel 4, speaking on national and local radio and speaking at fringe meetings arranged by the T&G. We were both recommended to become BEST trustees, but were unsuccessful. Now Eddie, who was made redundant in February this year, and was 62 in June has not received any interim payments. Sadly he is being treated for a serious illness. How much and when will he receive any payments from this money?
He continues:
The Trustees and their legal advisers will be getting well paid for their job, it just isn't on, and they are simply not in touch.
Those are only two examples. Some would say that they were not typical. However, I believe that the delay is leading more and more pensioners to fall into that heartbreaking predicament.
The Transport and General Workers Union believes that all former National Bus Company workers who contributed to the two funds should benefit from the distribution of the money that the Government returned. That view is based on the fact that when National Bus Company was privatised and the funds were wound up, there was a considerable delay before the Standard Life buy-out was completed. During that period, the work forces in the separate companies were given differing advice about where to transfer their pensions. That advice was based on the knowledge that there was no surplus in the funds—the Government had taken it—and that a better long-term deal might be obtained elsewhere. That applied to workers who had potentially 20 or more working years ahead. Transfer decisions appeared to be taken en bloc and approximately 30 per cent. took that route.
Pensioners are rightly seeking answers to many different questions. All too often, they are, sadly, met with a wall of silence. There is anxiety about the administration costs of the funds and the exact size of the current balances. I am led to believe that, even after interim payments and all other costs, the totals are about the same as were handed over in July 1999. If the Minister can confirm that, all those pensioners would greatly appreciate it.
Unanswered questions frustrate the pensioners, and the circumstances have led Lord Justice Robert Walker to comment:
Pension Trustees would in my view be well advised in almost all circumstances to adopt a policy of utmost openness. Secrecy breeds suspicion.
Does the fault lie with lawyers dragging their feet? I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has seen a note dated 21 November 2000 and prepared by Ian Croxford QC. It clearly raises the question whether swifter progress could and should have been made.
Does the problem lie with the representative beneficiaries who speak for the Standard Lifers and the transferees? Is it down to their advisers? Is it perhaps due to a simple disagreement about sharing out the settlement? It would be a tragedy if the delay centred around the amount to which the different categories of pensioners were entitled.
I urge the representative beneficiaries, including my constituent, Frank Wheeler, who has done so much excellent work over many years, to reach an agreement soon to ensure swift court approval.

1183
I hope that the Under-Secretary can give an assurance that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that all involved parties and interests appreciate the urgency of bringing the tangled and sorry tale to a successful conclusion without further delay.
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I wish, most sincerely, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on securing this debate on the National Bus Company pension schemes. I shall reply in writing to those questions that I do not tackle in my speech.
This is the second occasion on which my hon. Friend has initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject. That is a clear demonstration of his personal commitment. Many other hon. Members have also expressed their concerns to the Government about lack of progress on the NBC pensions. However, I want to join my hon. Friend in recognising the outstanding role of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who has persistently raised her anxieties on the Floor of the House, in correspondence and in other representations. I believe that Parliament, and I go so far as to say the country at large, owes both my hon. Friends a large debt of gratitude.
We are dealing with a matter of fundamental social justice for more than 50,000 of our fellow citizens. Most of them are not very well off, many are now elderly and some of them are, alas, deceased without receiving their just desserts.
In 1990, under a previous Administration, in the aftermath of bus privatisation, those people were wrongly deprived of their entitlement to a share in the surpluses of the NBC pension funds. In 1996 after a protracted campaign to right this wrong, the pensions ombudsman found in their favour in a historic decision. In July 1999, the Government paid nearly £356 million in settlement of their claims. We did so willingly because we had long recognised the justice of their cause and, like the beneficiaries, we looked forward to the distribution of the surpluses in a reasonably short period of time. Beyond that hope and expectation, the Government had, and have, no direct role. In accordance with the law, it is for the trustees and their advisers to manage the distribution of this considerable sum of money.
I want to mark my recognition of the fact that the trustees have managed so far to make interim payments, in a combination of enhanced pensions and lump sums, to about 20,000 NBC pensioners whose pensions were secured with Standard Life. That began in April last year with interim payments to older pensioners and continued later in the year with payments to all those former NBC employees currently in receipt of a Standard Life pension. The later payments were in the form of tax-free lump sums.
Court approval had to be obtained for those payments, because there were legal uncertainties about whether the rules allowed lump-sum payments. The need for discussions with the representative beneficiaries delayed the application to the court for this approval, but that application was successfully made. I am pleased to say that the trustees now plan further interim payments this tax year for the Standard Lifers and that those payments are now being discussed with the Inland Revenue.
1184
Regrettably, however, it remains the case that, 18 months after the summer of 1999, only £35 million of the £356 million has been distributed in interim payments to the Standard Life beneficiaries, and £1 million has been spent on legal and administrative costs. I say in all candour to the House that that is simply not good enough. I emphasise that the Government totally share the frustration of the beneficiaries—I say that as a Minister who, over the past year, has held meetings with the trustees almost monthly to try to push the matter along faster.
Of course, I acknowledge the complexities of the tasks facing the trustees. The two NBC schemes together had some 50,000 members. To determine how much should be paid to each of them, many thousands of individual records—all manual, uncomputerised records—have had to be updated and computerised on the basis of information provided by the potential beneficiaries. The trustees have also had to negotiate with the Inland Revenue about the current tax status of the schemes and of any payments to be made. Potential tax liability has been another reason why individual records have had to be updated.
It should also be recognised that the trustees have seen the need to proceed rather cautiously through a legal minefield. It has always been their view—I fully understand why that is so—that the distribution of the settlement must be approved by the courts so that it would be beyond subsequent legal challenge. A distribution that could not be fully implemented, or that had to be put into reverse because of a subsequent challenge, would clearly be of little use to beneficiaries.
However, a major impediment to more rapid progress has undoubtedly been the dispute as to whether the Standard Lifers and the transferees should both receive a share of the settlement. The Standard Lifers are the 40,000 members and dependants whose pension benefits were secured with Standard Life at the end of the privatisation period. The transferees are the 14,000 former NBC scheme members who made other arrangements, often with the pension schemes of newly privatised bus companies. Representative beneficiaries have been appointed to look after the interests of both those groups, and they also have their own legal representation. I understand that it has now been decided that there is a further class of transferees, with their own set of legal representatives.
The nub of the problem is that the representatives of the Standard Lifers are saying that their view is that the transferees are not eligible to receive a share of the distribution. Not surprisingly, that is not the view of the transferees. The trustees have therefore had to prepare legal proceedings to determine that basic issue and other matters on eligibility, and proceedings were commenced in October 2000.
In an effort to insert more urgency into the process, the trustees sought to bring all the parties together in a case management conference, in December. It is very much to be regretted that that conference had to be adjourned because not all the parties were ready to participate. A further case conference is now to be held on 9 February, and the parties have been given until next Friday to serve their evidence in the proceedings. That is why this debate is so timely and important.

1185
It is not, of course, for the Government to seek to determine the issues of eligibility. However, I would say with all the force and emphasis at my command to all the representative beneficiaries involved, and to those who advise and represent them, that these issues must be urgently tackled and resolved. If they can be and if all those involved approach the issue in a properly reasonable way, I understand that there is the prospect of court approval for an agreed distribution and for final payments being made this spring. If not, we face the very grim prospect of protracted legal action stretching perhaps into next year—in other words, further intolerable delay in delivering justice to those thousands of NBC pensioners.
The responsibility and the choice rest with all those who are involved with that conference on 9 February. I urge all of them to respond accordingly. In case there are any doubts that I am addressing them and their clients directly, it is appropriate for me to list the names of all the legal firms involved. The trustees are represented by the solicitors Taylor Joynson Garrett; the representative beneficiaries for the Standard Lifers and the transferees are represented, respectively, by Baker & McKenzie and by Nabarro Nathanson; and the new category of transferees that I mentioned will be represented by Macfarlanes. I say to all of them, quite simply, that further delay in resolving these matters will only add to the distress of NBC pensioners and would be an intolerable protraction of settling their just claims.
1186
Further delay will also reflect no credit on the legal profession, which, very evidently from the correspondence that I and other hon. Members have received on the issue, has understandably already been the object of so much criticism and odium.
I address those last remarks not only to the solicitors already involved, but to those who might be tempted to carve a role for themselves in further legal proceedings. I am thinking particularly of the firm of Halsey Meyer Higgins, which has been a most active correspondent on the issue. Again, quite simply, the issue does not need more lawyers; it needs an appropriate sense of urgency and a will to reach agreement.
I close by addressing, through the House, one of the key—perhaps the key—figure in all the 15 years of the issue. He is of course Frank Wheeler, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and one of the representative beneficiaries for the Standard Lifers. I am second to none in my admiration and respect for his pursuit of the issue over all the years. However, I ask him very directly whether it is not now right to put his influence and weight behind early agreement with the transferees. Such agreement is now the only way of completing the distribution and delivering justice to all his fellow former employees of the NBC. No one—least of all the battalion of lawyers; and not even the redoubtable Frank—should stand in the way of that much sought-after, much hoped-for outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Basic Skills Challenge
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Here we are at the start of the 21st century and, while many of us would argue that within the period of our democracy, education has always been pretty centre stage for those of us interested in social progress and social reform, one can argue that education, learning and skills will become even more important, if only because it will become increasingly difficult for those without reasonable levels of education or skills to obtain a place in the labour market.
Education is a powerful driving force and, I hope, a great force for social progress in the 21st century. We should therefore reflect on the irony that we are finding it necessary to discuss basic skills, which is a euphemism for the fact that too many of our adults struggle with basic literacy and numeracy. At worst, many cannot read, write or do simple arithmetic. I am not sure that if we had been participants in the great debates on the Education Act 1944 and had been asked to predict the issues being debated in 2001, we would have said reading, writing and arithmetic for adults. We might have imagined debating how young children could be taught nuclear physics or how we could achieve a better balance between arts and science, but we would not have expected to be talking about the three Rs. It is right and proper for us to talk about the three Rs, for reasons that I shall come to.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I can assure the Minister that I intervene not to be contentious, but to amplify his point. Does he not feel that one of the troubles has been that it has been assumed—successive Ministers have frequently asserted it—in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and elsewhere that western countries, especially this one, have no literacy problems? We assumed that we were 100 per cent literate because there had been broadly 100 per cent. school attendance when, sadly, later researches showed that not to be the case.
Mr. Wicks: That is a good point. Despite the best efforts of the Basic Skills Agency and others in recent years, this problem has been neglected by successive Governments and successive generations. Incidentally, those who sometimes tell us that we are not teaching our children to read and write as well as we used to should be confronted by the hard reality of the evidence of adult basic skills.
I very much welcome the opportunity to debate an issue that lies at the heart of the Government's social reform agenda. There may be some disagreements
324WH
between us, but the debate is unlikely to be confrontational. The issue is also central to our economic purpose, as literacy and numeracy skills are the backbone of almost any worthwhile activity in modern life. They provide an essential foundation for further and higher education and skills training, and are often the deciding factor in whether a person is successful at work or active in the community.
Advances in technology are placing ever more emphasis on good literacy and numeracy skills. Computers, the internet, mobile phones and digital technology will all make the home and the workplace increasingly reliant on good communication and a good understanding of numbers. Those who do not have adequate skills will consequently find themselves increasingly marginalised from the rest of society. The prospect for someone who cannot read, write or do basic arithmetic looks increasingly bleak—bleaker than it would have been in 1951 or 1901, given employment and economic and technological developments. We cannot allow that marginalisation to occur. The Government's vision of a prosperous and decent society, in which everyone is productively employed and fulfilled in their personal and family life, will not be achieved while a large number of people lack basic literacy and numeracy skills.
What are the facts? The hard truth is that up to 7 million adults are struggling with reading and writing. That is hard enough to believe, but it is estimated that an even greater number have difficulty with basic arithmetic and numbers. Those are appalling facts. In practice, they mean that around one in five of the adult population have literacy skills below those of an average 11-year-old. For numeracy, the ratio is one in four. Those people cannot look up a plumber in the Yellow Pages or calculate their change from a £2 coin when purchasing a loaf of bread and two pints of milk from the corner shop.
Adults who lack those skills face enormous problems daily. Using a bus timetable, reading a memorandum at work, or working out their household finances is likely to be frustrating and unnerving. When I visited a primary school in my constituency, I was told about a mother of one pupil who wanted the best for her child. She had received the school report and realised that she was required to comment on it and sign it. She brought the report in, and it became apparent only after a while that she wanted someone to read it to her. That is a basic problem.
The longer-term effects on such people's lives can be devastating. There is a high correlation between poor basic skills and low self-esteem, low self-confidence, low aspirations and low motivation. Evidence shows that such people also stand a much greater chance of being unemployed and therefore on benefit, or in low-skilled jobs with no prospects of better pay or career opportunities, because 49 out of 50 jobs are closed to people without entry-level basic skills. Their families and children also suffer. Pupils whose parents have poor basic skills are inclined to struggle with literacy and numeracy themselves. There is a clear correlation. How can parents read bedtime stories to their children if they cannot read?
All that has a knock-on effect for society and the economy in general. People with low basic skills are more likely to suffer from depression and other health

325WH
problems, less likely to be actively involved in the community, less likely to vote and more likely to turn to crime. Some 60 per cent. of people in prison are said to be suffering from functional illiteracy and/or innumeracy, so the agenda for prison education is clear.
The result is an enormous waste of valuable manpower. The loss of productivity and the cost of welfare support has enormous financial implications for the country. Some estimates have put the annual cost at as much as £10 billion a year. The United Kingdom is not alone in facing these problems, but our record seems to be poorer than that of many of our international competitors. The 1997 international adult literacy survey showed that of the 12 countries surveyed, Britain came 10th. Only Poland and Ireland had a higher proportion of adults with the lowest literacy skills levels. In the UK, some 23 per cent. of the adult population had literacy skills at the lowest levels, compared with 12 per cent. in Germany and 7 per cent. in Sweden.
What is to be done? The Government have clear views about that, but we do not have a monopoly of wisdom. As I shall explain, we need the assistance of many institutions and individuals to help us with the crusade that we must mount. I welcome advice and good questions about how to proceed, and I enter the debate in that spirit.
The Government have a clear commitment to improving the country's record on the matter. We have set ourselves an initial target of reducing by 750,000 the number of adults with weak literacy or numeracy skills by 2004. We are supporting the target by increasing the level of funding specifically for adult basic skills from £241 million this year to at least £400 million in 2003–04.
To achieve the target and continue making progress, three key issues need to be tackled. The first is to lay the right foundations at school level. We are already well on track as a result of the national literacy and numeracy strategies for schools. The proportion of our 11-year-olds achieving the level expected for their age rose from 57 per cent. to 75 per cent. in English, and from 54 per cent. to 72 per cent. in mathematics, between 1996 and last year. What we are doing in primary schools adds up to a remarkable achievement, but more progress needs to be made.
The second key issue is to attract more adults into learning—the subject of today's debate. Currently, about 390,000 learners receive basic skills provision, whereas we believe that at least double that number will be needed by 2004 to meet our target. Adults with poor skills are notoriously difficult to engage because of their poor experiences at school, their lack of self-belief or poor motivation and the difficulty of reaching them through the usual marketing and communication channels. Indeed, many such adults have become remarkably skilled at disguising their lack of basic skills—an understandable survival technique. We have therefore developed a targeting strategy aimed at several key groups. However, we are consulting on the matter, and I would welcome advice and comment. The key groups are young adults in the work force, people who live in disadvantaged communities, parents, workers in low-skilled jobs, unemployed people, benefit claimants, prisoners and those on probation, and Government employees. Government employees are included
326WH
because we take the view that the Government, as a major employer, must show a lead in this respect to other employers.
Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wicks: Before I do so, I should point out that we recognise that people overlap across such categories.
Mr. Boswell: The Minister mentioned Government employees. Will he consider giving advice to and, cooperating with local government interests in relation to their employees? After all, they are, typically, local education authorities, and I suspect that many of the problems of low skills in their work forces, especially their manual work forces, mirror those in the central Government sector.
Mr. Wicks: That is an important point. As I suggested, we felt that we should provide a lead, and all permanent secretaries are now engaged in developing strategies in their own Departments. We are discussing the difficult but important issue of work in Government Departments that is contracted out, such as cleaning. Such work does not involve Government employees, but some of the people who clean our offices every night may be in need of basic skills help. How do we reach that group? I do not necessarily have the answer to that question; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) does.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for the appellation "my hon. Friend". I had hoped not to have to intervene on the Minister again, but I thought that I would try to be helpful. I am associated with the Business Services Association, which is supported by an all-party group. It is in a sense the responsible representative organisation for the outsourcing industry, and I advise the Minister to consider carefully whether he might consult it about rolling forward the programme of employee development and improvement into that sector, too.
Mr. Wicks: That is a helpful suggestion. We were actively discussing the issue and we shall do that. I am not ignoring the point on local government. As we roll out what some have described as a crusade—for once, I think that that is not exaggerated vocabulary—we shall need to find in each and every industry and key institution a champion for basic skills. That goes for the private as well as the public sector.
I have mentioned the groups. We recognise that they are not the only groups that may have basic skills needs, and there is much overlap between them, as I have said. We are aware of other groups of people—travellers and their families are an example that comes to mind. However, segmenting the target group in this way will help us to design appropriate promotional tools and has helped us to identify how all arms of government can assist in identifying and supporting those with greatest need.
The third key issue is the need to improve the quality of provision and raise levels of attainment so that adults who embark on a learning programme can be assured of making good progress. That is clearly not happening at present. Research published this week by the National

327WH
Foundation for Educational Research, based on a large, representative sample, shows that students taking courses made only modest progress or, in some cases, stood still or even fell back. I commend the report to those who are interested. They will see that, despite progress by some students, the percentile gains were so modest as to be described as "dismal". Inspection evidence points to poor attendance rates on courses and under-achievement by learners. Teaching and management has been found to be weaker in basic skills than in most other forms of adult or college education.
A highly influential report "A Fresh Start"—otherwise known as the Moser report—was published in 1999. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chairman of that inquiry, Sir Claus Moser, who, with the Basic Skills Agency, has done so much to raise awareness and levels of expertise. The report outlines starkly how serious the neglect of adult literacy and numeracy have been in the past and how much still needs to be done. Over the past year, we have made a great deal of progress in putting in place a robust and consistent infrastructure for learning adult basic skills. It includes the introduction of national standards, a national curriculum for literacy and numeracy, the development of national tests and an intensive teacher-training programme which will be implemented between now and the summer.
Over the past few months, however, it has become clear that we still have a great deal to learn about the most effective approaches to basic skills education—what will motivate adults and help them to make progress. I have therefore been holding, and chairing, several seminars with experts from the United Kingdom and around the world to take account of the accumulated knowledge. Last week, they met for two days and I was able to join them for one day. Experts from different parts of the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Canada and elsewhere were present to help us with the problem.
We are also setting up pathfinder projects in each region to test out the new infrastructure, to ensure that it is implemented effectively, to strengthen work between local partners and to pilot a number of other new approaches, including funding to cover the loss to employers of their staff for one day a week for 13 weeks; intensive training in employability and basic skills for jobseekers; financial and other incentives to participate in learning programmes and to reward achievement; and encouragement for jobseekers to participate in courses, including early screening, additions to benefits and rewarding achievement.
Our full proposals were set out in a statement issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 5 December 2000 We have received numerous helpful comments on them and will probably issue our full strategy in a few weeks.
The Government are determined not only to meet but to overcome the basic skills challenge in this country. Our aim is sustained and profound reform that will last from generation to generation and will leave a new legacy for success. Today's debate is an excellent opportunity to open up important issues so that they can influence our thinking, hence we sought it. I very much look forward to hearing my colleagues' views on this important subject.
2.50 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to debate this often neglected but crucial issue. It is good to have heard from the Minister a bipartisan and moderate expression of Government strategy in the light of the consultation document. The issue is deeply sensitive, and I will try in turn not to be too critical of the Government. The debate is tailor-made for Westminster Hall; this is the right place and the right debate to have.
I shall begin, perhaps unusually, on a personal rather than a political note. Sometimes we all, in one way or another, have to be what I might call professionally cynical in this place. However, I have a personal conviction in the importance of basic skills, which dates from long before my time either as an Education Minister or, indeed, as a politician at all.
The Minister will be aware that my wife has done tutoring in basic literacy skills, which has given me a closer insight and a better briefing than I could have acquired myself. That has instilled in me a passionate belief that something could and should be done, and a respect for the courage of those who are prepared to return to learning, often after a long absence, probably after being severely scarred by their school experiences, possibly having moved on to work in a low-level occupation—if they work at all—and often with some social dysfunction.
People require skills to avoid revealing that they suffer from functional illiteracy or innumeracy. Because they lack a skill as simple as telling the time, people have to pretend that glasses have been lost or that there is another reason why they cannot see the dial—the watch is broken and so on. Those evasive skills are often at as high a level as the basic skill would have been if it had been acquired. I cannot help feeling that those who suffer basic skills deficiencies experience a comparable degree of frustration to that experienced by me in other areas of my Front-Bench responsibilities on disability issues. There are similar patterns of exclusion from work or social life, and there is a need for intervention based on respect for the individual, to bring him back into the mainstream.
I can tell a story about my wife; anyone who has had any hands-on experience of this issue in further education colleges or elsewhere will have had the same experience. Someone whom she taught basic literacy had been to the college the previous year, got as far as the door, ran away and took 12 months to return. That matters, and I respect that person, who finally plucked up the courage to return.
The Minister has set out the basic facts in so far as we know them. This is not a well measured area, despite the Moser report, but the basic facts are not in contention. That report broadly confirms earlier work, suggesting that at least 7 million adults have problems—and that in a country that is supposed to have 100 per cent. school participation and, by inference, 100 per cent. functional literacy and numeracy after 11 years. Sadly, that is not so.
Let me make a few brief comments on the past. The Minister has been careful to avoid arguing that it is all the fault of his predecessors or that the present Government are the first to want to deal effectively with the problem. I am grateful to him for that. As so often in

329WH
social policy, we have come to a gradual and cumulative realisation of a problem and are developing an increasingly constructive response. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government want to be part of that.
When I was in government, I was a firm supporter of the adult literacy and basic skills unit and of the broader standards agenda, including performance tables and regular inspection, which was designed to expose problems as they arose in schools. At the same time, we piloted the family literacy strategy. I remember a fascinating visit to north Tyneside to examine an early pilot. I was highly encouraged by what I saw, in difficult circumstances. I am glad that the Government have built on that important plank.
The problem, as the Minister acknowledged, is deep-seated. It is not confined to the United Kingdom, but fairly prevalent in the western world. The new American President spoke about the importance of changes to educational provision in his country. In my time, I did some looking around at the less glamorous parts of the continental education system. I was particularly touched by the Germans' categorisation of Analphabeten—those without their alphabet—but less impressed with their materials.
Mr. Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the United States. I was surprised to learn from the Moser report that OECD figures reveal that the UK is behind the US in terms of literacy and numeracy; yet the US copes with massive immigration, often from countries without good educational systems. Is that not a shocking fact?
Mr. Boswell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, subject to the correction that mensuration—and particularly comparative mensuration—is always difficult. The fact that we are behind the US is shocking. It shows indirectly that we have a home-grown problem that we cannot wish off on to the number of asylum seekers, travellers or displaced persons who find their way into our educational system. We are not doing as well as we should from the start.
It is interesting to note that all western economies face language problems with a fairly large proportion of the population. In my ministerial days, I had one meeting with the Japanese Education Minister and was brought up with a jolt when I said, "Surely, Minister, you have some of these problems as well," and he said, "Oh no we don't. I don't even know what you're talking about." If that is true—I suspect that the Minister, myself and others would have reservations about the Japanese education system—it is fascinating to reflect that a language system with 1,800 characters is fully understood by Japanese pupils, when ours cannot understand a 26-character language.
I have spoken about general matters to establish that there is a deep-seated problem, but also that it is not confined to this country. We must come to grips with it, because of the economic consequences. The mensuration of the problem is now clearer than it was a few years ago, partly because of Sir Claus Moser's study and also because we are beginning to see the need for
330WH
everyone to be skilled or at least semi-skilled in their occupation. The problems might always have been there, but were masked by the pool of unskilled labour, in which the basic skills were not really required.
Nowadays, building workers installing pipes into houses for new water supplies need to be numerate. Supermarket workers who use hand-held computers for stock replenishment and recording must be numerate and literate. Many people have to write reports at work, as they have no intermediate staff to do it for them. That has contributed to a greater need for skills and also a greater identification of the problem.
The central action must be to get our schools right. Problems have arisen because of attitudes going back years or even generations. Some of those attitudes have, frankly, rubbed off on local education authorities and even individual teachers, who have tacitly written off individual pupils—or, in some cases, whole schools—as virtually ineducable. That is regrettable and must be put right.
There are also problems of school transition, when families move around the country and children change schools. As family breakdowns increase, even households change. Education is sometimes disrupted because of ill health or for other reasons.
Our basic skills strategy should be grounded in school standards work—the basic, painstaking building up of individual and whole-school data with any necessary remediation. That is where we should start. Early intervention is the most cost-effective intervention. We should expect all children to attain basic literacy and numeracy by the end of key stage 1, unless there is a clear functional problem or learning difficulties. We should expect full functionality in basic skills by the end of primary education.
The Minister's strategy document referred to the study by Bynner and Steedman, which showed that 40 per cent. of the basic skills differences among adults were attributable to the education standards reached by the age of 10. I suspect that that is an underestimate. It is difficult for children to manage the transition to secondary schools when they are still underequipped with basic skills. The danger is that they subsequently fall into wider disaffection, decline and, eventually, a cycle that leads to bunking off school, social exclusion and unemployability.
Rescue operations in those circumstances become progressively more demanding of resources. One ends up having to provide one-to-one Oxbridge-style tutorials to teach pupils basic skills—hardly an ideal use of resources when those skills should have been supplied at school.
By that stage—the statutory school-leaving age—basic skills weaknesses blend into a wider spectrum of disaffection and social failure. Recovery is more difficult, more diffused and, inevitably, more expensive. Reigniting or developing social skills—including self-confidence and the so-called soft key skills as well as the more obvious educational ones—is required. As it says in the helpful notes provided by the Engineering Employers Federation:
The issue of basic skills shortages is complex, requiring many creative and innovative solutions.
That is well put. The problems are complex, and so must be the solutions. There are no easy answers to complex problems. Above all, we must remember that the

331WH
individuals are, by this stage, adults who need support, encouragement and a range of provisions from which they can make an informed choice.
I shall deal briefly with disincentives. I think that the Minister can confirm, and it is certainly my understanding, that in the whole area of provision, fees would not normally be chargeable and are thus unlikely to act as a deterrent. I notice that lie is nodding. Will he say something about individual learning accounts? They are not the same issue, and would not need to be spent on basic skills acquisition, but they may well be required for related simple personal development issues and other educational skills.
The Minister will also know—we debated this extensively in Committee on the Learning and Skills Bill—that there are lots of practical barriers to learning, such as child care and transport. There are also educational barriers to learning for people with difficulties. It is right that people should approach that in doable bite-sized chunks, and I am pleased that the document refers to it. It is important, however, that the pattern of attainment and qualification is also tailored to that. We want people to succeed and build on their success, albeit slowly. It is important that all parties—not merely political parties but industry, voluntary organisations, educational establishments and providers—work together in the business of encouragement, because discouragement is such an easy option for people with those difficulties.
Further education is bound to be centre stage in the range of provision. I picked some holes in the Government's assertion in their document that a current inspection rate of 52 per cent. good or outstanding, with 8 per cent. unsatisfactory or poor in relation to basic skills provision, was disappointing. There is no question that it could and should be better, but the figures basically show a good record for many further education institutions in fields of study that are of considerable difficulty.
We need, among other things, to recognise the particular role of further education in remotivating disaffected school leavers, who perhaps have done very badly in their GCSEs. That could be achieved by providing them with a good vocational route that enables them to rediscover that they can do things and invest back into their more general educational skills as well. I have asked the Minister to consider ensuring, in that area in particular, that the tariff fits the bite-sized chunks, so that colleges are rewarded for the work that they do and the attainment that is achieved, and the glass is half full rather than half empty.
Taking up the Secretary of State's recent remarks at the Association of Colleges, it is very important, if the Minister moves towards specialist provision for further education, that he and his colleagues do not send the signal that doors will ever be shut in that area. I remind them of the analogy of the district general hospital that posts a notice saying "No accident and emergency department here. Please go round the corner". I personally think that self-referral for basic skills deficiency must be equivalent to serif-referral to casualty. Only the context is slightly different. The door must not close on those who need to go to their nearest and most convenient college to acquire basic skills.
332WH
The second major centre of interest is, of course, the world of work. That needs the active co-operation of both sides of industry. I cite as exemplary, as Ministers often do, the Ford employee development and assistance programme—EDAP. I am happy to do that as a constituency Member with a large Ford plant. The Minister will know—occasionally it surprises those on the other side of the debate—that I am always ready to acknowledge the role of the trade unions in education. I readily do that today. My only requirement, which is really a matter of their own validation and amour propre, is that they should have proper accountability and inspection, particularly if public moneys are going into, for example, the trade union learning fund. Their accounts should be properly scrutinised, as everyone else's are, and the Minister has accepted that in a different context.
It is important that people should grow with their neighbours and be encouraged to go forward, but we all need to remember the limitation of that: there are many people at work with pretty basic deficiencies, and not everyone wants to out themselves, if I may use the analogy, as illiterate or innumerate, or to have a kindly employer, or even a friendly trade union convener, suggesting that they should go and reskill themselves, there and then. It is a sensitive issue.
I would also add to this, the importance of trade associations and national training organisations, in setting national standards and frameworks. That is mainly about the skills agenda, but it must include a reference to basic skills and basic competences. Those who are involved in charitable trusts or in the historic role of business in education, should also meet their responsibilities, and go out into the community to seek people out and bring them in. I mention that because I have been involved with the Livery October Group Vocational Education Committee, or LOGVEC, the livery companies' new enterprise, and I am delighted that the City of London corporation is on board.
I am delighted that the Minister has referred to prison education—it is a rather specialist form of the labour market, and perhaps the only one in adult education where we genuinely have a captive audience. Having taken an interest in this area for some time, I do not think that it has always worked well in the past, but I like the current leadership of the prison education service. I hope that his Department and the Home Office will work increasingly closely together, along with the contracted further education providers to get the project going. We must start with basic skills. It is hardly surprising that people with only 4 per cent. of the legitimate labour market open to them—because of basic skills deficiency—should carry on with a life of crime, if they are good at that.
Community and home-based education should not be forgotten. By definition, almost, local education authorities, under the structure that the Minister will have inherited, do not normally themselves provide basic skills, but they may provide an opportunity to acquire them through community education programmes. As local authorities, they have an interest in economic development and work regeneration, and workplace skills are important for that. Perhaps the Minister could also comment on the financial package for schools to run family literacy programmes.

333WH
The consultation document was rather silent on the question of distant and remote areas, and rural areas generally, where there is the barrier of having less choice of provider and higher transport costs. I know from experience in my constituency that the local library can be a point of reference and a resource centre to support all those who want to learn, including those who are studying in the privacy of their own home, because they find that more convenient.
The document's evidence on information technology is both important and welcome. IT can be a good nonjudgmental way of improving basic skills, and IT skills are important in their own right. IT has the added benefit that it can modify some of the distance problems that I mentioned earlier.
I should like to mention the importance of transition planning for those with learning difficulties, when they are leaving school, or for others with identified problems. The local learning and skills councils and ConneXions will need to build on what has not always been a very happy join in the education system.
Sir Claus Moser was slightly surprised by something that I said about the importance of role models, including contemporary role models. The conversation that I had with him started with, "You should look at McDonald's, where 19-year-olds inspire 16-year-olds to do useful things". I do not dilate on that now, but I am sure that the Minister will know what I mean. We need, sometimes, to remember that Ministers and shadow Ministers in their 50s are not always the best people to lecture young adults on what they should be doing for their own good.
The Government, dare I say it, have some weaknesses on institutional factors. They have a penchant for the overarching concept—putting all existing provision under one great umbrella. The relationships within the umbrella are not always well defined. The Government also have a tendency to announce more and more initiatives. There is a danger that, although the overall strategy may be commendable—I am not arguing that it is not—they may trip themselves up over their own initiatives. They say they that the strategy will require sustained leadership and a clear national framework in which teaching and learning take place. That being the case, initiatives should be limited to a manageable number so that all the component parts know what their responsibilities are and how they fit together.
I want to probe the Minister on his proposed new structure. He inherits an outsourced Basic Skills Agency, led with great distinction over several years by Alan Wells. When I checked on the website at the weekend, I noted that he already had a finger—of advice or encouragement—in many educational pies. He has now created a new adult basic skills strategy unit, under Susan Pember, whom I also know.
What is the relationship between those organisations—and, for that matter, between those organisations and other agencies, notably the standards and effectiveness unit, the local learning and skills councils and the national Learning and Skills Council? Where will the extra funding for that strategy come from? One should bear in mind the fact that, even when new money is being created, there is always an
334WH
opportunity cost. It could, for example, have gone into schools or local authorities. Progress in this area will be incremental, but it will not happen at all unless those relationships are sorted out.
I would not want to end on a note of gratuitous controversy. We are all committed to the reversal of a backlog that may have its origins in history—these are frustrations that lie in the depths of time. Those struggling to learn or to teach to tackle that backlog are, by definition, committed to a great and worthy cause. Frankly, they deserve more than mere words: they deserve our commitment, our support and our active encouragement.
3.17 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I very much agree with some of the comments that hon. Members have made about the development of basic skills. However, I am sure that I will be excused the indulgence of talking solely about skill shortages in the engineering sector.
Yesterday in the House a debate took place on manufacturing, which is, and will remain, a key driver in our economy. However, there is significant concern about our nation's ability to produce the basic skills needed to underpin the medium to long-term development of that invaluable sector.
Hon. Members will know that I am a qualified engineer; I sit on the Board for Engineers Regulation as well as several institutional boards within the engineering discipline in the City. I want to talk first about the role of engineering in the process of economic growth, because that is no less crucial in our country than in any other leading nation. In the United Kingdom and key competitor countries such as Germany, the United States of America and France, increasing technical uncertainty is shown in the increasing variety of ways available to solve an engineering problem. Shorter manufacturing cycles and the need for constant innovation have contributed to a substantial shift in the mix of skills demanded of highly qualified personnel, especially in manufacturing. That shift appears less well-advanced in many industrial sectors in Britain.
I welcome the research undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, which utilises comparative analysis of economic performance and shows that the employment of well-qualified scientists and engineers pays off in terms of competitiveness. That seems especially true in the case of highly qualified and high-technology industries. The use of highly skilled engineers in the work force can increase a company's profitability and the nation's productivity. Higher productivity is likely to lead to higher economic growth; we are all united in that objective.
Other studies also show that, when the United Kingdom loses out on the skill levels of engineers and scientists and associated innovative activity, loss of competition occurs in terms of a loss of domestic market share, international trade share and lower productivity levels. Lower skill levels and innovative activity, especially in high-technology and high-growth industries, can adversely affect product quality and

335WH
variety. Studies of international competitors and skill levels do not show that the British engineering industry suffers from what has been referred to as "latent skill shortage" over and above skill gaps perceived by employees. I shall refer to the specific skill shortage later.
In engineering, and in firms in which engineers work and existing skill levels appear adequate to meet business objectives, it must be questionable whether the product and training strategies associated with those objectives are sustainable in the medium to long term. Engineering skills have traditionally occupied a central position in policy discussions because of the long lead times required to produce those skills at intermediate and graduate levels and because those skills are used throughout our economy and in every facet of our life.
I hope that colleagues have heard of the marvellous Engineering and Marine Training Authority, which is led by an outstanding individual called Dr. Michael Sanderson. Last year, the authority undertook to support the Women's Engineering Society and Women into Science, Engineering and Technology—WISE. As a founder member of WISE, I was delighted that it was brought under the umbrella of EMTA and the Engineering Council, because it does a great deal to overcome the deficit of women in the engineering world. It has been a long-term programme but, as we all know, the reversal of trends, and the encouragement of people into a profession and activity that has previously been dominated by another part of the community, is extremely difficult. I am delighted, too, that Lord Sainsbury has taken a particular interest in those activities, because Government support is crucial if those activities, which involve hard work but may be unglamorous, are to be continued.
The Engineering and Marine Training Authority also undertakes to collate statistics. The discussion of statistics may be as interesting as watching paint dry, but for those of us concerned about the development of engineering, statistics are vital. Without statistics, how can we convince Ministers that we have solid arguments in favour of developing programmes of education and supporting the profession in the desire to improve professional competence in others? However, as someone who is occasionally charged with reviewing the statistics produced by a plethora of different organisations, I am often totally bamboozled and without the wherewithal to make objective arguments to support the redistribution of education funding into several good schemes.
The Engineering and Marine Training Authority labour market service shows that the highest proportion of the establishment reporting hard-to-fill vacancies was in craft-intensive sectors such as motor vehicles, aerospace, metal products and mechanical engineering—my own favoured discipline. Other notable areas of recruitment difficulty were for technicians in electronics and aerospace and professional engineers in the electronics industry.
There is no shortage of chartered engineers, but an acute shortage of can-do engineers, as I prefer to call them. Those are people, with whom I share a great love and who offer great support to each other, who started on the shop floor in the form of an apprenticeship, and I am pleased to say that I am an apprenticed fitter. They go on to demonstrate great skill with their hands and they create products. They do not necessarily design
336WH
products, but they take the dreams and aspirations of designers and make them into tangible product. Those of us from the industry all know that there has been a growing shortage of those types of individuals. We are not in search of more academically qualified engineers; we are in search of the can-do agents that are capable of taking new technologies and translating them into end-of-line products—those products that can make the difference between a company being unsuccessful or being successful.
I congratulate the Government on the establishment of the national skills task force and take the opportunity to congratulate previous Governments on the establishment of the Foresight programme, which has been so instrumental in driving subject interest in this area. Many of my colleagues would not want that programme to be diminished because it has been crucial in joining together various institutions and academic establishments in the pursuit of improving productivity and economic viability.
Further research undertaken for the skills taskforce analysed information on the extent of recruitment difficulties outside the engineering and manufacturing sector as well as inside it. The report dealt solely with engineering skills and knowledge at graduate level, and employers of engineering science and information technology were surveyed in a mix of manufacturing and service sectors in the first quarters of 1998.
The report found that some 35 per cent. of enterprises in electronics manufacturing had found some difficulties in meeting their recruitment targets over the past three years, and I can confirm that that is still very much the case. In mechanical engineering and in the three leading service sector industries 19 to 26 per cent. of enterprises experienced similar difficulties. In the case of the service sector industries, the single most important discipline in shortage terms was computer sciences and information technology rather than engineering subjects. I very much welcome what has been said today about the development of IT training and the introduction of IT training for people who have spent many years outside the work market. I hope that that small introduction will lead them to a career in computer services, because not only is it highly paid, but it is the one engineering sector where there are more women operating than men, and crucially—although some hon. Members may regard this as sexist—it is the only area where women actually earn 1 per cent. more than their male equivalents. In all other aspects of engineering, unfortunately, we earn 14 per cent. less. As a mechanical engineer, I have always found that particularly hard to bear.
Referring to computer sciences, the study also found problems in electronics companies recruiting electronics graduates, and particularly leading-edge and bioengineering technology recruitment.
The conclusions of the report look at a latent skills gap. There are obvious skills shortages at this time which are well understood. Hon. Members will know that the development of an engineer or a doctor—in fact, the development of any individual who is going to go on to articulate great skills—depends on crucial factors, including foundation education where numeracy and literacy are key. We are delighted to see improvements in those two areas. However, with reference to the latent skills gap, we are still about to enjoy in the engineering profession 10 years in which the

337WH
manufacturing industries will be substantially concerned about low numeracy and literacy ability. I know that because that is still a great concern in the Engineering Council and the boards that I meet.
Many solutions have been put forward by the Government, and we welcome them. However, we also recognise that there is a significant onus on manufacturing to address some of the skills gaps and that, although people may believe that Government can deliver everything, this is about a partnership.
How do I talk to a small or medium enterprise business that says, "We recognise that we have a skills shortage, but we have insufficient money for training"? Those people know that there is a problem, that they may fall on hard times—in fact, some may even go out of business—if they do not implement a solid training policy looking at developing outstanding assets. They take in people who are highly qualified but do not subsequently invest in those individuals. It leads to the demise of the individual; it can lead to the demise of that industry; and we as an economy lose out.
I make a plea on behalf of my engineering colleagues. Engineering is a key driver to the economy. It is the most creative of all disciplines, offering great joy to many of its participants. It is essential to the quality of our life, yet it is suffering. I ask for an acceleration of the policies that we have to encourage more people to take science-related disciplines in an attempt to take them into engineering and for support for those engineering companies that cannot meet the expensive training costs associated with developing their most important asset—their human resources.
3.30 pm
Charlotte Atkins: I am delighted to take part in this debate on the vital issue of basic skills. It is particularly important for an area such as mine—Staffordshire—where the economy is undergoing fundamental change. It is witnessing the decline of its industrial base. The coal industry has ceased production. Manufacturing overall has declined by about a quarter. Ceramics, textiles and, of course, the farming industry have been the hardest hit.
Such changes in the economy demand a flexible work force. My area has absorbed employment cuts, at a considerable cost to the population at large. The affected workers have, in many cases, had to accept lower incomes and temporary, casual or part-time work. Unemployment may appear still to be relatively low, but pay is incredibly low. These are the very people that need good, basic skills and the ability to learn. Historically, however, Staffordshire has had consistently low levels of achievement and low numbers of people staying on at school after the age of 16. It is an appalling legacy that the young people—and, indeed, older generations of people in Staffordshire—have been failed by the education system.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned the 40 per cent. gap in the basic skills of adults that is determined by the experience of a child up to age 10. That demonstrates the real cost-effectiveness of the Government's sure start programme. That ensures the earliest possible intervention for young children and their families before the age of three.
338WH
I believe that previous Governments have concentrated too much on those students who sail through the education system into the highly subsidised—even today it is highly subsidised—higher education system. They have not concentrated well enough on basic skills. It is a fact of life, I am afraid, that those who succeed at education continue to succeed and those who fail continue to fail. That was the norm. Now it is left to the present Government to pick up the pieces. It is amazing that one in five adults are virtually illiterate, as the Minister mentioned—lacking the basic skills expected of an 11-year-old. We must break this cycle of disadvantage.
That will not be easy. No one wants to admit to literacy and numeracy problems—there is still a very strong stigma attached to that—but it is a huge national problem. Although all countries have problems of poor literacy, I was amazed to see that Britain and the United States do particularly badly. The 1997 international adult literacy survey that the Minister quoted looked at 12 countries, and only Poland and Ireland had a higher proportion of low levels of literacy than Britain.
What has happened since Labour came to power? I am pleased to report that staying-on rates for post-16s in Staffordshire have improved considerably since 1998. Unfortunately, the gap between the performance of north Staffordshire and the improving national and regional statistics has not closed. The Government have recognised that, by making Stoke-on-Trent a national pilot for educational maintenance allowances.
As everyone in the Chamber knows, pupils are paid a small allowance to encourage them to stay on at school, post-16. The scheme has already been stunningly successful across Stoke-on-Trent local education authority, with an average EMA payment of nearly £25.
Mr. Allan: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has come across the problem of qualification for the allowance, whereby, unlike in the case of tuition relief for higher education students, if parents are separated, both parental incomes seem to be taken into account. Therefore, children in need with separated parents cannot access the EMA—although they would be able to access higher education tuition fee relief on a similar formula.
Charlotte Atkins: That is very unfortunate. I have not actually come across that particular problem, but I appreciate that it is a key issue.
Before I describe the problems that I have encountered in my constituency over the EMAs, I should like to say that at Stoke-on-Trent college the retention rate for EMA students, if I may call them that, was a stunning 84 per cent. Ninety-three per cent of students said that they would have to work part-time if they did not receive the EMA. Only 22 per cent. of students receiving EMAs had a part-time job, which meant that those students with EMAs were able to concentrate on their studies—which is particularly important for those who are not high achieving students.
Inevitably, there have been problems, especially as the scheme is a pilot, because it has concentrated on a particular area. My surgeries have been filled with complaints about anomalies. A student who attended

339WH
Stoke-on-Trent college, from Stoke-on-Trent, would get an EMA, but a student from Leek—just 10 miles down the road—would not. Yet a Stoke-on-Trent student who attended Leek college would receive the EMA. Such anomalies upset constituents, even though, of course, without this Government there would be no EMAs.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Two students in the same class may not both receive an EMA, even though they could be equally in need. We need to accelerate the rate at which we roll out the EMAs, so that all students in all areas receive such an allowance.
Charlotte Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend, who must be a mind-reader, as I am about to put exactly that point to the Minister.
We need to roll out the EMA programme across the whole of north Staffordshire because of its low levels of attainment and staying-on rates. Also, in my view, we must roll it out nationally, because the social costs of not doing so are too great. We must encourage students receiving that relatively small amount of money—it is vital that we encourage them to continue in post-16 education. In north Staffordshire we desperately need particular skills —technology, language, business and management skills—and we have a long way to go to achieve that. That will be a huge challenge for the new learning and skills councils.
I am delighted to have in my constituency the important asset of Clough Hall, a specialist technology school in Kidsgrove. It not only provides its 1,100 students with a good education and sound technology skills but opens its tremendous facilities of computer suites and sports pitches to the local community and to other schools. Those facilities are therefore shared right across Kidsgrove. Gone are the days when schools opened from just 9 o'clock to 4 o'clock. Their role is now crucial because they are firmly based in the community. Travel, which the hon. Member for Daventry mentioned, is therefore not a problem; child care may be a problem, but it is much easier to deal with child care problems if venues are on people's doorstep.
However, schools cannot effect change by themselves. Learn Direct will be vital because, with 80 per cent. of its courses online, it is ideally suited to a technology school. In fact, just five days ago, Clough Hall school became a Learn Direct centre and has been inundated with expressions of interest. People do not mind admitting that they have problems with information and communication technology, whereas they might mind admitting that they have reading or literacy problems. Even the Prime Minister admitted that he has only just begun to learn to use a computer.
Clough Hall school has introduced such courses as an "afraid of the mouse" course. Such simple courses are popular and once students have signed up to them, Learn Direct helpers can establish their basic skills problems. Such learners can then move on to the A+ technician qualification course or the two-year Cisco network engineering course. Small bite-sized courses lead on to greater and higher things. As the hon. Member for Daventry said, many such courses are just three hours long. People do not have to sign up for six months—a long time in the life of a single parent, for
340WH
example. Such courses are effectively self-financing, through individual learning accounts, which is important in an area such as north Staffordshire, where pay is so low.
Another brilliant aspect of that range of activity after 4 pm is that it is managed by an adult education manager, leaving the head teacher, Mick Readman, to do what he is best at: running a forward-looking, successful school, leading community initiatives and reaching out to those who have not yet crossed its threshold. He tells me that he wants to do more outreach work and will head out to the pubs and community centres to pull people in—although motivation is a key issue and Mr. Readman will not provide free pints of beer.
When my daughter was four, I decided that I had to embark on a computer course. When asked what my motivation was, I said that I felt that my four-year-old would soon surpass me in computer skills—which would not have been difficult at the time. Ten years on, she has left me far behind but is a great help in trying to boost my computer skills. There is real scope for involving parents and children together. Apart from anything else, it would be a great boost to underachieving boys to see their dads learning alongside them.
Sadly, basic skills problems often run in families. Children of parents with poor basic skills are more likely to have problems with literacy and numeracy. We must break out of that cycle of disadvantage. I am delighted that the Government have announced a big expansion of vocational GCSEs and that pupils will be able to mix these with academic subjects. For too long, vocational qualifications have been the poor relation of more academic qualifications. I know that my own Leek high schools allow students to mix vocational and academic subjects. There is no reason why it should not be highly successful. We need to establish a parity of esteem for vocational qualifications. They need to be real qualifications, not like the NVQ for ambient display—which is shelf stacking to you and me—that the Select Committee on Education came across when it was engaged in its further education inquiry. That NVQ level 1 in ambient display did not really seem to justify the name of an NVQ.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) said that vocational qualifications in particular were bedevilled by gender stereotyping. Like my hon. Friend, I am keen to see more girls going into engineering and indeed into construction. I would, however, also like to see more boys selecting child care and early childhood education—they would be vital role models for young boys. We have a great deal of work to do in breaking down the gender imbalance in occupations that are the weaker for the fact that they are very male-dominated.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Would my hon. Friend like to confirm the sterling work that has been undertaken by Professor Tom Ruxton, head of engineering at Staffordshire university, in providing access to returners to work and providing introductory courses in engineering? Tom Ruxton is probably one of the most successful recruiters to engineering and technology because he has done precisely as my hon. Friend has

341WH
suggested—diversified and made his product meet the market. He enabled people to come forward instead of driving them away.
Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate not only Professor Ruxton but all the staff and the vice-chancellor of Staffordshire university, because they do a tremendous job of outreach. I am particularly pleased with the way that they encourage pupils at a relatively young age. My present obsession is to encourage universities and schools to use year 8, when pupils are about 12 or 13, much more effectively for outreach. It is time then for pupils to think about university careers, long before they decide on their GCSE options.
Several hon. Members rose—
Charlotte Atkins: I give way to the hon. Member for Daventry.
Mr. Boswell: As we are discussing Staffordshire university, I should like to mention that, co-incidentally, I have had two meetings in consecutive weeks with representatives of the university—the second of which was yesterday. As a result I can fairly say that, although I do not spend my time puffing up individual institutions, I am impressed by its engagement on widening participation not only in respect of gender but disability and ethnicity issues. The staff of the university generate a very positive atmosphere and adopt a positive approach to attracting people, which must be entirely consistent with the objectives of the debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I was not sure whether all those hon. Members rising from their places were seeking to intervene on the hon. Lady or hoping to catch my eye later.
Charlotte Atkins: I am sure that hon. Members were all trying to intervene to congratulate Staffordshire university, which is a fine institution. I shall take all my colleagues' comments back to Christine King, the vice-chancellor.
I shall soon draw my comments to a close, in case my colleagues are becoming impatient. The prospect of not resolving the basic skills problems that we face is far too awful to contemplate. The Government's target to reduce the number of adults with skills problems by 750,000 by the year 2004 is certainly ambitious but not impossible. In that respect, I am delighted that both the Government and the hon. Member for Daventry recognise the important role played by the trade unions over many years in boosting the skills of their members in the workplace and via distance learning. The union learning fund has a huge potential for expansion, because unions like my own, Unison, have always taken their educational role very seriously. A union member is much more likely to sign up for a course if encouraged to do so by a shop steward that he or she knows and trusts, than as a result of being preached at by their local Member of Parliament or someone in the education field.
One consequence of basic skills problems can be seen at my local Werrington young offender institution. It is full of lads of 15, 16 and 17 with real skills problems.
342WH
Computer courses are extremely popular with them, but as the lads typically stay there for only a few months, it is almost impossible to follow up their learning packages, because most of those lads are from Liverpool and Manchester, not the local area. I wonder whether the Minister might suggest to Learn Direct that it keeps track of lads who leave such institutions and follows them up in their home town. Often they have never had their basic skills addressed professionally; they may have truanted from school or opted out of education. The problem is that even if they make a good start with learning at the institution, all that falls by the wayside because they live 50, 60 or 70 miles from the institution.
The Government are struggling to reverse the previous Government's failure to deliver good basic skills. As the hon. Member for Daventry said, the best thing to do is to ensure that the problems do not become established in the first place. The Government have made a very good start in that, with 72 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieving maths to level 4 and 75 per cent. in English. That is an amazing 18 per cent. increase in attainment of level 4 in both subjects over just four years. That is remarkable. I have seen it happen at Kelvin Grove school in Lewisham, where I am still a local school governor. It is the most improved primary school in London, and the 10th most improved primary school in England. That has been done by hard work, with focused literacy and numeracy hours.
Now we need to ensure that that improvement carries through into secondary schools, because there is a problem both in year 7, in the traditional start at 11 years old, and in the middle school system in year 8, which appears to be almost a gap year. Then young people tend to fall back in terms of their skills. We must get on top of that task, to ensure that not only basic literacy and numeracy skills but all skills are improved, so that we can compete on equal terms with countries elsewhere.
3.53 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I thank the Minister for raising this as a subject of debate, and in particular I thank his office for sending over various documents following a discussion that I had with him about the key issues that would be raised today. It has been pleasing that we have had a non-partisan debate on this very important issue.
I will start by picking up on the point that I raised with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on the issue of educational maintenance allowances, as I hope that the Minister will do some further work on it. I do not expect him to have the information to hand, but the issue has been raised with me by staff at Sheffield college. My colleagues and I are strong supporters of the educational maintenance allowances and want them to be extended to all learners, as they are a key element, especially in the basic skills area. They help individuals who need some additional financial support to get to college or to stay on at school.
Staff at the college asked what happens to an individual whose parents are separated. A letter from the Secretary of State on the subject states that the original scheme was set up almost as a trial, and that it was formulated taking; both incomes into account, to ensure that both the parent with and the parent without

343WH
care would take responsibility. It also said that the formula was subject to review. I urge the Minister to put his basic skills hat on and ensure that there is an early review, because I have had reports of individuals who apply to study experiencing problems getting any information from the parent without care. In the higher education funding system, the parent with care is assessed, and any maintenance paid is taken into account in the financial assessment. Taking into account both parents in making a financial assessment will reduce the value of EMAs in eases where the parents have separated.
I was also asked about the administration of EMAs. Individuals have to sign on to qualify for EMA, but staff at Sheffield college told me that the signing-on procedure is inflexible and does not take students' timetables into account. College feedback to the Department suggested that the local administration should be more flexible and that students should not have to miss classes in order to sign on.
Mr. John Healey: I am strongly in favour of rolling out the EMA scheme nationally, including to Rotherham. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the 56 pilot areas are designed as a trial to tease out the problems that he raised?
Mr. Allan: I accept that. I am using the debate to give more input into the pilot scheme before the review. I am trying to give the Minister feedback on the basic skills initiatives, in what I hope is a non-partisan and constructive way. I hope that it will be a genuine pilot scheme. It is to be regretted that, after some pilots run by previous Governments—I am not making a partisan point—the proposals were rolled out so quickly that what happened in the pilot scheme was not changed even when there were problems. I hope that the Government will be genuine about making any changes that are needed.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mentioned engineering skills shortages, a matter raised with me by the Engineering Employers Federation in Sheffield in one of our regular briefings. I am aware that the engineering sector suffers because it is not getting the trainees that it requires. Employers tell me that they have places available under various apprenticeship schemes but the applicants' basic skills are not sufficient for them even to commence an apprenticeship. We must get the whole picture right; it is a matter not only of creating good new apprenticeship schemes but of ensuring that the applicants are up to scratch.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was right to talk about learners' personal experiences and their reticence in coming forward. I represent quite an affluent area of Sheffield, yet some people who come to my surgery—which is difficult for them—push a set of papers across the table and say, "You keep them," when I hand them back. It is only later that I realise that the papers are no use to them because they cannot read them: someone else has explainer the situation to them before the visit. People leave the papers with me because of their literacy problems. That is an important experience in setting the context for and giving flesh to the bones of the statistics in the Moser report—which I found depressing, especially when we compare ourselves
344WH
with Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, all of whose illiteracy and innumeracy rates are half, or less than half, those of the United Kingdom.
I want to talk about two key aspects of the basic skills challenge: opportunity and access. Opportunity has to do with entitlements to study. The Minister and others have covered that at some length in terms of the learning and skills councils. A key recommendation of the Secretary of State's statement was that the councils should have a prime responsibility for opportunity and access. They have a statutory duty to provide training for certain categories of people, which we debated at length in Committee on the Learning and Skills Bill. I hope that learning and skills councils will be able to deliver.
My present concern is the transition period. Transitions are always difficult, as moving from the current framework to that of the LSCs will be. The people involved are willing and able to get on with it. I have met Doug Liversidge, the chair of the South Yorkshire learning and skills council. He is keen to get going, but there will be a period when staff are getting into place. I noticed from the Secretary of State's statement that each local LSC will have dedicated basic skills staff. That is important, but we need to ensure that it happens as a priority rather than being slotted into place later.
Opportunity is linked to entitlement and the ability to deliver it. The LSCs will be the commissioning authorities and the further education sector will provide most of the delivery of basic skills provision.
The key area that I should like to focus on today is access, not the traditional notion of physical access—the fact that a place is located near to people—but access in terms of people's perceptions of learning and whether they have an aspiration to access skills and feel ready and able to do so. Perceptions are important. The Minister made important comments about students who had taken basic skills courses and made very little improvement. That reminded me of a conversation that I had recently with my nephew about his future. He is about to leave school to study at Sheffield college. He was talking about options, and said, "I'd like to go on to course A, B or C. If I can't get any of those, I'll have to do ConneXions." ConneXions is for people who need to improve the skills that they have picked up at school. Young people are not stupid: he had a clear notion that ConneXions was for failures. That was how he—and, presumably, his colleagues at school— perceived it.
It is important, when we introduce courses for youngsters, whose skills, we accept, are not up to scratch, that we tailor them so that they want to access them and do not self-categorise themselves as failures. That may be one reason why they are not making advances. They are almost saying, "My education has pretty much come to an end. I'm just marking time now, because I didn't get on the good courses that everyone wants to be on. I'm doing the course for those who have failed."
Information and communication technology is an important tool in learning through new methods and challenging the barriers. I shall refer to it later in detail. I am a big fan of the Learn Direct initiative, and the fact that the university for industry is based in Sheffield makes that not entirely coincidental. I have visited and

345WH
spoken to people involved in the initiative and to some of the people who have been taken on as experts. Such initiatives are important in improving access.
The naming of the university for industry and Learn Direct is an example of the importance of perception. I remember the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, telling us that the university for industry name had been market-tested. "Industry" was a turn-off for many people, as was "university", so it has been appropriately branded as Learn Direct. That shows how, for people in our target group—those who have not engaged with the education system sufficiently—branding and the perception of what they are letting themselves in for are critical, and we must be careful not to scare them away.
I am still concerned that we have not reached far enough into the community. The learning centres based in schools are a good initiative and will reach many learners, but there may still be a body of people out there who are turned off by schools and find school buildings a barrier. I welcome proposals for a learning centre in a popular Sheffield shopping centre, which has millions of visitors a year. I hope that such initiatives will crack some of the access issues.
The other key issue is access for those in work, a topic to which both reports refer. By prioritising young people, particularly those in the 14 to 19 age group, which has always been a clear aim, there are concerns that the Government may inadvertently allow some older people to slip through the net. I noted the recommendation in the Moser report that all people—employed or unemployed—should have access to proper guidance facilities to allow them to access education to develop their careers. We have had long debates about guidance services, and I understand why the Government prioritise certain groups, but I hope that they will take that recommendation on board, particularly in the area of basic skills. I hope that they will see that in prioritising they should not exclude those in work or those who are too old.
On consultation, area-based interventions and single regeneration budget schemes were referred to. Basic skills training has been built into some SRB projects. Originally, the SRB projects, being area-based, were aimed at bricks and mortar. They quite properly evolved away from bricks and mortar on the understanding that that is not how to regenerate a city area—as we have seen in Sheffield. They moved on to incorporate anti-crime measures, education and training and other matters.
I am still not persuaded that the SRB initiatives make sense in a city such as Sheffield, where there are specific SRB areas. We referred earlier to the issue of EMA areas, and people in one district qualifying while those in another do not. With SRB, that is even worse in many cases. A person living on one estate qualifies, while a person living on another does not. I hope that the Government will move towards using bodies such as local authorities or local learning and skills councils to deliver education services and basic skills training, rather than folding it into an SRB scheme, which may be at too low a level, leading to uneven provision. The SRB boundaries are too tightly defined, when there is a comprehensive pattern of need across the whole county.
346WH
The proposal for replacement funding to enable work-based learners to take time off—if they qualify under certain criteria—and to ensure that employers do not suffer, is sensible, and one that I hope that the Government will consider. It would clearly cost money, but it would be money well spent.
Another sensible idea is that of discounting basic skills study time for jobseeker's allowance claimants. I argue only that we could go further. I understand that the Government, as would all Governments, question the idea of discounting certain forms of study, because of the implications if all study time were discounted for JSA purposes. Full-time further and higher education students would then qualify, and it would be difficult to determine which forms of study would not.
In many ways, however, the Government have set a precedent with the new deal full-time education and training option which has allowed certain forms of study to take place while the young person continues to receive benefit. I hope that the Government will be able to extend that option so that more people can spend their time constructively should they find themselves unemployed. Such people should be able to claim benefit, if appropriate, and study at the same time. It is illogical for unemployed people who want to enrol on a course to improve their employability to lose benefit: by doing so.
The Government referred to lone parents and what could be done to improve their skills. The sure start initiative is one on which I would also congratulate the Government. It has been very effective in dealing with parents in deprived areas. Lone parents have particular difficulties to overcome, and the paper makes it clear that it is common to find low skill levels among them. Historically, playgroups have played a useful role. Playgroups run on a voluntary basis have involved both parents and children I am concerned that currently, as an inadvertent by-product of the Government's funding of nursery education, which we welcome, playgroups are moving from the voluntary parent-involved structure to a much more professional structure.
It would be unfortunate if, inadvertently—and I am sure that this is not the Government's intention—the playgroup, which has provided great learning opportunities for parents and allowed those who have become involved to develop a whole range of skills, were to move away from a parent-involved structure, because the nursery sector has come to be regarded as more professional, and become like a school, where the parents drop off the kids and leave the professionals to look after them until it is time to come back and pick them up. I have had that feedback at ground level, and it causes me some concern.
Charlotte Atkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to read the early-years report that the Select Committee produced. Does he agree that it is absolutely vital to have trained staff in those early-years settings? We expect to have trained staff at the sixth form or university, but given how vital the early years are, is it not also crucial, even though we want to involve parents, that we have appropriately qualified staff who can really boost the learning ability of those young children?
Mr. Allan: I do not disagree, and I am hoping that in this case we could have our cake and eat. There is no

347WH
reason why we should not see an improvement in the quality of early-years education—we all want that—but at the same time retain parental involvement. I am simply trying to express a concern that I have had fed back to me. Parents perceive that this has become a sector in which they no longer need to be involved in the same way.
I am recommending to the Government, as a form of feedback, that they do more to develop parental involvement through bodies such as the Pre-School Learning Alliance and others who are very involved in this sector. One of the key ways in which one can crack parental illiteracy and innumeracy is by getting parents to learn at the same time as their children.
Information and communication technology is a key area of development, as both the Secretary of State and the report said. We are witnessing a fundamental change in the use of ICT, and the Government need to be ahead of it. It is moving from the traditional computer to things such as digital television and the gadget that I am holding: a PDA, personal digital assistant. It can be kept in ore's pocket, and mine, as well as having a diary and the obvious everyday things, can download a copy of The Guardian and enormous amounts of information.
Mobile phones are now ubiquitous in schools, to the horror of many teachers, but they can be an educational resource. Within a couple of years, domestic consumer products that are perfectly capable of delivering educational material very cheaply will revolutionise our opportunities. The younger end of the market has distinct advantages.
Mr. Boswell: In certain cases, although the cost of technology is falling, there will be some people who will not be able to afford the capital equipment. Would it not be a sensible use of the resources of the local learning and skills councils if they thought, as some are already doing, about making available laptops or other home terminals to give people the opportunity of downloading material on equipment that they would not themselves have the means to buy?
Mr. Allan: That is a very helpful comment, as it reminds me of another point raised with me by staff at Sheffield college. We are considering a similar scheme in Sheffield, using objective 1 money to supply equipment to learners in South Yorkshire, and the staff asked about the provision of laptops. As Sheffield college is a further education college, they understand that it would be beyond their competence to provide them, although schools could. I understand from the new principal, John Taylor, that he received advice that he would have difficulties with the provision of equipment outside the college in terms of his legal competence. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue.
Another initiative on which I would praise the Government is their support for the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, BECTA. John Taylor is a director of the organisation, and we are developing some good contacts there. I hope that more research will be commissioned into the basic skills area, because it is the research side that has been lacking in the past. We have had a number of initiatives about ICT and learning. We have not always looked into what works and what does not, and I hope that BECTA will be able to consider that in the basic skills area.
348WH
With regard to the ability to roll out learning to wider groups, I did an Industry and Parliament Trust placement with British Gas, and was impressed by the fact that all its engineers now have laptops and go out and fix boilers on the basis of CD-ROMs that are supplied. That works perfectly well, and is a good example of change in a work force that traditionally had no ICT skills. They had been recruited because they could fix boilers, and many who were perhaps sceptical at first now find the tool invaluable. That is a demonstration of what is being done in business. I hope that the Government will consider examples in the private sector where business drives have forced organisations to start laptop learning.
I have a perennial concern about some of the target-setting that the Government are doing. Projects such as Sure Start will deliver results in 10 years, and that kind of horizon is much less politically exciting than targets that are met within the foreseeable future of the lifetime of a Government. Early pledges are much more fun to make in a political debate—they can be batted around on both sides—than initiatives that will yield results in 10 or 15 years' time. Often, those longer-term programmes are the most valuable, and I hope that the Government will continue to fund such initiatives, and not get too distracted by some of the political hoo-ha that is likely to build up in the context of a general election. They should not be tempted down the route of promising to deliver everything in two or three years. Some of the basic skills programmes will certainly not be delivered in that time frame. Quite frankly, I do not care who is in government at that point, as long as the programmes continue for those 10 years and are finally delivered.
4.17 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton. You will recall that the last time you chaired a sitting here, I clashed with the Minister. Perhaps this time we shall have a harmonious afternoon.
We have had a thoughtful debate. The Minister said that he is in listening mode, I notice that the Opposition Front Benchers have been in a non-partisan mood, and it is a pleasure to follow the debate in a similar spirit. I agree with much of what hon. Members have been saying, in particular the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who, like me, is an engineer. I agree with more or less everything that she said about engineering, perhaps with some infinitesimal differences.
The issue of imparting basic skills is a minefield. I do not want to sound like the Jeremiah of the debate, but I want to bring to the Minister's attention some of the concerns that people in Teesside have expressed about our communities and how they could be improved. We have all the schemes—sure start, excellence in cities, education action zones—and I pay a great tribute to the Government for tackling deficiencies in basic skills. I recognise that it is a monumental problem. I know that, in his own way, the Minister is a learned scholar, so I am sure that he will take what I am about to say—relaying the views expressed by people in my area—in the spirit in which it is offered.

349WH
The old basic skills, which were regarded as appropriate for the old economy, are now almost redundant. The selection and teaching of those skills were related to a world based on the legacy of a Victorian economy. Children were expected to know the three Rs, and to obey authority. If a boy were bright enough, he might progress through night school to become a tradesman; a girl could, perhaps, become a good shop assistant. They had basic skills, overlaid with an inbuilt deference to authority. As late as the 1960s, people were used to an employment environment that few expected to change radically over their working lifetime. Their skills and surroundings were essentially little different from those that were familiar to their mothers and fathers.
The world of today is very different: the economy is accelerating feverishly and new technology has killed off—for good—the old workshop, or office environment, and it is changing shape, form, and capability with incredible speed. New technology cannot be managed on the basis of established hierarchy or deference, but it does need old skills—mathematics, good knowledge of systems and processes, command of language and communication skills. However, it also requires the development of good interpersonal skills and for everyone, whatever their position in the company, constantly to upskill their competences.
Social and economic disparities in the United Kingdom have an impact on people's ability to adapt to new technology. As a Member of Parliament representing a traditional, industrial constituency I know how hard it can be for many people. The economy of Teesside was, and still largely is, based on steel and chemicals—industries that traditionally required muscle and specialist skills; but even those older industries have uprated their operations. That has had a human cost: many thousands lost their jobs, and many of those who expected that that they would have a job for life on leaving school also found themselves on a scrap heap. Today on Teesside, we have a two-speed society. Too many Teesside estates, communities, and villages that were dormitories for the old economy continue to be plagued by unemployment and poverty, which trap people in a cycle of low self-esteem and self-worth. That cycle can be self-perpetuating—carried on from mother and father to son and daughter.
We cannot hide the fact that we on Teesside have poor levels of educational attainment: 41 per cent. of our school students achieve five GCSEs at A to C grade, compared with 49 per cent. nationally. Of 50 secondary schools on Teesside, 34 performed below the national average, with 12 of those achieving less than half of that average. Thirteen per cent. of our school leavers do not go on to any form of further employment, training, or work—compared with 7 per cent. nationally.
However, human potential still exists: our primary schools are achieving excellent results—needless to say, that is in large part thanks to the Government's efforts. Those students who do leave secondary school to go on to further education end up with results that are very close to the national average. The local training and enterprise council tells me that between 1993 and 2000, the number of trainees from Teesside obtaining qualifications at NVQ level 3 and above increased by
350WH
25.5 per cent., which is far better than the UK national average of 21 per cent. Our youngsters are not thick; they have talents, abilities and initiative that can be liberated. The drive to improve attainment must be seen as part of a wider battle to raise expectations on a cultural and community level.
High levels of unemployment, familiarity with the drugs culture and the acceptance of a crime culture leads most to a life of low horizons, low motivation and alienation. Local agencies must begin early to stop that life cycle gaining momentum. We must begin in the primary schools and work intensively with mothers and fathers. We cannot start to offer palliatives only when a youngster is about to leave the school system. We have to develop a programme for improving attainment and life skills based on short, medium and long-term objectives, with each component meshing seamlessly with the other. We do not have this at the moment: we have a hydra-headed structure for community regeneration, lifelong learning and family support. Different agencies with different short-term objectives are focusing on specific aspects of skilling, learning and education at a time m hen we desperately need clarity and long-term thinking.
From the Department for Education and Employment alone, we have sure start, education action zones, the excellence in cities programme and the new deal. From the Department of Trade and Industry, we have other programmes, including the Small Business Service. From the Cabinet Office, we get social inclusion programmes and drugs action teams. From the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions we get neighbourhood renewal, the single regeneration budget and the oversight of programmes run by the regional development agencies. In addition to all that, the new Learning and Skills Council will soon be up and running, exercising responsibilities spanning all those spheres of action. Add the myriad special schemes managed by local authorities and the voluntary sector and the result is what the Audit Commission once famously described as a "patchwork quilt" of social renewal and regeneration initiatives.
I raise that as a point of concern for the Minister's attention. There is a desperate need to introduce clarity into the process. Everyone on the ground tells me that we are suffering from what is coming to be described as partnership fatigue. At best, the result is duplication of effort. Rivalries are emerging.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend says and am sure that there is a great deal of sympathy for his views. The plethora of initiatives, agencies and projects that have been launched to tackle a variety of problems concerns us all. Is my hon. Friend able to propose a different framework or a solution to the problem? Is there a simple structure that we could establish that would address the complex needs of the variety of communities that we are trying to help?
Dr. Kumar: I cannot offer a panacea—I do not have a solution. The Government are tackling the problems that they face. We have had the challenge of trying to solve within three of fear years some of the big problems left after 18 years of a different Government. It is the job of any Government to solve the problems that they find and what we are achieving is tremendous—I am gaining

351WH
from it, as are the communities that I represent. However, I want to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that there is something happening underneath of which he ought to be aware.
What about joined-up Government? That does not appear to be what is happening at the moment. When I talk about partnership fatigue, I am not stating what I believe, but what those who are carrying out the Governments' initiatives are telling me. As a serious Member of Parliament who does his duty, I am trying to bring these matters to the Minster's attention. The people on the ground from our local training and enterprise council, colleges, schools and local authorities tell me that there is far too little synergy or co-ordination between many of the skills projects in Teesside.
We must make a fresh start: we need to define our priorities and agree who will be responsible for their delivery. Our priorities should be, first, to end the culture of dependency and, secondly, to encourage the high achievers of Teesside to stay on Teesside. The problem of the brightest and the best heading down to London, taking their skills and abilities with them, affects most of the older industrial areas., and it is certainly a problem on Teesside. Thirdly, education providers must cross the age gaps. There is no reason why we should not encourage children of 12 or 13 to start thinking about and visiting colleges of further education and universities. We need to devise basic skills programmes that are flexible enough to respond to changes in the economy as they occur; and we must structure our agencies so that they can deliver on core tasks.
The key is to give a firm remit to the new learning and skills councils; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that. The LSCs are big enough to be effective at sub-regional level. They should be allowed to set the parameters for an all-embracing holistic approach to basic skills learning, and they must be the key partners for schools and local education authorities. There must be parity of esteem among LSCs, the LEAs and schools.
Conversely, LSCs are too big to be effective delivery agents at local level. The management of community programmes, which may involve local skilling, is best done locally—we do not want repeat of the SRB experiences, whereby workers constantly found that small aspects of their work were subject to scrutiny, monitoring and approval by Government regional officers. The utter silliness of a highly paid grade 7 civil servant from a regional Government office overseeing and invigilating a small healthy eating and cooking programme on a Teesside council estate must end. If we are serious about neighbourhood renewal and the revival of neighbourhood self-confidence, we must expect neighbourhoods to manage their own affairs. To do otherwise would merely be to reinforce the feelings of worthlessness to which I have referred.
As the basic skills unit of the Department for Education and Employment has said, improving basic skills should be nothing short of a national crusade. We must recognise that it cannot be a bolt-on exercise. Our economy is going through the most radical changes since the 1840s, and we need a strategic, co-ordinated and structured response if we are to raise basic skill levels nationwide and to ensure that areas such as mine
352WH
are given the opportunity to compete effectively in the new economy. We face an historic challenge which I know the Government will take up. They have already achieved a great deal. I have spoken today to help the Government I support to achieve even more.
4.34 pm
Mr. Hilary Benn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). He has made a powerful point about the challenge that we face to take the money and effort that the Government have invested to try to solve some of the most intractable problems, particularly in our urban areas, and to build in the flexibility for which I think he argued.
The Government have been responsible for the neighbourhood warden scheme and have provided extra funding to combat truancy in schools. A local authority, a community safety partnership or a local community organisation might say to the Government, "Could you let us bid for a bit of money from the neighbourhood warden scheme and a bit from the truancy cash so that we can employ wardens in the community, whose principal responsibility would be to ensure that kids were not bunking off school?" That would be a good way of building on what the Government have done.
It is thoroughly positive that attention is being focused on these intractable problems in inner-city areas—I am speaking as a Member who represents such an area—but we need to trust local communities more and give people the chance to apply their local knowledge and expertise.
I had only one disagreement with the contribution of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr Boswell). He said that this debate was tailor-made for Westminster Hall, and while that is a testament to the virtues of Westminster Hall, it is a sad reflection on the other Chamber that such comments should be felt necessary. It is almost as if we enter a parallel universe when we enter Westminster Hall. In my experience, the quality of the debates in this Chamber has been universally high, and we should be able to say the same of the Floor of the House.
Thus far, we are agreed that we are dealing with a legacy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East argued with great force, the problem of basic skills is a legacy from an era when it was not necessary in all forms of employment to have a high level of basic skill. Nowadays, the basic skills that employers demand are far higher.
There is also the legacy of previous educational experience. I strongly believe that we are still dealing with the consequences of an era when many people felt stigmatised by educational failure at an early age. I am an ardent advocate of the comprehensive reforms of the past 30 years. One would not have to be a genius to recognise that if 11-year-olds were told at an early stage in their development, "Sorry, you are not up to much, you have failed, go away," they might grow up with a profound distrust of education and see it as not for them.
The stigma of those early years is one of the reasons why people are afraid to own up to failure. Our great success in educating a very small percentage of our

353WH
people to a very high standard has been the great strength of the British system, but on the other side of the coin is the basic skills problem that we are discussing. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister made reference to that, not least in relation to prisoners. I was interested by the written answer published earlier this week in Hansard that gave the results of a very large-scale study into the writing and numeracy skills of prisoners. Of the 97,000 prisoners tested for their writing skills, 80 per cent. were at level 1 or below, which is the level expected of the average 11-year-old. Of the 89,000 tested for their numeracy, 67 per cent. were at level 1 or below. That tells us all we need to know about the link between educational disadvantage and the extremely low levels of educational attainment among the people in the criminal justice system—I was going to say "criminality", but that is not quite what I mean.
Mr. Allan: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned about the politics of the debate about education in prison. The hon. Member for Daventry is quite forceful in his comments about it, but it is one of those areas that could be used mischievously in the political context. It could be used to argue that prisoners have advantages or get an easy ride. I sincerely hope that we have leadership across the political spectrum, so that when prison education programmes are developed, such rhetoric is not supported by politicians, who should know better.
Mr. Benn: I entirely agree. I hope that all of us in the Chamber believe in redemption. I certainly do. If we cannot help people in prison to redeem themselves, they are more likely to reoffend when their sentence is served and they re-enter society.
We are dealing with an intergenerational legacy, and it was striking that the Moser report referred to the obvious problem that if parents have poor basic skills, it is much more likely that their children will too. It cited the research by the City university, which found that
60 per cent. of children in the lowest reading attainment group at age 10 had parents with low literacy scores; only 2 per cent. had parents with high literacy scores.
That illustrates the problem.
This is a challenge for all of us. It is certainly a challenge for the part of Leeds that I represent, which has been incredibly successful in recent years in creating employment. Many jobs are being established by new businesses. The problem is that many of those jobs are being taken by people who commute into Leeds from increasingly far away, and many of those whom I represent in the inner cities, where there are pockets of unemployment and deprivation, lack the requisite skills and qualifications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said, they are no less intelligent than anyone else, but they do not have the skills. Basic skills are obviously the first step on the ladder.
As I said when we debated the Learning and Skills Bill, we have a problem of both supply and demand. I believe that demand is the biggest problem, as there is plentiful supply out there. We have to generate the
354WH
demand—it is what makes a person say, "Yes, I need to do something about that." First, we can give people the statistics—as we should do all the time—about the financial benefits of gaining skills. On average, someone with A-levels earns 25 per cent. more than someone with no qualifications. That is one way of illustrating that basic truth.
Secondly, we must recognise that we need to catch people when they are ready to say, "Yes, this is what I need to do." To be honest, they do not necessarily make that statement when we want them to. A teacher returning home after a hard day at school, as some children just do not want to learn, can imagine them coming back in five, 10 or 15 years' time saying, "I realise that I did not gain the full benefit from the education that was available, but now I want to."
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a most constructive and helpful speech. We are not falling out about much. From my experience, one of the main areas of self-reference is young mothers with children who are now attaining school age and, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) described, cannot handle the communications they receive from the school, whether reports or letters from teachers. They need to get basic reading skills to be able to respond and not to fall behind and embarrass their own children.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is just one example of how a lack of basic skills makes life very difficult for some people. We must provide a plethora of ways in which they can be enabled to take that step and receive the support and help that they require.
We are lucky in Leeds as we have many excellent FE colleges, which are heavily involved in outreach. Part of the solution lies in developing other avenues. A number of hon. Members have described how some of those schemes are being exploited. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands talked about ICT. She is perfectly right. People are prepared to say that they are short of IT skills, but they are reluctant to admit that they cannot read.
I had an interesting experience when I visited an educational institution recently. I had gone to the Brook Street Bureau office in the centre of Leeds to talk about the regulation of the employment industry, and was told about the women returners who come into that office. These women—it is mainly women—explain that their children have grown up, that they want to return to work and that they want to start with temporary work. Some of them say, "But I'm not really up on IT".
The office has two or three little workstations, where those women can sit down, put on a set of earphones and be taken through a basic training course in IT. No one looks over their shoulders to find out whether they are competent. So a little bit of basic education—in this case, basic IT education—takes place in the Brook Street Bureau office in Leeds. That is why I describe it as a learning institution. I would not previously have thought of it as part of the panoply of provision, but it is an interesting example. As that case shows, for people

355WH
considering working in an office, some knowledge of Word is now a basic skill requirement. That is an illustration of how the level of skills required has risen.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I concur with my hon. Friend's remarks about access. Does he agree that the new deal provision for lone parents and young people needs to be reviewed, given the number of people presenting with significant learning difficulties? The gateway programme is adequate for people with the expected, normal levels of understanding and intelligence. However, a significant proportion of people are just below that, and at the moment the gateway is failing them, because instead of being flexible, it is fixed. Many people come out of the programme unsupported. I spoke recently to lone parents, who said that they would like some discretion to be given to providers and trainers in the new deal. I should like to illustrate my point with an example—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Lady's intervention seems to be developing into a second speech. I hope that she has made her point.
Mr. Benn: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point, which I discussed with the Employment Service in Leeds. That is another good way in which we could take the work that the Government have done in establishing the new deal and consider how to build in greater flexibility in the light of experience to give greater help 10 those who need it most. That is the challenge for us, and we should ensure that we respond to it.
On qualifications and funding, I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Daventry made about the challenge to the funding system in recognising how people want to learn. With the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council, we have an opportunity to change an absurdity in the system as it has operated until now. If someone attending a college tells his tutor in the middle of the course that he will not be coming the following week as he has a job, that is terrific for the individual, but a disaster for the college. Under the funding formula, the college will be penalised for having failed to achieve completion. How we support providers must take full account of how learners want to learn.
Mr. Boswell: Recent experience involving one of the FE providers in my constituency shows that accounting for on-line learning is much more difficult than simply measuring the number of minutes of contact time in a classroom. Some evidence already suggests that further education colleges subject to the existing formula are having difficulty in accounting for that. That is clearly a matter to which the Minister needs to turn his attention.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the challenge that new technology creates for us in measuring participation.
Towards the end of last year, I was invited to participate in a presentation of certificates at the Beeston site of the Park Lane college. It involved a group of people who had achieved a variety of basic skills. On entering the room, I was struck by the strong sense of community among those who had participated. They literally constituted a community, as they all came
356WH
from the immediate geographical area. They had gained skill and confidence as a group, and had supported each other in doing so. Their pride in their own achievement was apparent, because every award of a certificate was met by someone jumping up with a camera to photograph their friend.
I particularly remember one woman who was physically shaking as she walked from the back of the room to receive her certificate from me. When she sat down, I leaned over to the course tutor and asked whether she had noticed it. She said that she had and explained that it was the first time in the woman's life that she had received a certificate for anything. It was both a humbling and an uplifting moment for me, which brought home so forcefully exactly what today's debate is about.
4.50 pm
Mr. John Healey: I welcome this afternoon's debate and my hon. Friend the Minister's initiative in staging it. I also pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). Over the past three or four years, I have grown accustomed to his non-partisan, constructive and well-informed approach.
The Minister has one of the most difficult tasks in government, with responsibility for a fundamental but unfashionable sector—basic skills and training—but he has the advantage of coming to his present post after a good grounding in the Education and Employment Committee. Since his arrival in the Department, the pace of interest in, policy making for, and resources invested in, the basic skills sector have accelerated.
The seminal Moser report of February 1999 underpins so much of our present debate and our plans for the future. The national skills taskforce report made another important contribution, and in December the Secretary of State made a statement about skills for life, setting out the strategy for improving basic adult literacy and numeracy, and adding a £400 million boost behind that drive over the next few years. The Government have set targets to reduce adult illiteracy and innumeracy by 750,000 by 2004—a formidable objective. The plans and resources are impressively in place, but the sheer scale of the challenge is, to use the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), sometimes frankly depressing.
Most of this afternoon's speakers have mentioned the basic and shameful legacy of 7 million adults lacking basic skills in England alone. One worrying consequence—it caught my eye in the Moser report and other material—is that one in 10 people find it impossible to read the basic instructions on a paracetamol bottle. Another is that one in five cannot read a train timetable in order to catch the right train, perhaps to get to a job interview.
Moser pointed out that in deprived areas those problems were likely to increase by up to 25 per cent. That certainly applies to the areas that I represent—Rotherham and South Yorkshire. Across the country, 33 per cent. have either low or very low numeracy skills; in the Yorkshire and Humber region, 36 per cent.; and in Rotherham, 39 per cent. The picture is similar for low or very low literacy skills—15 per cent. nationally, 16 per cent. across the region and 18 per cent. in Rotherham.

357WH
Several hon. Members have spoken about the profound impact on people's lives of not possessing adequate basic skills in the world today. It affects people's employability, productivity and prosperity—and that of their family, too. I was very struck by the figures provided by the TUC and cited by my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening remarks, showing that 49 out of 50 jobs are closed to anyone who does not have entry-level skills. People with poor basic skills are six times more likely to be out of work, and twice as likely to have been made redundant or sacked from the first job that they ever had.
Some of the research that was conducted for the national skills taskforce study recently shows that if we raised people's basic numeracy across the country, only to the level that we now expect of 11-year-olds, we would have a £40 billion increase in gross domestic product. The average unemployed person could earn an extra £1,000 a year if they improved their numeracy skills.
There is a wealth of material available for discussion, debate and future planning, and I have been very struck over the past couple of days by the precise and detailed analysis of the problem that has been undertaken. The reasons why we have such a problem are less clear, but what is least clear is what we should do about it. The solutions are thin and the action plans, where they are in place, are especially vague.
I had a look at a study that was undertaken as part of the preparations for our South Yorkshire local learning and skills council and, in an otherwise admirable report on basic skills, I was very struck by a section at the end, among the conclusions and action points. It says:
The local learning and skills council will therefore have to engage in a resource-intensive network of partnerships to use the existing infrastructure and to influence their behaviour and performance so as to go with the grain of the national strategy.
The final action point is:
The key message to underlay the approach to literacy and numeracy skills for adults in South Yorkshire, is to operationalise basic skills as a cross-cutting issue of profound structural importance for the LLSC and its partners.
I have an idea of what the authors mean, but I am not certain that they or I know what we actually need to do about the problem.
I take heart, however, from several signs that I see of activity, both national and local, and I believe that the boost that we now have with Government policy and Government resources gives us some good prospects for the future. A recognition of the need to remedy the basic skills shortage, not only among academics, policy makers, politicians or task forces, but among those who lack them and those who employ them is fundamental.

Again, I have been doing a bit of research from the South Yorkshire perspective, and our South Yorkshire training and enterprise councils conducted two surveys last year. The first was a household survey, and it showed that 45 per cent. of those people who felt vulnerable but were employed thought that their qualifications were out of date. In particular, one in eight thought that they needed to improve their reading; one in six thought that they needed to improve their
358WH
writing; one in five thought that they needed to improve their maths; and one in three thought they needed to learn how to use a PC and the internet.
There was a similar picture among unemployed people in South Yorkshire, 26 per cent. of whom recognised that improving their basic skills was vital, and more than 30 per cent. of whom recognised that improving their computer skills was fundamental to improving their position in the labour market.
Alongside that household survey, the TECs did an employer survey. That was similarly encouraging, but also challenging in highlighting the extent of the problem. The South Yorkshire employers surveyed cited numeracy and literacy as the crucial skills gap for them more frequently than employers in similar studies in the wider region. The figures are striking. More than twice as many South Yorkshire employers thought basic skills were a problem for them than employers in the rest of the region, and a little under twice as many felt the same about literacy.
Hon. Members will know of examples from their own areas that suggest that the challenge can be tackled effectively in practice, and that gives us another reason for optimism. I was struck by the experience of the basic skills at work project that was initiated by our Rotherham chamber of commerce and training and enterprise council and funded by the single regeneration budget—but none the less important a project for that. It was organised anti developed in recognition that changes in technology and working standards were forcing companies to adopt new ways of working and to introduce training. Employers were clear that many of their employees lacked the basic skills to be able to take up the training required for the company to change, improve and modernise.

The basic skills at work project provided employees with improved communication skills, basic skills and the ability to undertake the further training that their employers required. A tutor went into the workplace, working with individuals and small groups, delivered in short sessions of perhaps an hour every week for up to 12 weeks and, crucially, to shift workers at different times of the day, evening and night.
A further reason for optimism is that, alongside the efforts of agencies such as the chamber of commerce, the former TECs, colleges, schools and the training providers in the area, there is an important recognition that there is a role for unions and for employers to play too. I was interested to learn from the TUC earlier that there are 5,000 learners currently involved in trade union provision through the union learning fund on basic skills training. The TUC tells me that, since Autumn 1999, it has worked with the Basic Skills Agency to develop 20 union-led basic skills training projects.
Locally, the Transport and General Workers Union played a big part in the basic skills training that went on in KP Nuts in Rotherham, and that company attributed its recently won Investors in People status to the basic skills project that I mentioned earlier and the basis that it gave them for a propel work force development plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) mentioned the contribution of her own union, which has been one of those supporting another interesting and innovative project in

359WH
Rotherham. A cleaning supervisor has been trained as a basic skills tutor, in addition to her general duties, by a local further education college. She is now running a drop-in training centre at a local council cleaning services depot. Her first course started last week. The target was 12, and 18 people have turned up and started their basic skills course. Unions and employers clearly have an important contribution to make.
I mentioned the basic skills at work project in Rotherham, from which 500 employees in more than 50 companies have benefited. It would not have worked without those employers' support, and their readiness to accommodate work patterns to allow training to take place in the workplace and in work time.
While that is fine on a local level, and gives some indication of where we might go, we should be looking for a stronger national lead from some of our employer organisations. The CBI and chambers of commerce have a part to play, but the real impetus will come from the national training organisations and the trade associations. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's plans for reform of national training organisations, in particular the resources of £45 million that he has been prepared to put behind it.
National training organisations should be the frontline intelligence corps for our new learning and skills councils in terms of defining employers' skills, now and in the future. NTOs should also become one of the main champions in advising and encouraging employers to take on that basic skills training challenge. The best, but not all, do that at present. Reform of the NTO network to make it smaller, stronger and better resourced and focused is an important part of the general picture.
We are still long on the analysis of the problem and short on some of the detailed strategies and practical plans. In that respect, the challenge could not be greater for our new learning and skills councils, at both national and local levels. First and foremost, we require leadership of our learning and skills councils. Secondly, we need to be able to develop an authority without always having the means directly to control the contribution that some other agencies in the field make in overcoming the basic skills deficit. Thirdly—this was the point that was so well made, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn)—we need the flexibility, by fitting in with local requirements, to meet the challenge with the resources that the Government are giving our local areas.
Dr. Kumar: Does my hon. Friend agree that clear objectives need to be laid out for the learning and skills councils so that they know where they are going?
Mr. Healey: I agree up to a point. The priorities of our LSCs need to be set out nationally. Ministers have stipulated in their letter of remit to the LSCs that basic skills should be one of those priorities, and I endorse that strongly. The objectives of our LSC in South Yorkshire in pursuit of that priority need to be fashioned locally, not imposed from the centre. It is part of the essential flexibility to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. Central referred.
360WH
The first step that our LSC in South Yorkshire could take, when it comes formally into being in April, is to set up a conference—a basic skills summit—that would in some ways be a clearing house for South Yorkshire, in which we draw together all those with a contribution to make. We need to exchange the ideas and experience that we already have on our patch. We need to outline our strategy and objectives for South Yorkshire. We need to be clear how each and every relevant organisation in South Yorkshire can play its part.
If we stage a basic skills summit, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to attend, to give it a lead and national perspective. Our challenge in South Yorkshire is to close the gap that I mentioned at the start of my speech, between the level of basic skills problems in our region and the national level. At the same time, as a nation, we are trying to close that very gap between ourselves and our competitor countries. If we fail to do that, the prosperity and prospects of at least a quarter of a million adults in South Yorkshire will continue to be blighted by the lack of basic skills.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I should inform him that the Minister has indicated discreetly that he would like a minimum of 10 minutes to reply to this excellent debate, so I hope that he will bear that in mind.
5.11 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Winterton. I will certainly allow the Minister more than 10 minutes to speak. I apologise to the Minister and to the spokesperson for the official Opposition for missing, at the start of the debate, most of the speech by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the whole of the Minister's contribution.
It has been an important debate. I was prompted to attend the debate when I looked again at the Moser report—as several hon. Members have done—saw the extent of the problem and realised that this was an incredibly important debate, which deserved a wider audience and greater participation. I hope that it will be a springboard for further discussion along the lines expressed.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the problems that confront us. To me, the important aspect is the interrelationship between many of the problems discussed and social deprivation. I am sure that most of us have visited prisons. I am staggered by the extent of numeracy and literacy problems among prisoners, young offenders or people who have particular difficulties. That correlation cannot be an accident. The Minister knows, from his own background in further education and other experience, the extent of that problem. I believe that the policies that we are now trying to pursue, building on some of the things that have happened in the past, will give us some cause for optimism in the future.
In my short speech, I want to highlight a few key, important points. The introduction of the numeracy and literacy strategies at primary level will have a dramatic effect in years to come. In line with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), I believe that it is crucial—I hope that the

361WH
Minister will take this on board—that those strategies are extended into our secondary schools because at key stage 3 there is, without a shadow of doubt, a drop in numeracy and literacy. I say that as a former deputy head teacher in a comprehensive school. Key stage 3 is the element of our educational system that we really need to prioritise. It does not matter who wins the next general election; it is a huge priority for us all because of the tremendous problem that exists.
We all have a responsibility to address the divide between academic and vocational education. We must achieve parity of esteem. The divide is a problem that has bedevilled our education system for years, through successive Governments. I was pleased to read the Government's remarks on the matter because if we fail to overcome that divide, it will be particularly difficult to achieve some of our objectives.
To return to the issue of educational maintenance allowances, I appreciate the fact that they are being piloted in different areas. However, piloting does cause problems between students of exactly the same age who can be in exactly the same class in the same college, one receiving the educational maintenance allowance and one not. In my own city of Nottingham, of two people who live a few yards from each other—on the same street—one can receive the educational maintenance allowance and the other cannot, because they live on either side of the city boundary into Gedling. If we could accelerate the rolling out of the educational maintenance allowance, that would be extremely helpful to all of us.
I live in a former pit village, which still has basic skills problems. It is crucial to try to tackle that problem. Its continuing existence shows that policies pursued over the past 25 to 30 years have obviously failed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) argued that we should be more proactive. If there is a desire to hold basic skills classes in a supermarket, doctor's surgery or playgroup, that should not be a problem. Let us not be constrained by bricks and mortar—classes need not take place in formal establishments. The more outreach work we can do, the better.
I have two points to make arising from the consultation document circulated by the Secretary of State regarding a national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. The first point concerns priority groups. I ask the Minister to read an article in the current issue of The Times Educational Supplement that refers to lost boys. We have a problem of young white males who do not achieve, and we need to give them a voice.
Secondly, what sort of communities do we need to help? I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) that the disadvantages are not just in cities. All Government policy objectives and programmes must recognise that there are small pockets of deprivation outside cities, and that the problems of poor levels of adult literacy and numeracy in those areas are as severe as those in cities.
We face the future with some degree of optimism, and it is important not to be constrained. We should be imaginative and listen, learn from and involve people experienced in these problems. We should ask them
362WH
what sort of programmes and policies would make a difference. We could probably develop better and clearer policies to deliver our objectives.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his discipline. Before I call the Minister, I should explain that he has had to move back one row because of technical problems with the microphones.
5.18 pm
Mr. Wicks: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. It is a relief that my moving to the Back Bench is for technological and not for political reasons—or at least not for the moment.
The House of Commons can sometimes be at its worst when it is in self-congratulatory mode, but we have had a first-class debate. Colleagues suggested yesterday that, without a Whip on, we would be lucky to run an hour on this debate, and we have proved them wrong. We have had a range of issues raised, and I will not even be able to deal with them all in outline.
Some have quoted experts' views. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) drew on his wife's work and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) talked about her ICT skills compared with those of her daughter. Perhaps one day we will have family parliamentary debates, as well as family learning, so that people can testify themselves.
The hon. Member for Daventry was helpful and thoughtful, as usual. Like me, he did not want to bring politics into the discussion. Why should we do so, when the general election may be 15 months away? It is hardly the time for politicians to talk about anything as vulgar as politics. His implicit theme throughout his speech was that these are complex issues, needing complex answers. Hon. Members recognise that we need a range of policies and provisions in a variety of settings to deal with such long-standing and complex issues.
The hon. Member for Daventry asked me to clarify the point about fees and I am happy to do so: no fees are payable to help our fellow citizens grapple with basic skills. I take the point about individual learning accounts; we hope that those people who can master literacy and numeracy will continue their learning journey and the ILA will enable them to make progress. As he said, we need to find different ways of giving young people who have not mastered the basic skills at school a second, or even third, chance, perhaps via a vocational route and not a strictly academic one.
A theme of our discussion—it was introduced by the hon. Member for Daventry—has been the need to involve employers and trade unions. He was good enough to talk about the important role of the trade unions, as he has done on many occasions, and I sometimes think that he would make an excellent shop steward. He mentioned the trade union learning fund. My strong conviction, based on the pace of change and on good practice from trade unions, which now appoint learning representatives as well as health and safety representatives, is that the trade unions in the 21st century have a major role to play in lifelong learning.

363WH
The hon. Gentleman was one of the first to mention the crucial issue of prison education, which was a sub-theme in the debate. Many people who end up in young offenders institutions come from insecure backgrounds, many have been homeless and have slept rough, and it is a tragedy that they end up in prison. Our past neglect of prison education is a national disgrace. I am pleased that my Department is entering into a partnership with the Home Office to tackle the problem.
Family literacy was an important theme in the debate. When people become parents, they have an incentive to learn alongside their children because it benefits the whole family.
The hon. Member for Daventry also asked about the Basic Skills Agency. A five-yearly review of the agency was completed last year and its findings were positive. I concluded that the agency should continue to be funded as the lead development agency for basic adult skills and remain at the cutting edge of new ideas, helping to develop new approaches to literacy. We are in discussions with the agency about its future role; we value the agency and need its support in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) showed that she has mole than the basic skills in making the links between the main theme of the debate and the engineering industry, and I welcome that. We need to look at skills in the round, which she did. I was reminded of a meeting that I had earlier today with representatives of the construction industry in which we discussed the industry's image and status and the challenges that it faces, not least in terms of gender. Like my hon. Friend, I applaud the valuable work of WISE in tackling gender stereotypes. To be blunt, some of our industries face skills problems because they have been too slow to recognise that 51 per cent. of the population happen to be women.
There are challenges for the Government. The learning and skills councils have a vital role to play, given that they are about recognising needs and demands in local economies. Modern apprenticeships are successful, and the number of people involved is rising. The advent of foundation degrees is also an important factor.
The Engineering and Marine Training Authority and other national training organisations have a major role to play. We have issued a consultation document and want them to play a bigger role in the future. EMTA already does important work. I asked it to set up an advisory group, which has issued its first report to advise me on the definition of present and future skills needs. I hope that that shows that we take the issues seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands made the important link with early years and sure start. Like other hon. Members, she discussed the role of educational maintenance allowances and the importance of Learn Direct and of ICT. I cannot give her a full answer now, but we recognise the issues with educational maintenance allowances.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made the same point. I emphasise that we are talking about pilots, and that these are new days. The purpose of a pilot is to learn, and we are learning about what is going well. According to all the reports that we are receiving, the pilots are already a success and are increasing participation. They are changing the spirit of young people when they are in colleges.
364WH
However, there are more than teething problems. I often had to confront a very difficult issue when I was a shadow spokesperson on social security with responsibility for speaking on the Child Support Agency: how can we be fair to those families in which a separation has taken place and one parent is a so-called absent parent? It is a question of the need not only to treat seriously that family—or that child, in the case of EMAs—but to get the balance right between the treatment of that family and that of the often low-income family in which two parents remain in the same household and there is stability. It is easy to move in one direction, yet penalise the stable family. We are reviewing the matter carefully and are very much in touch with the issues. I hope that we can consider the matter again soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) talked about the importance of new technology and the improving educational attainment in his constituency. He is rightly proud of what is being achieved, but did not mince words when he talked about the serious problems faced by his constituents. He made interesting and thought-provoking points about the range of Government initiatives within one Department and across Departments, and how we co-ordinate them.
I am not relaxed about that. I understand my hon. Friend's point: 20 years ago, I worked in the Home Office on urban programmes and all the rest, and the problems were not dissimilar. The learning and skills councils bring together parts of Government, and the new ConneXions service for young people will do the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) talked about important issues, not least prison education and how we can stimulate demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) talked about targets and the role of learning and skills councils and national training organisations. He implied that I had one of the most difficult jobs in Government. I truly believe that I have one of the best jobs in Government, because if we can crack the problem with basic skills, that will be an enormous battering ram against injustice, which is what many of us want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) also talked about the importance of prison education and the vocational route, which is a great setting for tackling many issues, not least basic skills.
In his famous report of 1942, William Beveridge talked about the giant evil of ignorance. That evil still stalks our land, staining the lives of too many people, not least in terms of basic skills. We are determined to advocate the importance of a modern three Rs: the right to read, the right to write and the right to do arithmetic. It is about citizenship, being a good parent, having a place in the work force and making a full contribution to the community. We are determined to enable people to gain basic skills—to be literate and numerate. I am sure that all hon. Members will cheer us on in that endeavour.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Diamond Synchrotron Project
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received on the removal of the diamond synchrotron project from Daresbury to Oxford since 1 April 2000. [145205]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1 April 2000, my Department has received 52 letters relating to the location of the diamond project.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what analysis he has undertaken of the reasons given by those in charge of sub-post offices for resigning from their posts in the last five years; and to what extent(a) the level of remuneration and (b) the perceived complexity of modern post office technology are factors in such decisions. [146945]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office conducts research on the reasons for resignation of sub-postmasters. That research is not undertaken to a regular timetable and therefore does not provide comparable data. Historical research on sub-postmaster resignations is not available.

  However, internal Post Office research from exit interviews with sub-postmasters has been conducted in the last six months. Of the sample of sub-postmasters interviewed, 9 per cent. cited financial viability of the outlet and 6 per cent. cited computerisation of the post office network as the reasons for resignation.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visits the Export Control Organisation's Compliance Unit made to exporters to examine records held with regard to open individuals export licences in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999, indicating the number of visits to each exporter. [146654]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of visits made by the Export Control Organisation's Compliance Unit are set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of compliance visits

  1997

  371

  1998

  388

  1999

  477

  The totals include visits to a small proportion of exporters who do not hold Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs), but are required to keep records as part of their usage of Open General Export Licences (OGELs).
  654W
  Information regarding the number of visits made to each exporter is not easily accessible and it would, therefore, entail disproportionate cost to establish the number of visits made to each company.

  The Export Control Organisation's Compliance Unit visits exporters who hold Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) on a regular basis. Where the exporter holds a licence for military list and certain dual-use goods it is normal practice to undertake such a visit yearly. For holders of licences for other dual-use goods, visits would normally take place every second year.

  Science Funding (North-west)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make an announcement concerning the submission made by John Moores University and TTL concerning its telescope project. [146855]

  Ms Hewitt
  The report of the North-West Science and Daresbury Development Group is being given careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be meeting the group shortly to discuss its recommendations. The contents of the report will be made public in due course.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent contacts his Department has had with the Royal Bank of Scotland over Huntingdon Life Sciences. [146418]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]We have kept in close contact with all the relevant parties and welcome the agreement arrived at on 20 January.

  Royal Mail Redirection Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Royal Mail regarding the redirection service to overseas addresses; and if he will make a statement. [146613]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]I have had no discussions with Royal Mail concerning the redirection service to overseas addresses. This is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Car Technologies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has held with his ministerial colleagues on promoting initiatives to make use of the United Kingdom's expertise in motor sport and related technologies to develop improvements to reduce the environmental impact of future production cars. [146909]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  HMG maintain a close working relationship with the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA) on a range of issues to enhance the competitiveness of the UK motorsport industry, including the exploitation of related technologies. DTI Ministers and officials continue regular contacts with the major vehicle manufacturers, SMMT and DETR to look at ways of reducing the environmental impact of motor vehicles without reducing the UK's industrial competitiveness. In addition, the DTI-led Foresight Vehicle programme is the
  655W
  UK's national automotive R&D programme which is supporting collaborative R&D in a range of areas including environmental performance (emissions, fuel efficiency, lightweighting and telematics), enhanced safety and lean manufacturing.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Government in Khartoum concerning Sudan's acceptance of an IMF audit for oil resources. [146828]

  Clare Short
  We have had no discussions with the Government in Khartoum about the IMF asking for an audit of oil resources. However, we continue to press for transparency in Government revenues and expenditures in Sudan, as does the IMF.

  NDPBs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within her Department since May 1997. [147067]

  Clare Short
  There have been no such directions.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the commentary clarifying his Department's position on the risks of depleted uranium and certain of his Department's documents recently quoted by the media. [147737]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence is today publishing a paper entitled "Depleted Uranium—Documents explaining the Ministry of Defence position on the risks and health hazards". This demonstrates the Ministry of Defence's determination to be open and transparent on the matter. Copies of the paper are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 15 January 2000,Official Report, column 144W, on depleted uranium, what units cleared Devil Dog dragoon range after the discharge of depleted uranium rounds in 1991; and if the personnel involved were warned of hazards deriving from the passage of depleted uranium rounds into compacted sand berms. [147016]

  Mr. Spellar
  The contemporary (March 1991) official UK file on training areas and ranges contains a detailed note on the condition of Devil Dog dragoon ranges at that time, including that the clearance of the ranges was to be undertaken by the United States Marine Corps.

  Although personnel of 49 Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Squadron Royal Engineers and 221 EOD Company Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) were deployed to Devil Dog dragoon ranges in January 1991,
  656W
  this was for the provision of routine EOD cover during 1(UK) Division training, and not for any subsequent clearance of the ranges (although 221 Company destroyed a number of undetonated munitions on the Ranges in January 1991).

  Although the deployment of EOD personnel to these ranges was not solely or specifically connected to the use of DU munitions, 221 Company would have been issued with the 14 January 1991 RAOC Technical Ammunition Bulletin, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in February 1998. This provided safety procedures for those involved in clearance of DU from any range areas.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the methods used to contain, clean up and immobilise depleted uranium particles fragmented by the test firing of depleted uranium shells at Eskmeals. [145286]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted Uranium (DU) Charm projectiles were fired into a semi-enclosed butt at VJ Battery on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range Eskmeals (formerly part of the Ministry of Defence's Directorate of Proof and Experimental Establishments) during the period between March 1981 and September 1995 when firing ceased. The methods used to contain, clean up and immobilise depleted uranium particles fragmented by the test firing of such shells were in accordance with statutory regulations and were by the best practical means possible following consultation with the Health and Safety Executive. The Environment Agency was also kept informed of these measures throughout the period of the butt's use.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium rounds have been discharged at the range in West Freugh, Wigtownshire; in which years since 1971; and at what targets. [145929]

  Mr. Spellar
  During 1998 and 1990, 100 and 215 rounds of depleted uranium ammunition respectively were fired into Luce Bay at the, now, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range, West Freugh. These were part of experimental firings to examine the ricochet effects of ammunitions from Goalkeeper and Phalanx following first water impact. The ammunition was not fired at targets.

  Meteor Missile
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Joint Strike Fighter will be able to carry the meteor missile internally. [143329]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 226–28W.

  The future weapons strategy for a UK JSF is still being developed. JSF would allow for the internal and external carriage of a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, including those meeting UK-specific requirements. In the case of Meteor, modifications would be needed for the missile to be carried internally.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research(a) his Department and (b) the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, has carried out to compare the number of individuals exposed to nerve agent in experiments with the numbers exposed to these same chemicals in the military experimental programmes of other countries. [146691]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has not undertaken any detailed comparison of the numbers of individuals exposed to nerve agents in the course of the Service Volunteer Programme and of those exposed to nerve agents in the military trials programmes of other countries. The number possibly exposed in the UK programme was 3,400.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 223W, on Porton Down volunteers, if his Department will compile reports on the nerve agent studies involving volunteers as part of the research to establish the definitive numbers. [146688]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes, we intend to identify the numbers of volunteers involved in each of the studies conducted at Porton Down. It is our intention to publish the findings.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, initiated the survey of the health of service volunteers exposed to nerve agents reported in the document "A long-term follow-up of volunteers exposed to GB sarin (CDE Technical Note 175)" in July 1973; [146689]

  (2) if he will place in the Public Record Office a copy of the document "A long-term follow-up of volunteers exposed to GB sarin (CDE Technical Note 175)". [146690]

  Dr. Moonie
  CDE Technical Note 175 (TN 175) was published in July 1973 and was the second of three similar studies. (The other two were TN 120 published in February 1972 and TN 1010 published in August 1989). The work which led to CDE Technical Note 175 was a small scale study initiated by staff at Porton Down. This was intended to identify any long term health effect of single exposure to nerve agents during the volunteer programme. An examination of the medical records of individuals exposed to nerve agents during the remainder of their time in service indicated no increased incidence of ill health in comparison to a control group.

  I have arranged for a copy of the document to which the hon. Member refers together with TN 120 to be placed in the Library of the House (TN 1010 was placed in the Library in December 2000). Consideration as to whether or not the document should be placed in the Public Records Office will be given under the terms of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers were tested with the oripavine derivative TL 2636 by staff of the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, and in what years; for what reasons the tests were(a) started and (b) ended; what the results of these tests were how many technical papers recording the results of these tests have been produced by Porton Down staff; and what research has
  658W
  been carried out by his Department to establish the long-term effects of this chemical on the health of individuals. [146687]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Service Volunteer Programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has undertaken research with the oripavine derivative TL 2636 as an incapacitating agent, part of which has involved service volunteers. The results of this aspect of research are collated in two formal technical papers, one of which covers the period between August 1961 and November 1963 and the second which details a particular trial in January 1968. However, there are several other technical papers which discuss different aspects of the research programme pertaining to this compound.

  The volunteer studies were undertaken because there was concern that this or similar compounds may be deployed against the UK armed forces to cause temporary incapacitation. A total of 141 service volunteers were involved in these studies which concluded that oripavine had the potential to cause both physical and mental incapacitation.

  To date no long-term follow-up studies have been undertaken, however TL 2636 is a member of the same group of drugs as morphine which has been used clinically for many years. The current evidence suggests that following single, acute doses of such compounds there are no significant long-term effects on health.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific procedures on animals were carried out at Porton Down in each of the last five years. [146461]

  Dr. Moonie
  The table shows the number of procedures for the last five years which have been reported to the Home Office by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down.

  Total

  1995

  8,747

  1996

  11,097

  1997

  10,956

  1998

  11,091

  1999

  11,501

  DERA
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions his Department has made regarding intellectual property rights which will(a) be transferred

  659W
  to the privatised DERA and (b) stay with the retained DERA; if he will list them; how many intellectual property rights are still to be decided upon; and if he will make a statement. [146454]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made in the House on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 778–79, about our intention to proceed with the implementation of the Core Competence model for the DERA public-private partnership. Under Core Competence, around three-quarters of the current DERA organisations will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector. This part will be known as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

  As part of the PPP implementation process, we are currently carrying out a major programme to identify intellectual property rights within those elements of DERA that will form the new company. This programme is not yet complete, so no list is available. It is our intention that IPR owned by MOD that was developed within those areas of DERA that will form NewDERA should be transferred to the new company. This in essence would mean that NewDERA would be in the same position as it would have been had it been an industry contractor for research and technology work. The balance of MOD-owned IPR currently held by DERA will remain with DSTL.

  We are committed to ensuring that NewDERA will have access only to that IPR which it has a right to and is necessary for its continuing business with MOD. Use of third party intellectual property by NewDERA will be subject to contractual constraints involving the owner where required.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the staff budget for DERA is; and what proportion of that budget is allocated for expenditure in Scotland. [147012]

  Dr. Moonie
  The DERA staff budget for the financial year 1999–2000 was £355.3 million of which some 2.7 per cent. was in respect of expenditure in Scotland.

  Training (Altcar)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regular forces, (b) reserves and (c) cadets have used the reserve forces training camp at Altcar, Hightown, Merseyside in each of the last 10 years; and what training is provided there. [146946]

  Mr. Spellar
  The facilities at Altcar offer a variety of training, including skill at arms training, specialised individual and collective training (including nuclear, biological and chemical and fighting in built up areas) and fitness training.

  In terms of usage, the Ministry of Defence collects data on the numbers of personnel occupying bed spaces and the numbers who actually fire on the ranges. This information is shown in the tables.
  660W

  Numbers occupying overnight accommodation at Altcar training camp

  Year

  Regular army

  Other services

  TA

  Cadets

  Total

  1991

  13,146

  1,842

  32,196

  21,146

  68,330

  1992

  12,347

  947

  32,419

  24,141

  69,854

  1993

  10,172

  470

  35,177

  25,968

  71,787

  1994

  5,416

  8,211

  31,565

  19,422

  64,614

  1995

  5,626

  3,647

  27,510

  27,783

  64,566

  1996

  3,967

  812

  31,076

  22,837

  58,692

  1997

  1,737

  468

  27,789

  23,153

  53,147

  1998

  12,062

  1,479

  29,762

  19,122

  62,425

  1999

  13,293

  650

  26,893

  34,084

  74,920

  2000

  14,619

  100

  32,211

  31,441

  78,371

  Numbers involved in firing on the ranges

  Year

  Outdoor range number of firers

  Indoor range number of firers

  1991

  28,341

  2,299

  1992

  33,989

  2,412

  1993

  39,865

  2,675

  1994

  24,032

  3,113

  1995

  27,378

  2,025

  1996

  24,623

  1,903

  1997

  20,437

  1,084

  1998

  22,486

  1,598

  1999

  18,581

  3,091

  2000

  11,712

  1,825

  My hon. Friend should note that those occupying overnight accommodation do not necessarily participate in firing on the ranges. Similarly, those participating in firing do not all stay at the camp overnight.

  Haslar Hospital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay his Department's decision to relocate the facilities at Haslar to Queen Alexandra, Southampton and Selly Oak hospitals; what the overall cost is of these changes; and if he will make a statement. [146604]

  Dr. Moonie
  The judgment was made in 1998 that the Royal Hospital Haslar would not remain viable as a stand-alone military hospital as it did not have the case mix and volume of patients to support the training accreditation required for Service medical personnel. Following an internal review the decision was taken to close Haslar and to open a MOD Hospital Unit at the Queen Alexandra hospital in order to retain a military medical presence in the Portsmouth area. In parallel, it was decided to establish a Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM) to provide a strong professional focus for Defence medicine. After competition, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, which embraces the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the Selly Oak hospital, was selected as our principal partner in the CDM, and as such, it will play an important part in the running of this important academic, teaching, and clinical centre. There are no plans to relocate any facilities from Haslar to Southampton.

  It has been the practice of successive Governments to withhold detailed financial planning assumptions (under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice of Access to Government Information). In broad order terms, however, we estimate that over the next four years (our formal

  661W
  planning period) establishing and developing the Centre for Defence Medicine—including the move of Royal Defence Medical College functions—and preparing for the move from Haslar to Cosham will cost about £30 million in additional running costs and capital expenditure. It is not yet certain, however, whether all the capital expenditure will need to be incurred. The annual running costs of the Centre for Defence Medicine will be more than offset by the savings at Haslar and Royal Defence Medical College once the transition is complete.

  Thermobaric Weapons
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being undertaken into thermobaric weapons at Fort Halstead; and if he will make a statement on the development of these weapons in the UK. [146626]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 44W.

  Maritime Graves
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what external legal advice he is taking on measures available in international law to protect the sites of maritime graves; and if he will make a statement. [146442]

  Dr. Moonie
  From time to time my officials meet academics and other experts in international Maritime Law.

  Most recently they have had discussions with Mr. Mike Williams, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Wolverhampton, Nick Gaskell, Professor of Maritime and Commercial Law, University of Southampton and Dr. Sarah Dromgoole, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester. The international and domestic aspects of the protection of military remains and the law of salvage were discussed on both occasions.

  These discussions form part of the wider consultation process that I referred to during the Adjournment Debate, on 1 November 2000, Official Report, columns 243–50WH.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 23 January 2001, Official Report, columns 535–36W.

  Employment (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of Her Majesty's Forces are stationed in Scotland; how many civilians are employed by his Department in Scotland; and what the projected figures are in each case for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [146173]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on 15 January 2000,Official Report, column 46W.

  The latest data available for civilian personnel levels indicate that as of 1 December 2000, the Ministry of Defence employed 9,464 personnel in Scotland.

  Projected figures for service personnel are not available at this time. I shall write to the hon. Member with details of these projections as soon as they are available.
  662W
  The Ministry of Defence does not produce projected employment statistics for civilian personnel.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding an attack on Samawa, Iraq, on Saturday 20 January; how many people were killed; and what damage there was to buildings. [147182]

  Mr. Hoon
  On Saturday 20 January coalition aircraft conducting humanitarian patrols of the Iraqi no fly zones, were subjected to repeated attacks from Saddam Hussein's forces, including multiple attacks by surface-to-air missiles as well as anti-aircraft artillery. Faced with these immediate threats to their safety, coalition forces responded in self-defence against Iraq's Integrated Air Defence System.

  We are aware of Iraqi claims that civilian facilities were hit and casualties caused by this action. While it is impossible categorically to disprove Iraqi allegations, painstaking battle damage assessment indicates that all weapons released hit their intended military targets, and that there was no damage to any Iraqi civilian facilities. Baghdad's claims, as ever, should be treated with the utmost caution. We know that Iraq systematically claims that military personnel injured or killed in such incidents are civilian. Iraq claims also that targets have been bombed when no weapons have been released.

  Commercial Exploitation Levy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which are exempted from the commercial exploitation levy, indicating the reason in each case. [146069]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no countries exempted from the payment of the Commercial Exploitation Levy, although there is a reciprocal arrangement in place with the US which allows, under certain circumstances, waiver of levy.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the UK military personnel will play in the deployment of UNAMSIL peacekeepers to the RUF-controlled areas of Sierra Leone. [146481]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently 15 UK military personnel serving as observers with UNAMSIL, and seven serving as Staff Officers within the Headquarters of UNAMSIL including the Chief of Staff. It is a matter for the UN Force Commander to decide on their involvement in any UNAMSIL deployments, although ultimately, the Commander of the UK contingent may overrule a decision concerning the deployment of UK personnel, as may those of other countries over their nationals.

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the non-availability of his Department's medical staff is reflected in the funds provided for medical support; on what basis staff in a medically downgraded category can participate in military operations; and if he will make a statement. [146601]
  663W
  Dr. Moonie
  As a result of the Strategic Defence Review additional funds were allocated for medical equipment and medical personnel. Further funding has recently been made available over the current and next financial years specifically to provide expedited medical treatment to personnel in shortage categories so that they can be returned to deployability more quickly.

  The deployment of personnel with medically downgraded categories on military operations is considered on a case-by-case basis. Personnel, with for example, conditions that can be controlled by medication or other intervention may be unable to undertake unrestricted operational military service, but may be suitable for duties in supporting roles.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will forthwith cease to deploy the Trident weapons system on the basis that it is illegal. [147189]

  Mr. Hoon
  No. The Government remain confident that our entirely defensive minimum nuclear deterrent is consistent with international law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he has held minority ethnic press receptions; and which publications and programmes were represented. [146677]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]I have not hosted a reception exclusively for the minority ethnic press. Representatives of the minority ethnic press are regularly invited to social events hosted by me and my Ministerial team.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UK ethnic minority publications to which his Department subscribes, indicating the editors and producers he has consulted more than once in the last year. [146676]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]This information will take some time to collate. I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is at issue between the British High Commission in Belize and Belize Telecom; and if he will make a statement. [146919]

  Mr. Battle
  Belize Telecommunications Ltd. has advised the British High Commission in Belmopan that it considers the latter's actions in using and circulating information about call-back services to be illegal and has pointed out that in their view they are not therefore obliged to maintain telephone services to the High Commission. On the basis of legal advice taken, we disagree.
  664W
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact there has been between Interoute (UK) Ltd. and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement. [146820]

  Mr. Battle
  None directly. Interoute forwarded its promotional leaflets to the High Commission in Belmopan. The High Commission circulated them as part of its normal activities in support of UK business, and informed Interoute of this action.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what savings to public funds have been made through the use by the British High Commission in Belize of a telephone call-back system; and if he will make a statement. [146817]

  Mr. Battle
  We do not hold figures for the total saving to date. But the use of call-back services reduces the cost to the High Commission of a one minute telephone call to the UK from approximately £2.04 to £0.61, representing a saving of 70 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent correspondence he has received from the Chairman of Belize Telecoms; and if he will make a statement. [146818]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State has received no correspondence from the Chairman of Belize Telecommunications Ltd. The British High Commission in Belmopan received three letters from Belize Telecommunications. All three were signed by the Chairman of the company.

  Ministerial Visits (Korea)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers from his Department have visited(a) North Korea and (b) South Korea since May 1997, indicating the dates of the visits. [146638]

  Mr. Battle
  No Foreign Office Ministers have visited North Korea. There have been five ministerial visits to South Korea since 1997. Derek Fatchett visited in November 1997, July 1998 and April 1999. I visited in April 2000, and the Foreign Secretary in October 2000.

  Foreign Language Learning
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department gives to hon. Members to learn foreign languages; and if he will make a statement. [146730]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome any initiatives hon. Members may decide to take to improve their foreign language skills. The FCO maintains a dedicated foreign language training Centre to support the operational requirements of the FCO. The expertise of the centre is available to all Government Departments on a full economic cost recovery basis through FCO Services. Hon. Members will be welcome to use the services of the Diplomatic Service Language Centre in the context of initiatives the Centre is taking to operate in wider markets. The charging basis will be the same. The House of Commons Library has been sent copies of the Centre's Guide to Services.

  Recruitment Policy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to ensure his policy regarding the placing of recruitment advertisements for posts in his Department is applied to the Irish ethnic press on the same basis as other ethnic minorities; and on what date his recruitment policy was last subjected to a PAFT analysis. [146979]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to him on 14 December 2000,Official Report, columns 228–30W.

  On advice from the former Fair Employment Commission in Northern Ireland we advertise all but the most junior posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through the Belfast Telegraph. FCO Recruitment policy is subject to the Civil Service Commissioner's Recruitment Code and will not be designated for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which has replaced the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT).

  The Recruitment Code sets out the requirement that recruitment to the Civil Service must follow the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. Government Departments are audited by the Commissioners to ensure they comply with the Code. The Commissioner's audited the FCO Recruitment Section in February 2000 and noted that recruitment was carried out in a professional and efficient manner.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his UN counterparts about the imposition of a UN arms embargo in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [146832]

  Mr. Hain
  While the possibility of a UN arms embargo on the DRC has not been discussed in the UN Security Council in recent months, the conflict in the DRC is a major focus of concern for the Council as this matter remains under review.

  The UK fully implements and enforces the EU arms embargo on the DRC, which has been in place since January 1993. We are currently discussing with EU colleagues the case for widening the scope of this embargo.

  Child Labour
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 577W, on child labour, what progress has been made with the monitoring of child jockeys being sold into employment in the United Arab Emirates. [146753]

  Mr. Hain
  I share the hon. Member's concern about this issue. I have personally raised these concerns with the United Arab Emirates Authorities, most recently during my visit to Abu Dhabi and Dubai last year. We continue to monitor the situation.

  UN Compensation Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list payments authorised by the UN Compensation Fund since 1 January 1998 indicating the payees, the amounts concerned, the reasons for the payment, the total amounts authorised for payment by the Fund since its inception and the total amount of remaining outstanding claims. [147217]

  Mr. Hain
  The total payments authorised since the inception of the UN Compensation Fund to those who suffered losses as a result of Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990 are $32.2 billion (December 2000). For the more detailed breakdown which the hon. Gentleman has requested I refer him to the website of the UN Compensation Commission at www.unoq.ch/uncc.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom Government have taken to implement the judgment of the International Court of Justice in 1995 in regard to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. [147188]

  Mr. Vaz
  None. We do not believe that the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice imposed any new disarmament obligations on the United Kingdom or that it required either a change in our entirely defensive nuclear deterrence policy or in the NATO doctrine of collective self defence.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average size of class taught by one teacher was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in East Sussex for each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [146695]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The information requested is shown in the table.

  Class size data were recently published in a Statistical Bulletin, "Class Sizes and Pupil Teacher Ratios in England 2000" on 20 December 2000, 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 in September 2000, there were just 30,000 infants in classes of over 30 compared with 485,000 in January 1998. Just 2 per cent. of infants are now in such classes compared with 29 per cent. in January 1998.

  January 2000 saw a fall in the size of the average junior class in England; and a continuing fall in the size of the average primary class, after rising for a decade. The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving an average of £50,000 this year in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.
  667W

  Average class size in maintained primary and secondary schools in East Sussex—January 1990–2000

  East Sussex1

  Brighton2

  East Sussex3

  Maintained primary

  Maintained primary

  Maintained primary

  Year

  Key stage 1

  All classes

  Maintained secondary

  Key stage 1

  All classes

  Maintained secondary

  Key stage 1

  All classes

  Maintained secondary

  2000

  3—

  3—

  3—

  27.3

  28.2

  22.3

  26.1

  28.2

  22.1

  1999

  3—

  3—

  3—

  28.0

  28.5

  22.0

  27.5

  28.7

  22.1

  1998

  3—

  3—

  3—

  28.5

  28.6

  22.3

  27.3

  28.3

  21.4

  1997

  27.9

  28.2

  20.1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1996

  27.4

  27.7

  21.0

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1995

  4—

  27.5

  21.3

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1994

  4—

  27.4

  21.1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1993

  4—

  27.1

  21.4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1992

  4—

  26.9

  21.4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1991

  4—

  26.6

  22.1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1990

  4—

  26.0

  22.1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1 Before local government re-organisation

  2 After local government re-organisation

  3 Not applicable

  4 Not available

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statutes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many statutes enacted prior to(a) 1997, (b) 1995 and (c) 1990 have sections which have not yet come into force. [146237]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested is not immediately available and cannot at present be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146934]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department has approved eight schemes to improve security, facilities for the disabled and general accommodation at Slough magistrates court. The cost of these schemes was approximately £180,000.

  The Slough Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP) is one of 160 CLSPs throughout England and Wales. Throughout the constituency 12 solicitors firms and two Not For Profit organisations have been awarded contracts. The following organisations have received funding amounting to the contract value of £633,950.58:

  lough CAB/LAW Unit (NFP), SL1 1PL—deals with housing and welfare benefits.

  Slough Shelter (NFP), SL1 2DJ—deals with housing.

  Asghar & Co. (Solicitor), SL1 1EE—deals with family and immigration.

  Barrett & Thomson (Solicitor), SL1 1TQ—deals with family and personal injury.

  Chambers Solicitors (Solicitors), SL1 1JE—deals with family, welfare benefits, debt, consumer and general contract, immigration and housing.

  Fort & Co. (Solicitors), SL2 1JF—deals with family.

  Ghai & Co. (Solicitors), SL1 2EJ—deals with family.

  Harris & Cartwright (Solicitors), SL1 2DX—deals with family, personal injury, clinical negligence.

  668W

  Hetherington & Co. (Solicitors), SL1 1TX—deals with family and immigration.

  Iliffes Booth Bennett (Solicitors), SL1 1DN—deals with family welfare benefits, housing.

  J. R. Hobbs & Co. (Solicitors), SL1 1DH—deals with family.

  John Francis & Co. (Solicitors), SL1 1JQ—deals with family.

  Kidd Rapinet (Solicitors), SL1 1EL—deals with family and personal injury.

  Martin Murray & Associates (Solicitors), SL1 1EL—deals with family and personal injury.

  All the organisations listed here are holders of the CLS Quality Mark at Specialist Level.

  Shelter also offers General Help for Welfare Benefits. A further seven organisations in Slough have applied for (or committed to apply for) the CLS Quality Mark at General Help with casework level. These areas are
  Actions Against the Police, Asylum Seekers/Refugees casework, Community Care, Consumer & General Contract, Debt, Disability—casework, Employment, Family, Housing, Immigration & Nationality, Mental Health, Personal Injury, Older People—casework, Race Equlity—casework, Welfare Benefits, Young People—casework.

  A further four organisations in Slough have applied for (or are committed to apply for) the CLS Quality Mark at General Help level in areas including:
  Community Care, Consumer & General Contract, Debt, Employment, Education, Family, Housing, Immigration & Nationality, Mental Health, Public Law, Welfare Benefits.

  One Organisation that offers Mediation services in Slough is listed in the CLS Directory.

  Four organisations in Slough have applied for (or are committed to apply for) the CLS Quality Mark at Assisted Information level.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a list of offices maintained by the regional development
  669W
  agencies outside England; when they were opened; how many staff are employed in each; and what the cost is to each. [145727]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]The table sets out the offices currently maintained by the Regional Development Agencies outside England, with details of when they were opened, how many staff are employed in each and what the annual cost is to each.

  RDA/ Office location

  Opened

  Number of employees

  Annual cost to RDAs

  Other comments

  Yorkshire Forward:

  Asia Pacific

  1983

  2 full time

  £130,000

  Japan

  North West Development Agency:

  Asia Pacific

  Late 1980s

  2 part time

  £50,000

  Also have Marketing Agents since 1993 operating in Taiwan

  Japan

  (£20,000)

  Advantage West Midlands:

  Europe

  November 2000

  6 full time

  £170,000

  Brussels office is a joint office with West Midlands Local

  Brussels

  Government Association, Higher Education and others. The total cost is £500,000. Also have one rep in Germany since September 2000, that incurs salary costs only of £80,000.

  Asia Pacific

  One part time rep in Taiwan since April 1998, incurring salary costs only of £40,000; two part time agents in Korea since April 1996, incurring salary costs only of £20,000. From January 2001 six month contract for one rep in Australia incurring salary costs of £65,000.

  East of England Development Agency:

  Europe

  Contribute 4 per cent, of total cost of office to East of England European Partnership Office in Brussels. The office is sponsored by local authorities and the seven TECS in the region. EEDA's contribution is £12,000.

  North America

  East of England Investment Agency, who carry out inward investment on behalf of EEDA, have a number of strategic alliances overseas, but at negligible cost. There is one part time marketing agent in the USA at an annual cost of £5,000.

  East Midlands Development Agency:

  North America

  January 1998-September 2000

  1 full time

  £90,000 to September 2000

  From October 2000, became a collaborative office with West Midlands.

  Europe

  Also have two part time agents operating in Germany, incurring salary costs of £28,000

  Asia Pacific

  One part time agent in Taiwan, incurring salary costs of £35,000. Two part time agents in Korea, incurring salary costs of £15,000.

  South East of England Development Agency:

  Europe

  September 2000

  1 full time

  £50,000

  Collaborative office with South east local authorities.

  Brussels

  South West of England Regional Development Agency:

  Asia Pacific

  1990

  3 full time

  Japan

  North America

  1£174,000

  Also have five staff working from their homes in Sonoma California, Chicago, and Boston. The total cost of American and Japanese operations is £565,000 (£391,000 from public and private sector partners)

  670W
  Some of the offices predate the RDAs and have been inherited by the inward investment arm of the RDAs.

  The table also shows details of other overseas inward investment activity undertaken by RDAs that is being delivered via appointed representatives or marketing agents, which do not incur office costs. Partnership and collaborative working means that the funding from RDAs is greatly enhanced and achieves improved value for money.
  671W

  RDA/ Office location

  Opened

  Number of employees

  Annual cost to RDAs

  Other comments

  One North East:

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  1974

  2 full time

  £200,000

  Korea

  1990

  1 × 0.5

  £30,000

  Taiwan

  1989

  1 full time

  £45,000

  Total

  £275,000

  North of England Collaborative Office:

  North America (Chicago, Boston3, Atlanta, West Coast3)

  October 2000

  15 full time (projected)

  £500,000

  Joint operation between; One North East, North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward Official Launch February 2001. Total cost of the Collaborative Office is £1 million. 50 per cent, of costs come from other public and private sector funding. Balance met equally between the three RDAs. Operations in Boston and Altanta predate the establishment of the Collaborative Office

  Midlands Collaborative US Office:

  North America

  4 full time

  £330,000

  Chicago

  October 2000

  Joint operation between East and West Midlands.

  San Diego

  October 2000

  Cost is shared 50:50 to each RDA—includes UK seconded staff

  Pittsburgh

  May 1992

  costs

  Midlands Collaborative Japanese Office:

  Asia Pacific

  1997

  2 full time

  £200,000

  As above

  Japan

  1 part time

  London First Centre:

  Please note that London First Centre are a private company limited by guarantee and they carry out inward investment promotion on behalf of London Development Agency.

  Asia Pacific

  No overseas offices, however do use consultants/agents in selected locations.

  0.5 of two people in Taiwan since 1998, cost £22,500.

  0.5 of one person in Korea since 1998, cost £7,500.

  North America

  Two agents in USA since 1996, cost £165,000.

  1 Combined cost of American and Japanese operations

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the planning applications for housing development in England on greenfield sites(a) which he has called in and (b) for which he has issued a holding direction since 7 March 2000, indicating the location, number of houses and area of land involved; [146075]

  (2) if he will list the planning applications notified to him under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Directive 2000, indicating the location and number of houses and area of land involved in each case; [146074]

  Planning applications for housing development on greenfield sites in England

  Site, location and Government Office Region

  Size of site (hectares)

  Number of dwellings

  Departure

  Greenfield Land Direction

  Holding Direction

  Called-in

  Government Office North West

  Higher Lane, Liverpool

  4.2

  168

  Yes

  Yes

  Greensbridge Lane, Knowsley

  8.6

  1250

  Yes

  Tollemache Road, Wirral

  2.6

  1100

  Yes

  Cambridge Road, Sefton

  0.1

  2

  Yes

  Lawton Hall, Congleton

  5.5

  32

  Yes

  Yes

  Larch Road, Hyndburn

  1

  Yes

  Manor School, St. Helens

  0.7

  25

  Yes

  672W
  (3) if he will list the planning applications for housing development in England, involving green field sites, which have been referred to him as departure applications since 7 March 2000 and provide details of the number of homes and area of land involved in each case. [146073]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The information is set out in the table. The list of planning applications is based on information supplied to the Department by local authorities. Assumptions have had to be made about particular applications in order to present the information in the form sought. The information provided should not be taken as the definitive view of the Secretary of State for the purposes of decision-making.
  673W

  Planning applications for housing development on greenfield sites in England

  Site, location and Government Office Region

  Size of site (hectares)

  Number of dwellings

  Departure

  Greenfield Land Direction

  Holding Direction

  Called-in

  Woodlands Farm, Ellesmere Port

  1

  Yes

  Danebank, Vale Royal

  0.9

  16

  Yes

  Woodfold Farm, Ribble Valley

  1

  34

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Radcliffe Paper Mill, Bury

  9

  288

  Yes

  Whinney Carr Farm, Lancaster

  17.8

  535

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Whittingham Hospital, Preston

  28

  950

  Yes

  Paddock Lane, Trafford

  0.2

  5

  Yes

  Government Office West Midlands

  Lambert Cottage, Ash Magna, Shropshire

  1

  Yes

  Yes

  Heathcote Home Farm, Warwick (Mid and Gen)

  3.7

  103

  Yes

  Heathcote Home, Farm, Warwick (McLean H)

  3.4

  127

  Yes

  Blackhorse Road, Bedworth

  5.9

  1116

  Yes

  Bridgetown, Stratford on Avon

  20

  1500

  Yes

  Old Farm House, Craven Arms, Shropshire

  1

  Yes

  Silver Street, Walsall

  9

  1270

  Yes

  Newford Valley/Norton Colliery, Stoke on Trent

  42.7

  1500

  Yes

  Bishopton Lane, Stratford and land to SW of Birmingham Road, Stratford

  11.8

  1175

  Yes

  Park Farm Developments, Cannock

  9.8

  1425

  Yes

  2—

  Bilton Road, Rugby

  8.1

  1215

  Yes

  2—

  New Century Park, Coventry

  6.2

  1194

  Yes

  2—

  Government Office Yorkshire and the Humber

  Weatherhill Road, Lindley, Kirklees

  10.5

  315

  Yes

  Yes

  Willowgarth Farm, Whinmoor, Leeds

  17

  1350

  Yes

  Weeland Road, Eggborough, Selby

  3

  74

  Yes

  Yes

  Common Lane, East Ardsley, Leeds

  0.1

  3

  Yes

  Osmondthorpe Lane, Leeds

  1.5

  70

  Yes

  Mansfield Road, Aston, Rotherham

  7

  199

  Yes

  Yes

  Thorpe Hesley, Rotherham

  67

  11,000

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Government Office for the East of England

  Winston Churchill Drive, Kings Lynn

  21.9

  548

  Yes

  Station Road, Watlington, Norfolk

  5

  1150

  Yes

  Aldham Mill Hill, Hadleigh, Suffolk

  8.9

  1220

  Yes

  Land North West of Soham, Cambridgeshire

  12.5

  225

  Yes

  Land off Sackvylle Street, Debenham, Suffolk

  4.3

  100

  Yes

  Off Bell Road, Bottisham, Cambridgeshire

  0.8

  14

  Yes

  East of England Showground, Peterborough

  11

  1300

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Land off Fifth Avenue, Harlow

  6.9

  1200

  Yes

  Great Totham Road and Junction of Witham Road/Church Road, Wickham Bishops, Essex

  2.2

  26

  Yes

  Municipal College Playing Fields, Lifstan Way, Southend-on-Sea

  3.7

  180

  Yes

  Land off Brompton Close, Luton

  0.4

  112

  Yes

  Black Fan Road, Welwyn Garden City

  2.5

  77

  Yes

  Former allotment land, rear of Mill Road, St. Ippolyts, Hitchin

  0.5

  9

  Yes

  Government Office North East

  East of Lesbury House, Lesbury

  1.5

  14

  Yes

  Redcar and Cleveland College, Redcar

  2.5

  60

  Yes

  Springwell Road, Sunderland

  7.4

  222

  Yes

  St. George's Hospital, Morpeth

  13.2

  1150

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Roseberry Square, Redcar

  14

  560

  Yes

  Government Office South East

  Slade Farm, Bicester, Cherwell

  0.6

  31

  Yes

  North Binfields, Old Basing, Basingstoke

  26.7

  326

  Yes

  Pye Land, Selsey, Chichester

  6

  1200

  Yes

  Singleton Hill, Ashford

  13.5

  1450

  Yes

  Singleton Hill, Ashford

  5.6

  1250

  Yes

  Appletree Farm, Ifield, Crawley

  5.6

  175

  Yes

  Tally Ho Farm, Winkfield

  1

  Yes

  Lynch Gate House, Sandhurst

  0.4

  5

  Yes

  Salisbury Road, Hungerford

  2.3

  50

  Yes

  Abbey Park, Faversham

  10.5

  180

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cow Lane, Cosham, Portsmouth

  0.3

  8

  Yes

  Holt Lane, Hook, Hampshire

  28

  285

  Yes

  North Whiteley, Fareham

  10.3

  180

  Yes

  East of Botley Road, Fareham

  2.6

  22

  Yes

  Land at Hoadswood, Hastings

  5.16

  81

  Yes

  674W 675W

  Planning applications for housing development on greenfield sites in England

  Site, location and Government Office Region

  Size of site (hectares)

  Number of dwellings

  Departure

  Greenfield Land Direction

  Holding Direction

  Called-in

  Government Office East Midlands

  Moss Drive, Bramcote, Nottingham

  1.2

  5

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dale Close, Chesterfield Road, Mansfield

  1.3

  139

  Yes

  Talbot Road, Manton, Worksop

  0.8

  60

  Yes

  Birchwood Lane, South Normanton

  6.1

  140

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Ashtree Farm/Morledge Farm, Matlock

  9

  280

  Yes

  Yes

  Pewit Golf Course, West End Drive, Ilkeston

  6

  150

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Markham Works, Chesterfield

  6

  250

  Yes

  Avonmouth Drive, Derby

  6.5

  234

  Yes

  Ashover House, Malthouse Lane, Chesterfield

  0.1

  17

  Yes

  Woolstitch Farm, Netherseal, Derbyshire

  1.9

  11

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Eureka Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire

  2.6

  53

  Yes

  Bretby Country Club, Bretby, Derbyshire

  0.8

  5

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Fleckney Road, Kibworth, Leicestershire

  18

  300

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Newark Road, South Hykeham, Lincolnshire

  4.1

  73

  Yes

  Yes

  2—

  Weston, Lincolnshire

  14.4

  276

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bedford Road, Northampton

  7.1

  24

  Yes

  Bourne, Lincolnshire

  115

  2,000

  Yes

  Yes

  Desborough, Northamptonshire

  26

  450

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Torksey, Lincolnshire

  3.7

  27

  Yes

  Bedford Road., Northampton

  6.8

  1204

  Yes

  Yes

  Pineham North, Northampton

  20

  350

  Yes

  Yes

  Ripingale, Lincolnshire

  1.4

  29

  Yes

  Yes

  Naseby, Northamptonshire

  0.2

  5

  Yes

  Yes

  Government Office South West

  Crossways, Dorchester

  4.8

  150

  Yes

  Yes

  Betton Way, Moretonhampstead

  4.7

  1150

  Yes

  Yes

  Shaftesbury Lane, Blandford

  4.9

  1140

  Yes

  Oakfield, Tiverton

  9.2

  160

  Yes

  Old Hill, Helston, Cornwall

  0.9

  2

  Yes

  Ocotal Way, Swindon

  3.6

  145

  Yes

  Yes

  Haydon Road, Swindon

  260

  15,500

  Yes

  St. George's, Weston-super-Mare

  13.5

  501

  Yes

  Mintons & Bruton Way, Chard

  3.7

  1130

  Yes

  Middle Hill, Crewkerne

  5.7

  76

  Yes

  Holton Heath, Wareham

  93

  1,350

  Yes

  1 Estimated number of dwellings

  2 Decision from Secretary of State pending

  Notes:

  Column 1: Sites are those which are predominantly greenfield (i.e. not previously-developed as defined in Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing) wherever located.

  Column 2: Site size includes only those areas proposed for housing and directly associated uses

  Column 4: Notified to the Secretary of State since 7 March 2000 in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999.

  Column 5: Notified to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Direction 2000.

  Column 6: Direction made since 7 March 2000 restricting the grant of permission in exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

  Column 7: Planning application called in since 7 March 2000 for the Secretary of State's own decision under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which organisations, political parties and individuals have, since 23 October 2000, made representations to(a) the planning inspectorate, (b) the Government office for the north west and (c) his Department on PNW/5290/219/32, about the proposed demolition of Blackburn House, Clifton Drive, North St. Annes and the erection of 26 dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping. [147219]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Other than correspondence from the right hon. Member for Fylde and a telephone call from the applicants to the Government office for the north west we are not aware of any further representations since the 23 October 2000.
  676W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reasons for the release of planning decision PNW/5290/219/32 to the public before copies of the decision were received by the participants. [147220]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Normal practice is to post the decision letter to the applicant and all other parties who appeared at the public inquiry into the proposals, or asked to be notified of the decision, on the same day. It is also normal practice to notify the media at the same time as the other parties. However, I understand in this case due to an administrative error, the local media were notified of the decision electronically on the day the decision letter was posted. We are taking steps to prevent such an error being repeated.

  Executive Agency Visits (Costs)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what hourly rate is charged to business for visits by the(a) HSE and (b) Environment Agency. [146380]

  Mr. Meacher
  The hourly rates charged to business to ensure adequate management of the risks created by their operations are for inspection and safety case assessment by:

  (a) the HSE: for inspections of sites covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH)—£104; for Railways Infrastructure—£115; and for Offshore Installations—£116.

  (b) the Environment Agency: for environmental inspection and safety case assessment under COMAH—£104; for processing staged applications under the Integrated Pollution Control and for regulating radioactive waste disposal—£107.

  The rates recover the full economic costs of these functions.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146596]

  Mr. Hill
  In line with modernising government principles, my Department actively canvasses outside views on its main policies. Where public opinion research is used it is subject to the usual strict rules that spending must represent good value for money and must not be used for party political purposes. The results of research are made widely available. However, information on each project is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the consultation paper on the management and disposal of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement. [146733]

  Mr. Meacher
  Radioactive wastes should be managed in ways that protect the safety of the public, the work force and the environment, now and in the future. This is a complex issue and the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations will publish a consultation paper setting out detailed proposals as soon as they are ready. This will begin the process leading to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy that can attract widespread support across the UK.

  Carbon Trust
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish the names of the selection panel who will finalise the long list for the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Carbon Trust; [146907]
  678W
  (2) when he expects to announce the names of the chairman and members of the board of the Carbon Trust. [146908]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]A sift panel met on 15 January to prepare a long list of candidates for the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Carbon Trust. The panel included two representatives of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, who have been working with Government on the design and constitution of the Carbon Trust.

  The members of the panel were:

  Ian Stephenson of Johnson Matthey, Chairman of the ACBE Climate Change Working Group;

  Iain Alexander, an ACBE secondee to the DETR from KPMG;

  Phillip Ward, Director of Energy, Environment and Waste Directorate, DETR; and

  John Smith of Succession Planning Associates, the Department's executive recruitment consultants.

  The Government intend to announce the chairman of the Carbon Trust shortly, and we expect the chairman to make proposals on the Trust's membership and the board as soon as possible thereafter.

  Ilminster By-pass
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of(a) accidents, (b) injury accidents and (c) fatalities on the A303 Ilminster by-pass in each year from 1990, including 2001 to date; and if he will make a statement. [145956]

  Mr. Hill
  The following table shows the number of injury accidents and fatalities between 1990 and 2000. Figures for 2001 are unavailable and total accident numbers are not available, since damage-only accidents are not reported to the police.

  Accidents on the A303 Ilminster by-pass1: 1999–2000

  Accidents/casualties

  Year

  Injury2 accidents

  Fatal casualties

  1990

  8

  1

  1991

  4

  1

  1992

  4

  0

  1993

  4

  0

  1994

  2

  0

  1995

  1

  0

  1996

  6

  0

  1997

  12

  0

  1998

  5

  1

  1999

  7

  1

  20003

  9

  0

  1 Stretch of the A303 between the junctions with the A358 (Chard) and South Petherton

  2 All accidents in which one or more person was killed or injured

  3 Provisional data—subject to change

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what independent valuations of the Millennium Dome have been undertaken on his behalf; and what constraints have been identified in the report which would affect the sale value of the land. [147177]
  679W
  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, and the issues affecting that value, are commercially confidential while the process to secure a buyer continues.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide details of the budgets of each of the RDAs for funding urban regeneration projects in(a) the current and (b) the next financial year. [147236]

  Ms Armstrong
  Urban regeneration projects are included in both the Land and Property Programme and Single Regeneration Budget run by the RDAs. In 2000–01 this element of their approved budgets is as follows:

  £ million

  One NorthEast

  129.2

  Northwest Development Agency

  165.3

  Yorkshire Forward

  156.3

  East Midlands Development Agency

  53.7

  Advantage West Midlands

  104.1

  East of England Development Agency

  22.4

  South East Development Agency

  64.6

  South West Development Agency

  72.9

  London Development Agency

  275.7

  Total

  1,044.2

  We have not yet approved budgets for the RDAs for 2001–02.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement about the participation of SEEDA in the next round of SRB bids; [147238]

  (2) which RDAs will not be participating in the next round of SRB bids. [147239]

  Ms Armstrong
  As already announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister the Single Regeneration Budget will be brought into the Regional Development Agencies' (RDAs) Single Budget from April 2002. Detailed arrangements for the transitional year 2001–02 are being considered and an announcement will be made very shortly. All RDAs, including SEEDA, will be invited to administer these arrangements.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on meeting the shortfall caused by RDAs overspending on urban regeneration projects. [147237]

  Ms Armstrong
  There is no reason to believe that any RDA's approved overall budget for 2000–01 is being overspent. I have allocated an extra £60 million of current resources to the RDAs for funding existing Single Regeneration Budget partnerships, but this is met by an equal reduction in SRB capital expenditure.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what budget was 680W
  allocated for the current financial year by SEEDA for regeneration projects, how much has been spent to date; and how much remains unspent. [147235]

  Ms Armstrong
  Within South East Development Agency's (SEEDA) approved budget for 2000–01, £67.3 million has been allocated to three main regeneration programmes: Rural Development, Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and Land and Property. SEEDA reports that £24.0 million has been spent to date leaving up to £43.3 million to be spent, a very large proportion of which is committed.

  Railways (Speed Restrictions)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in place on the railways during the weeks commencing(a) 8 January and (b) 15 January; and if he will make a statement. [147010]

  Mr. Hill
  On 8 January there were 446 speed restrictions on the rail network which were due to gauge corner cracking. On 15 January there were 421.

  Train Certification
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many trains are awaiting certification; how long he estimates it will take to certify these trains; what the procedure is; and what factors have delayed the process of certification. [147011]

  Mr. Hill
  The entry of 750 new vehicles (circa 200 trains) into passenger service has been delayed. These are gradually being introduced on to the network and about half should be in service during the first six months of the year.

  The introduction of new trains has in part been delayed by the rigorous safety approvals process which is required before any passenger train enters service. There have also been a number of technical difficulties which have needed to be remedied. These have only come to light when the new trains have been operating.

  The safety certification process (owned by Railtrack) requires operators, in conjunction with manufacturers, to submit requests for safety approval at various stages of the design, manufacture and testing of a new train with a view to allowing the trains to enter full passenger service.

  NATS
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects negotiations on a suitable strategic partner for the National Air Traffic Service to be concluded. [147144]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member for Poole to my reply given to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 346W. I stated that subject to passage of the Transport Bill, the Government's firm intention was to have the PPP in place in the spring of 2001. The Transport Bill received Royal Assent in November 2000 and the Government's firm intention remains to have the PPP in place in the spring of 2001.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Council Elections
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to announce the date of the local council elections in Northern Ireland. [147138]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 as amended by the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 states that there shall be Local Government Elections every 4 years. The Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 states that the election day referred to in that section of the 1962 Act will be "the third Wednesday in May".

  RUC (Retirements)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers in Northern Ireland of the rank of superintendent and above have indicated that they will retire in(a) December 2000, (b) January 2001, (c) February 2001 and (d) March 2001, broken down by rank. [141939]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures shown in the following table illustrate the number of officers at the rank of superintendent and above who have left or are expected to leave the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the terms of the voluntary early retirement/severance scheme in the period between December 2000 and March 2001.

  Rank

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  December 2000

  0

  0

  0

  January 2001

  0

  8

  18

  February 2001

  0

  6

  7

  March 2001

  1

  7

  5

  Total

  1

  21

  30

  To date, no officers of the rank of Superintendent or above have either left the RUC under ordinary or medical retirements during this period or indicated an intention to do so.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146937]

  The Solicitor-General
  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by the Thames Valley Area of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In November 1999, in line with national policy, this area of the CPS, in liaison with the police and East Berkshire magistrates court, introduced the Narey proposals. All defendants charged with a criminal offence in the East Berkshire areas should make their first appearance before Slough magistrates court within 72 hours. This is in line with the Government's policy of speeding up and 682W
  modernising the criminal justice system. The CPS holds no statistical information in relation to the Slough area alone.

  On 1 April 2001, the Berkshire Branch of Thames Valley CPS will finalise its structure in line with proposals in the Glidewell Review. This represents a policy of more effective working between the police and prosecutors. A trial unit based in Reading will deal with serious crime at Reading Crown court. The CPS has set a goal the better handling of serious cases, in the interests of justice and the victims.

  The CPS, together with other agencies, has been working to speed up youth justice, particularly persistent young offenders. All cases involving youth offenders in East Berkshire are now dealt with at one court centre in Maidenhead. The time taken for persistent youth cases has fallen from 145 days in 1997 to 97 days in the third quarter of 2000.

  As a member of the Thames Valley Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committee, the CPS has been working to improve its response to the prosecution of racially aggravated offences. In May 2000 the Chief Crown Prosecutor addressed a conference held in Slough to launch the Report of the Committee's Race Sub-Group entitled, 'Race and Criminal Justice', to explain how the CPS approached prosecuting such cases. The CPS holds no statistical information which relates to the Slough area alone.

  Neither the Treasury Solicitor's Department nor the Serious Fraud Office has policies which directly affect my hon. Friend's constituency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost a pensioner to purchase an annuity that provides an income covering the gap between the basic pension and the minimum income guarantee at current annuity rates for(a) a single man and (b) a single woman. [146351]

  Mr. Rooker
  The answer would depend upon the relative movement in future years between the value of the basic State Pension and of the minimum income guarantee, as well as upon detailed decisions on the form of the pension credit which will replace the minimum income guarantee, about which we are currently consulting.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate (1) the number of additional retirement pensioners who will become eligible to receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in consequence of the measures announced in 2000; [145113]

  (2) the average additional income which retirement pensioners will be eligible to receive in April in consequence of the most recent changes (a) to the Minimum Income Guarantee, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) Council Tax Benefit, distinguishing between (i) single pensioners and pensioner couples and (ii) pensioners already in receipt of benefits and pensioners newly entitled to benefits; [145114]
  683W
  (3) the number of additional retirement pensioners who will become eligible to receive the Minimum Income Guarantee in April in consequence of the measures announced in 2000, distinguishing between the effects of the increases in income and capital limits. [145112]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]As a result of all the measures announced in 2000 (increase in capital limits, equalisation of the three rates of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and protection of the retirement pension increase), the additional number of pensioners and pensioner couples estimated to receive the MIG is 100,000. The total number to benefit from the capital limits change across the three income-related benefits is estimated to be 500,000. The additional number who will receive MIG in 2001 as a result of the capital limits change is estimated to be 50,000.

  The number of additional pensioners and pensioner couples who will receive Council Tax Benefit as a result of all the measures announced in 2000 is estimated to be 50,000. The additional number estimated to receive Housing Benefit is negligible from the survey data.

  Average additional income which retirement pensioners are modelled to receive, for newly entitled and existing cases as a result of the measures announced in 2000

  £ per week

  Benefit

  Newly entitled

  Existing

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  14.00

  3.50

  Housing Benefit

  6.00

  1.50

  Council Tax Benefit

  1.50

  0.50

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model (PSM). This models the benefit system in 2001–02 and is based on data from the Family Resource Survey (FRS) for 1997–98, uprated to 2001 prices.

  2. The effect of earnings uprating the MIG has not been included. The latest changes to the MIG assume equalisation and protection of the rise in the retirement pension only.

  3. Figures for floaters are due to capital changes have come from the PSM and are therefore based on data from the FRS. The FRS questions relating to assets and savings are a sensitive section of the questionnaire and have the lowest response rate; Capital holdings are often under reported. Therefore figures should be treated with some caution.

  4. Figures for floaters and gainers have been calibrated to administrative records and historical take up assumptions. Floaters have been rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases. For average gains the figures have been rounded to the nearest £0.50.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend payment of the winter fuel allowance to adults below the age of 60 years who are housebound through disability. [146267]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to extend the Winter Fuel Payment scheme.

  Free Television Licence
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners entitled to receive a free television licence from November 2000 have not yet received one because of difficulties in reconciling data on entitlement between his Department and the Television Licensing Authority. [146467]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146936]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to our overall objectives of:

  Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;

  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,

  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all reports". Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (Cm4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following information provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Slough since May 1997.

  We are spending an additional £7 billion a year on support for families and children. This includes significant increases in Child Benefit, which is now worth £15 a week for the eldest child and £10 a week for other children: nationally, about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Slough 13,865 families benefit.

  We have launched the New Deals to help lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since August 1998 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,323,600 to 1,044,900; in Slough the number has reduced from 2,100 to 1,200. The number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased over the same period from 955,000 to 909,200 nationally and in Slough from 1,900 to 1,800.

  Next year we will be spending £4.5 billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. The Winter Fuel Payment has continued to tackle fuel poverty. Last winter, around 10 million pensioners, of whom 13,300 were in Slough, benefited from the payment. We have now extended the scheme to include eligible people from age 60 so that even more older people will benefit. This winter, households that qualify will receive an increased payment of £200. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) targets the poorest 1.6 million pensioner families, 2,600 of whom live in Slough. These pensioners will benefit from our alignment of all MIG rates from April 2001, giving single pensioners at least £92.15 each week—a real increase of £12.45 for the poorest pensioners.

  Essential Care Allowance (Disabled People)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the National Centre for Independent Living concerning the proportion of a disabled person's income which may be
  685W
  taken to pay for essential care without which that person cannot live an independent life; and if he will make a statement. [147058]

  Mr. Bayley
  None.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese will be paid. [147218]

  Mr. Bayley
  We expect to begin sending out ex-gratia payments at the beginning of February.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Child Support Agency's performance against compliance targets is independently verified. [146245]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 24 January 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency in which you asked if the Child Support Agency's performance against compliance targets is independently verified.
  Mr. Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  All of the Secretary of State targets are subject to validation at 3 levels; internally within CSA by DSS. Internal Audit Services who validate the internal exercise and provide assurance levels on the individual targets within it, and by the National Audit Office who also have the ability to look at this work and confirm their satisfaction with the Agency's arrangements.
  An observer from the NAO also sits on the Standards Committee, which is chaired by an Agency Non-Executive Director, and regulates the monitoring arrangements. The committee also examines the findings and recommendations of the CSA internal Monitoring and Guidance Unit that was created with the help of the NAO.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money per year the Child Support Agency collects on behalf of children; and what the equivalent amount recovered for this purpose by other means was in the three years prior to its inception. [146265]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 24 January 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  Mr Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You have asked how much money per year the Child Support Agency collects on behalf of children; and what the equivalent amount recovered for this purpose by other means was in the three years prior to its inception.
  In the last full year (1999/2000) the Agency collected £730.9m. This is an increase of over £69m (over 10%) on the previous year and an increase of over £183m (33.6%) on two years ago. Full details are given in the attached table.
  686W
  We know that the Court process was extremely costly and much longer than was desirable. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Courts varied widely for fathers in very similar circumstances and neither parent could be sure about how much the award would be until the award was made.
  However, figures are not available for the amount of money that was collected for the three years prior to the inception of the Child Support Agency.
  I hope you find this useful.

  Since the creation of the Agency it has collected or arranged maintenance payments as follows:

  £

  Collected

  Arranged

  Total

  1993–941

  11,782,812

  —

  11,782,812

  1994–95

  54,951,023

  133,233,340

  188,184,363

  1995–96

  164,586,102

  136,913,676

  301.499,778

  1996–97

  246,594,249

  153,291,008

  399,885,257

  1997–98

  344,156,121

  202,987,350

  547,143,471

  1998–99

  435,362,826

  225,854,644

  661,217,470

  1999–2000

  492,291,556

  238,633,996

  730,924,937

  1 September to March

  Notes:

  Amounts shown as collected are amounts which are paid to the Agency, while amounts shown as arranged are paid directly between the Non-Resident Parent and the Parent or Person With Care following CSA assessment.

HEALTH

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been given to(a) Barnet health authority and (b) Barnet council to improve continuing and community care since May 1997; and for what purposes the money has been allocated; [144699]

  (2) how much has been allocated to Barnet health authority from the Modernisation Fund; and on what the money has been spent; [144698]

  (3) how much money has been allocated to Barnet health authority since May 1997 to tackle (a) waiting lists and (b) winter pressures; [144694]

  (4) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated since May 1997 to Barnet health authority for additional cancer treatments; and what the money has been (a) spent on and (b) allocated to; [144695]

  (5) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated to mental health services in Barnet health authority area since May 1997; and on what the money has been (a) spent and (b) allocated; [144697]

  (6) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated to (a) Barnet health authority and (b) Barnet council since May 1997 for their care work. [144696]

  Mr. Denham
  The additional allocations made to Barnet health authority since May 1997 total £77 million and are set out in the table. We do not collect information centrally on how each allocation has been spent.
  687W
  Between 1997–98 and 2000–01 the level of funding provided by central Government to the London borough of Barnet for social services increased by £10 million or 10.2 per cent. in real terms. Most of these additional resources have been provided through the revenue support grant and the council decides how to allocate and spend these additional resources.

  £000

  Recurrent

  Non-recurrent

  Recurrent allocation increase

  1998–99

  6,178

  —

  1999–20001

  12,899

  —

  2000–012

  18,218

  —

  2001–023

  17,919

  2,399

  Special allocations

  1998–99 (drugs misuse HIV/AIDS, GMS cash limited)

  940

  —

  1999–2000 (drugs misuse, HIV/AIDS)

  138

  —

  2000–01 (drugs misuse, HIV/AIDS)4

  281

  —

  Cancer services5

  1997–98 breast cancer services

  66

  —

  1998–99 colorectal cancer

  —

  63

  1999–2000 lung cancer

  68

  —

  Waiting lists5

  1998–99 (including funding for whole systems approach)

  1,955

  658

  1999–2000 waiting list performance fund/cancer out-patients

  198

  34

  2000–01 cancer outpatients waiting times

  —

  64

  2000–01 booked admissions pilots

  —

  256

  2000–01 0/P long waiters (revenue rewards)

  —

  161

  Winter pressures

  1997–98

  —

  1,057

  1998–99

  —

  1,190

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  2000–01

  —

  1,230

  Mental Health5

  1999–2000

  67

  —

  2000–016

  153

  —

  Other allocations increases

  1997–98

  —

  4,200

  1998–99

  —

  1,500

  1999–2000

  871

  3,228

  2000–01

  363

  1,096

  Total additional allocations

  60,314

  17,136

  Total recurrent and non recurrent

  77,450

  1 Includes modernisation funding £3,170,000 of which £1,706,000 was allocated for waiting lists and times

  2 Includes modernisation funding distributed as part of allocations. £446 million nationally of which £22 million was allocated for mental health, £276 million for waiting times and £9 million for cancer (gynaecological). These totals were not analysed across individual health authorities.

  3 Includes cost of living allowance and health inequalities adjustment as well as hypothecated funds for cancer and coronary heart disease (£450 million nationally), waiting times and access (£423 million nationally). These sums are not attributed to individual HAs.

  4 HA allocations for drugs misuse and HIV/AIDS treatment and care and preon are not yet known for 2001–02.

  5 Largely funded from modernisation fund moneys.

  6 Includes £32,000 allocated with initial allocations.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations his Department has had with, and 688W
  what representations he has received from, the Health Ombudsman concerning the proposed abolition of Community Health Councils. [145729]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]The Health Service Commissioner's office has met officials to discuss the proposals in the NHS Plan and the Health and Social Care Bill including proposed abolition of community health councils. As a result, no representations have been received by this Department.

  Silicone Cosmesis
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the working party on silicone cosmesis; and when its findings will be reported. [146275]

  Mr. Denham
  A small working party met three times between November 1999 and March 2000 to inform Department of Health policy discussions in relation to the provision of silicone cosmesis through the National Health Service. There was no formal report. However, in the light of the working party's deliberations, we have announced funding for 2001–02 and recurrently for the NHS to increase provision of high to low definition silicone cosmesis.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to answer Mr. H. Waterston's letter dated 28 November 2000. [146118]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply to the hon. Member's constituent's letter was sent on 22 January.

  Special Care Baby Units
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many pregnant women, in the Gloucestershire health authority area, were transferred to give birth in other counties because no special care baby cots were available in Gloucestershire, in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; [144979]

  (2) how many babies were transferred from the Gloucestershire health authority area to hospitals in other counties, because no special care baby unit cots were available in Gloucestershire, in the years (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [144980]

  Ms Stuart
  The requested information is not collected by the Department. Information received from Gloucestershire Royal National Health Service Trust on the numbers of pregnant women that have had to be transferred is that: in 1998, 12 women were transferred; in 1999, 23; and in 2000, 40. There were no transfers of babies.

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust is unable to provide details of the number of pregnant women that have had to be transferred, however, no babies were transferred.

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairs of the trusts for more information.

  NHS Dentistry
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the average quarterly loyalty bonus which will be paid to dentists undertaking NHS work in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [145955]

  Mr. Hutton
  The value of a commitment payment paid to a dentist in the General Dental Service (GDS) depends on their level of commitment. Those who qualify may get a payment ranging from £25 for those doing some work within the GDS to £834 for those aged 45 or over who are fully committed.

  In England the average amounts in the first two quarters of the scheme were £380 for Apri1 to June 2000 and£383 for July to September 2000.

  In addition to the quarterly payments there will also be a year-end payment made to all dentists who received one or more quarterly commitment payments above the minimum level.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England assessed as needing residential or nursing home care are on a waiting list for funding; and how many of those waiting whose capital has dropped below£16,000 by reason of delay in securing funding from their local authority are(a) waiting at home, (b) waiting in hospital and (c) already in a residential care or nursing home. [147148]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Victoria Climbie
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers the inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie will have regarding the submission of evidence and the disclosure of information; [147187]

  (2) if the inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie will be held in public; and what the remit of the inquiry will be; [147170]

  (3) if Lord Laming will be assisted by a panel of experts in his inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie; [147190]

  (4) when the inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie is expected to conclude taking evidence. [147191]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are setting up a statutory inquiry to look into the circumstances surrounding Victoria (Anna) Climbie's death. Lord Laming of Tewin, a former chief inspector of social services, will chair this inquiry. Further announcements about the inquiry will be made at the earliest opportunity.

  Home Care (VAT Concession)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the implementation of the proposed extra-statutory concession on VAT and home care; and if he will make a statement. [147135]
  690W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has been liaising closely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of Trade and Industry on their proposals since 1997. The proposed Value Added Tax concession will mean that people receiving care in their own homes will not pay VAT on the wages element of that care. We will continue to make every effort to promote home care as a choice for individuals in need of support.

  Euro
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require the NHS to make provision for a possible changeover to the euro as part of its budget preparation for the financial year 2001–02. [147149]

  Ms Stuart
  We have made no such plans.

  NHS Plan News
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to-date of the publication NHS Plan News; where it is printed; and how many copies have been distributed. [146306]

  Ms Stuart
  The cost to date of the publication NHS Plan News is£80,043.19 which is equivalent to less than 7 pence a copy. It is printed by a Department of Health approved supplier in the north of England. A total of 1,200,000 copies have been distributed.

  Redfern Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Redfern report to be published. [146856]

  Mr. Denham
  We have indicated to representatives of the families concerned that the report of the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry will be published before the end of this month.

  Sudden Adult Death Syndrome
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the guidance he issues to the deceased family after diagnosis of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome [146917]

  Mr. Denham
  Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is not one single condition but a group of conditions that can result in the sudden and unexpected death of apparently healthy adults. Some deaths, particularly those in young adults, are believed to be due to possible cardiac abnormalities such as cardiomyopathy, a disorder of the heart muscle. There is evidence of a familial link in some of these deaths, and we fully recognise the importance of those thought to be at risk being referred for specialist assessment.

  Our current policy is that the relatives of people with cardiomyopathy should receive regular cardiovascular examinations. We are also seeking the co-operation of coroners to enable all such sudden deaths to be investigated properly.

  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Government funding has been made available
  691W
  for research into retinitis pigmentosa in each of the last three years; how many specialists there are who are able to treat this condition; and what collaborative projects with other European Governments there are on this condition. [146925]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on Government funding for retinitis pigmentosa is not available in the form requested. However, the Medical Research Council (MRC) has recently funded two grants dealing with retinitis pigmentosa at a cost of approximately £0.5 million.

  The total MRC spend on vision related projects for the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  14.10

  1998–99

  13.99

  1997–98

  16.66

  1 Estimated

  In addition, the MRC Human Genetics Unit is undertaking work on genetic disorders of the retina and the PAX6 and related genes (PAX6 is involved in the development of the eye) in the development of disease and evolution that will be relevant to retinitis pigmentosa. Estimated spend in 1999–2000 is £1.3 million.

  The latest available figures on the number of ophthalmic consultants show that there are around 670 in England and Wales who are available to treat retinitis pigmentosa. There are currently no European collaborative projects in this area.

  Nurses (HIV)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the NHS employs nurses who are HIV positive; [146842]

  (2) what health checks are carried out on prospective recruits into the NHS before they are employed as nurses. [146843]

  Mr. Denham
  HIV infection alone is not considered a bar to employment in the National Health Service as procedures in nurse training and general nursing do not pose a risk of infection to patients, provided routine infection control precautions are followed.

  All students on pre-registration nursing and midwifery programmes are required to have undergone occupational health screening as outlined in standards set by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Guidance on pre-employment health checks for National Health Service staff was sent to all NHS trusts and health authorities in 1998 (Health Service Circular 1998/064—"Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues for NHS Staff'), copies of which are available in the Library. The guidance makes clear that all NHS staff should have a pre-employment health assessment on taking up their first post in the NHS, on subsequent appointment with new NHS employers and on job change,
  692W
  where this involves a significant change of duties. The purpose of the pre-employment health assessment is to ensure that:

  prospective staff are physically and psychologically capable of carrying out the proposed work, taking into account any current or previous illnesses; and

  any work related diseases from "hazardous agents" likely to develop can be identified.

  Male Breast Cancer
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mortality rate for male breast cancer in each of the last 10 years. [146912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Eric Pickles, dated 25 January 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the mortality rate for male breast cancer in each of the last ten years (146812).
  The information requested is provided in the attached table.

  Age-standardised male breast cancer1 mortality rate2 for England and Wales 1990–99

  Number of deaths

  Age-standardised mortality rate2 (per 100,000 population)

  1990

  107

  0.4

  1991

  82

  0.3

  1992

  92

  0.4

  1993

  87

  0.3

  1994

  87

  0.3

  1995

  80

  0.3

  1996

  67

  0.2

  1997

  67

  0.2

  1998

  75

  0.3

  1999

  65

  0.2

  1 Breast cancer deaths are classified according to the International Classification of disease ninth edition, and are selected using ICD9 code 175

  2 The rate is calculated using the European standard population

PRIME MINISTER

  Counter Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent representations have been made by other states concerning provision of counter terrorism check clearance; what states have agreed to co-operate or have entered reciprocal arrangements; and what states have refused to co-operate or expressed reservations; [147006]

  (2) if he will list those Departments and list X companies experiencing difficulties with counter terrorism check processing arising at governmental level in the Republic of Ireland and what the nature of these difficulties are; [147002]

  (3) how many posts are subject to counter terrorism check clearances; how many candidates in each Department have been rejected as a result of a failure to obtain CTC clearance in the last five years; what time

  693W
  delay is built into the recruitment process to allow for CTC clearance; and what the ethnic and national breakdown is of those rejected candidates. [147003]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Security vetting is carried out in accordance with the policy set out by the then Prime Minister in reply to a question from Sir Anthony Durant (then the hon. Member for Reading, West) on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 764–66W. Where an individual being vetted has overseas connections, for example if he or she has lived abroad, it is possible in certain circumstances for inquiries to be made with overseas agencies. In such cases there can be delays in obtaining information, and thus in Departments being able to make decisions on clearance. It is not Government policy to provide details of security matters, including relationships with other countries; but there are currently no particular difficulties in respect of vetting checks.

  The length of the vetting process can vary according to individual circumstances, and it is for Departments and agencies to take this into account in their recruitment and personnel procedures. It is not Government policy to comment on the total numbers subject to security vetting, but in the year 1999–2000, 926 people were refused a CTC, or had such a clearance withdrawn. Information concerning the ethnic and national background of these individuals is not held centrally.

  NHS
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that, provided the economy continues to perform well, UK health spending expressed as a percentage of GDP will reach the level of the European Union average by the end of 2004–05. [146959]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 104W.

  The public spending plans for 2004–05 have not yet been announced. It is not therefore possible to provide a figure for total health care in 2004–05.

  Meetings
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the meetings he has held in the past three years with pharmaceutical and biotechnology(a) interests and (b) companies. [146863]

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

  Irish Prime Minister (Meetings)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met the Irish Prime Minister since 1 July 2000; and what the(a) date and (b) location of each meeting was. [146647]
  694W
  The Prime Minister
  I have met the Taoiseach on the following occasions since July 2000:

  Date

  Location/Event

  31 July

  Working lunch at No. 10

  6 September

  UN Summit, New York

  10 October

  Talks at No. 10

  12 October

  Bilateral talks during Information European Council, Biarritz

  20 October

  Asia/Europe Business Forum in Seoul

  23 November

  Bilateral talks on flight to EU/Balkans Summit in Zagreb

  7 December

  Nice European Council

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Putin statements by senior Russian generals about the environmental consequences of the use by NATO of depleted uranium warheads. [146603]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]I have no plans to raise this issue with President Putin.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans for a national ceremony commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day in 2002. [147040]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 1–2W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the nature is of the work undertaken by the research and information Special Advisers employed in his Office. [147056]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]Special Advisers in the Research and Information Office work in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what salaries are paid to each of the research and information Special Advisers employed in the Prime Minister's Office. [147055]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]In line with established practice, details of individual Special Adviser salaries within individual Departments are not given in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Secretary General of the United Nations the policy of(a) creating no-fly zones and (b) continuing sanctions against Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [145545]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]We regularly discuss all aspects of our Iraq policy with the United Nations Secretariat, including the Secretary General.

  Intelligence Services Act
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to lay before Parliament a copy of the Commissioner's report made under section 8(5) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. [146129]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 was repealed by section 82 of schedule 5 to the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I expect to receive a report from the Intelligence Services Commissioner (appointed under section 59 of that Act) in due course. The report will be laid before Parliament, in accordance with section 60(4) of the Act, as soon as practicable.

  Alastair Campbell
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister when Alastair Campbell will leave his post at No. 10 Downing street. [146376]

  The Prime Minister
  Alastair Campbell has already made it clear that he will resign when the next General Election is called.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  GTech
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of staff of(a) GTech and (b) its contractors, have been convicted of corruption charges in the United States of America. [145195]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department does not hold this information. However, the National Lottery regulator, the National Lottery Commission, has a statutory duty to ensure that the National Lottery is operated with all due propriety and to ensure that the operator is a fit and proper body to run the National Lottery. In pursuance of these duties, the Commission conducts regular vetting checks on directors and senior executives of GTech Holdings (the parent company of GTech UK), whether or not they are directly involved with the operation of the National Lottery. The Commission also conducts checks on all GTech UK staff involved with the operation of the UK National Lottery. The Commission does not conduct vetting checks on GTech employees falling outside these categories. The Commission has received information in confidence from law enforcement agencies and others both here and overseas; no information has come to the attention of the Commission that would cause it to find "not fit and proper" any individuals currently in the key positions mentioned. GTech does not employ contractors in key areas in connection with the UK National Lottery.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146584]
  696W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The table sets out my Department's total expenditure on research and other services since 1992–93. Information on individual projects is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Research and other services

  £000

  1992–93

  1,000

  1993–94

  2,000

  1994–95

  1,044

  1995–96

  1,000

  1996–97

  475

  1997–98

  315

  1998–99

  423

  1999–2000

  1,103

  2000–011

  556

  1 To date

  Youth Music Action Zones
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 226W, if he will list the areas of social and economic need which will benefit from the Action Zones Initiative. [146653]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Foundation for Youth Music launched six of the proposed 20 Youth Music Action Zones on 14 December 2000. The Zones are in areas of social and economic need and have been allocated using the DETR social inclusion list of the 72 most deprived boroughs, the Rural Development Agency register and through local consultation about ward level areas of need. The six Zones are: London (principally Brent and Newham); Greater Manchester; North Lancashire; North of England (includes Barrow-in-Furness, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Carlisle, Darlington, North Shields, Durham, Wolsingham, Stockton and Wooler); East of England (including projects in Norfolk); and Thanet/Kent.

  Further Youth Music Action Zones will soon be operating in Liverpool, Cornwall, and in the South East (across Kent, East Sussex, Surrey and the Unitary Authorities of Medway and Brighton and Hove).

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery income in(a) cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total lottery income has been raised in (i) London and (ii) Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens. [145193]

  Kate Hoey
  Information on National Lottery ticket sales by local authority area is not available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of bids for National Lottery money from the North East of England were unsuccessful; and what the total value of these failed bids was. [146821]

  Kate Hoey
  We have contacted the National Lottery distributing bodies to request such information as they hold, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Barbican Arts Centre
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the renovation and improvements to the Barbican Arts Centre will commence; and how much partnership funding has been raised towards them. [146826]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Barbican Hall is scheduled to close in June 2001 for four months while a range of improvements to the auditorium is carried out. The £6 million cost of the work is being met in whole by the Corporation of London.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on applications by religious broadcasters for national analogue radio licences. [147045]

  Janet Anderson
  Religious organisations are disqualified by provision of Paragraph 2 (1) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 from holding national radio licences. The White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", which was published on 12 December, invites comments on whether the current restrictions on ownership of broadcasting licences by religious organisations should be relaxed in new legislation. The consultation period ends on 12 February.

  OFCOM
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he intends to take to ensure that there is adequate non-executive representation on the main OFCOM board. [147172]

  Janet Anderson
  The Communications White Paper, on which we are currently consulting, proposes that OFCOM will be governed by executive and non-executive members. We have yet to decide on the more detailed make-up of the Board.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sources of money will be used to fund OFCOM. [147179]

  Janet Anderson
  We have yet to decide the most appropriate way to fund OFCOM.

  BBC
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the significant differences between the consultation paper relating to approvals of new BBC public services and the final guidelines issued. [147175]

  Janet Anderson
  The significant difference between the draft guidelines and the final, published version is that we clarified the first section on the BBC's obligations under the Royal Charter and Agreement, including when consultation and fresh approval is required. We also extended from 15 to 20 working days the normal period for consultation on BBC proposals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he intends to carry out his priority review of BBC News 24. [147174]
  698W
  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement about the timing of the review of BBC News 24 and of the other reviews in due course, but will expect to begin the programme later this year.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the criteria he intends to use to determine whether new BBC public service channels will be approved. [147173]

  Janet Anderson
  The criteria are set out in the guidelines for assessing BBC public service proposals which were published on 10 January. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will appoint the independent person to carry out the review of the BBC's fair trading policies; and if he will make a statement. [147738]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In its response to the Davies panel's report on the future funding of the BBC, the Government announced that they would, jointly with the BBC, invite an independent, eminent figure to examine the BBC documentation "Commercial Policy Guidelines and the Fair Trading Commitment". Richard Whish, Professor of Law at King's College, London, has today been appointed to carry out the review. Professor Whish will report to my Department and to the BBC Board of Governors having:

  (i) reviewed the adequacy of the BBC's "Fair Trading Commitment";

  (ii) considered and commented on the adequacy of each of the specific requirements contained in the BBC's "Commercial Policy Guidelines" and whether any further specific requirement should be included;

  (iii) considered to what extent the BBC's fair trading policies are consistent with upholding EU Competition Law.

  (iv) commented on how the BBC's policies compare with those of any other relevant organisations;

  (v) commented on the processes through which the BBC Board of Governors are made aware of fair trading issues and the nature of the information provided to them to enable the Governors to be satisfied that all significant issues facing the BBC are appropriately set out in the "Annual Report and Accounts"; and

  (vi) reviewed existing correspondence from stakeholders to the BBC and DCMS about the adequacy of the BBC's "Fair Trading Commitment", and to comment on the validity of the points made and highlight any other perceived shortcomings.

  Professor Whish is also requested to make any general recommendations for improving the BBC's commitment to fair trading.

  The review will commence shortly and will be concluded during February. The Department and the BBC will publish Professor Whish's findings. Copies of the terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards meeting EU targets for reducing fishing fleet over-capacity. [145578]
  699W
  Mr. Morley
  A report by the European Commission dated 21 November 2000, COM (2000) 738, which is available in the Libraries of the House, gives the latest results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets of member states. The UK is on course to meet its targets at the end of 2001.

  Fish Stock Conservation
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely cost of implementing a stock recovery and vessel lay-up programme as proposed by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature report 'Choose or Lose'. [146269]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not attempted to estimate the cost of implementing the proposals for stock recovery and vessel lay-up programmes in this report. In close consultation with the industry, we are making important progress in the EU in the development of stock recovery plans for cod and Northern hake.

  Flag of Convenience Vessels
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent estimate he has made of the anticipated costs of meeting the claims arising from the ruling over the Factortame case brought by owners of flag of convenience vessels. [146272]

  Mr. Morley
  Thirteen claims brought by the owners of fishing vessels unlawfully removed from the UK Register in 1989 were settled for £10 million during the first half of 2000. Claims from the remaining vessel owners and their managing agents are in the process of settlement and an announcement about the overall cost will be made once all the claims have been dealt with.

  Cod and Haddock
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the permitted tonnage of cod and haddock catches was in(a) 1971 and (b) 2000. [146639]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) In 1971 there were no restrictions on quantity of cod and haddock which could be caught. However, the total catch for cod in 1971 was 296,000 tonnes and for haddock 176,000 tonnes.

  (b) The information on the permitted tonnage of cod and haddock catches in 2000 was 49,956 tonnes for cod and 70,791 tonnes for haddock.

  Farrowing Systems
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government-funded research into the development and testing of commercially viable farrowing systems which do not closely confine the SOW. [146865]

  Mr. Morley
  We have, for a number of years, funded research directly or indirectly related to the welfare of the sow and her piglets, from farrowing to weaning. A key issue emerging is that changes in farrowing systems to improve sow welfare can frequently have an adverse 700W
  effect on the welfare of the piglets. As a result, we are not yet able unreservedly to recommend free-farrowing systems for widespread commercial adoption.

  Our research, and chat of others, continues. Our aim is to reach a position where it is possible to avoid the close confinement of all sows.

  Inshore Fisheries
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the condition of inshore fisheries; [146607]

  (2) what plans he has to protect the condition of the coastal waters surrounding the UK; and if he will make a statement. [146614]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Government remain firmly committed to achieving more sustainable fisheries management and continue to encourage the European Commission to take greater account of environmental considerations in the management of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Improved integration of environmental objectives and the development of the precautionary approach within fisheries management is a UK priority for the 2002 review of the CFP. This should help to further the sustainable management of fish stocks at Community level.

  We are also continuing to pursue a range of measures designed to improve the state of fish stocks around our coasts. These include limitations on the quantities of fish that may be taken and the use of closed areas in which fishing is prohibited or severely restricted, in order to protect juvenile or spawning stocks. Since 1 January 2000, improved conservation measures have applied throughout the EU. These set more relevant minimum landing sizes for the key commercial fish species, enhance gear selectivity and simplify the catch composition rules. Together this should help to reduce discarding.

  Under the CFP there is no access for foreign vessels within six miles of EU member states coastlines. Within the 6–12 mile zone, access for foreign vessels is restricted on the basis of historical access rights. The 6 and 12 mile access restrictions operate by derogation from the principle of free access to a Community resource. I am confident that this derogation which is due to expire on 31 December 2002 will be maintained in the forthcoming Review of the CFF. For my part, I shall want to argue then for these access restrictions to be made permanent.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 14 December. [143617]

  Mr. Morley
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 December 2000, c. 134–35W]My answer in paragraph 5 gave a figure of 4,000 tonnes as the levels of agreed total UK quotas in comparison with the Commission's proposals. This figure was incorrect, and should have read 40,000 tonnes. The rest of the answer remains correct.

CABINET OFFICE

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she plans to publish the report into the office costs allowance being undertaken by the Senior Salaries Review Body. [146894]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by the Prime Minister on 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 68–69W. I understand that the SSRB is in the process of taking evidence for the review and will submit its report to the Government in due course.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 on which ministerial cars have been stopped by police for(a) speeding and (b) other motoring offences, listing in each case whether further action was taken; [147234]

  (2) on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 ministerial cars have incurred fixed penalties as a result of evidence from speed enforcement cameras. [147231]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from N. C. N. Matheson to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 25 January 2001:
  I have been asked by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about Ministerial cars. As Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency I am responsible for providing cars and drivers to Ministers.
  1.To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 on which ministerial cars have been stopped by the police for (a) speeding and (b) other motoring offences, listing in each case whether further action was taken.

  Answer

  (a)None

  (b) Date: August and October 1998—Offence: driving without due care and attention—Action taken: driver fined

  2.To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 ministerial cars have incurred fixed penalties as a result of evidence from speed enforcement cameras.

  Answer
  The Agency records driving offences for all drivers whether or not they were driving private or ministerial cars at the time of the offence. Since 1 May 1997, five drivers have received fixed penalty fines following the evidence of speed enforcement cameras of which I estimate that three were incurred driving ministerial cars. In each case, the individual driver met the costs of the fixed penalty fines.
  I would ask you to note that the Government Car and Despatch Agency does not provide a car and driver for the Home Secretary nor for Ministers below Cabinet rank in the Ministry of Defence.

TREASURY

  Devolved Administrations (Spending Allocations)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the increase will be in the English base allocation that forms the comparator for spending allocations to the devolved Administrations in 2001–02. [145805]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The increase between 2000–01 and 2001–02 in the departmental expenditure limits announced in the 2000 spending review of Government Departments which have comparable spending in one or more of the devolved Administrations was some £14.3 billion.

  Pensioners (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners in Amber Valley have benefited from the combined impact of Winter Fuel Payments, the Christmas Bonus, free television licences for the over-75s and the age addition for the over-80s. [145806]

  Mr. Timms
  All 18,000 pensioners in Amber Valley should have benefited from the £200 Winter Fuel Payment this year and from the Christmas Bonus. At least 7,000 of them are also receiving free TV-licences, introduced by this Government, and some 5,000 the age addition for the over-80s.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact the Children's Tax Credit will have on families in Brent, North. [145807]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate of the number of families in Brent, North who could benefit from the Children's Tax Credit is not available, but an estimated 475,000 families in the London area could do so.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of families who will benefit from the introduction in April of the Children's Tax Credit; and if he will make a statement. [146320]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]I refer the hon. Member to page 94 of the pre-Budget report 2000. A copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit on(a) 1 January 1998 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145808]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit was introduced in October 1999. The number of families in the United Kingdom who were in receipt of Family Credit (the precursor to Working Families Tax Credit) at the end of January 1998 was 778,000. At the end of August
  703W
  2000—the latest date for which figures are available—there were 1,129,000 families in the United Kingdom receiving Working Families Tax Credit.

  Equitable Life
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from interested organisations on Equitable Life. [145809]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received representations from a number of groups, including those representing the interests of policyholders as well as those representing the interests of members of occupational pensions.

  Employment Forecasts
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his forecasts for employment as a result of the pre-Budget report. [145810]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In line with the convention adopted by previous Administrations, the Government do not publish forecasts for employment and unemployment. However, the 2000 pre-Budget report restated the Government's aim of employment opportunity for all—the modern definition of full employment—and its ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be higher proportion of people in employment than ever before.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the effect on pensioner incomes of abolishing the winter fuel allowance. [145811]

  Mr. Timms
  Abolishing the Winter Fuel Payment would have meant that over 8 million households—with around 11½ million people in them—would have lost out on the £200 we paid this winter: the equivalent of a £4 cut in their weekly income.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioner households are entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment. [145798]

  Mr. Timms
  Every pensioner household in the country—with around 11½ million people—is entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment which this Government introduced, and which we raised from £100 to £200 for this winter.

  Euro
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total level of expenditure incurred to date by Government bodies in connection with the national changeover plan. [145812]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An update on public sector spending on changeover planning was given in the Treasury's Fourth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 6 November 2000. Copies of the Report are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the recent appreciation in value of the euro. [145829]
  704W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on day-to-day developments in the foreign exchange markets.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on British participation in the European single currency. [145793]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on joining the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. Because of the magnitude of the decision, the Government believe that, whenever a decision to enter is taken by Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to target socially disadvantaged groups in information campaigns on the euro. [147527]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the second Outline National Changeover Plan, which was published on 9 Mach 2000. A copy of the plan is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on information campaigns planned for UK visitors to the Euro Zone. [147461]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Fourth Report on Euro Preparations", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Tobin Tax
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the World Bank about the introduction of a Tobin tax on speculative capital movements. [145813]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 2 June 2000,Official Report, column 273W.

  Charitable Giving
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to promote charitable giving. [145814]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In March 2000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Getting Britain Giving package of tax measures to encourage greater charitable giving in the UK. This includes improvements to the Gift Aid and Payroll Giving schemes and a new income tax relief for gifts of shares.

  The Government are involved in two significant campaigns to promote the new reliefs. In October 2000 the Government launched a £2 million campaign to promote Payroll Giving and encourage more employers to offer Payroll Giving schemes. The three year campaign is backed by a special 10 per cent. supplement on all Payroll Giving donations.

  The Government are also supporting the Charities Aid Foundation and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in a joint campaign starting in 2001 to promote the charitable giving of both money and time. The Government have pledged £1 million plus a series of Civil Service secondments to the campaign.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he estimates will benefit in(a) the north-west and (b) the United Kingdom from tax changes in the next financial year. [145815]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his tax proposals for 2001–02 in the next Budget but all taxpaying families for that year should benefit from the increase in the personal allowance announced in the pre-Budget report. Additionally, the new children's tax credit to be introduced in April 2001 should benefit around 5 million families in the UK, 625,000 of whom live in the north-west. And over 1.1 million families should benefit from the increase in the rates and thresholds for the Working Families Tax Credit announced on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 340W, over 160,000 of whom live in the north-west.

  EU Convergence Criteria
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he forecasts that the UK economy will meet his criteria for convergence with the economies of other European Union member states. [145816]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  E-commerce
  Mr. White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of prospects for e-commerce as a result of his pre-Budget statement. [145817]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set a target of the UK being the best environment in the world to trade electronically by 2002 and regularly report on progress. The UK Online annual report, published shortly before the pre-Budget report, outlines the Government's strategy for reaching this goal, and the current state of play in the UK. The Minister for Small Business and E-commerce provides monthly reports on progress against this strategy, which can be found at:http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/2000/ progress/montprog.htm. The December report included a summary of relevant measures announced in the pre-Budget report.

  Tax Incentives (Social Exclusion)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce tax incentives to promote further corporate involvement in tackling social exclusion. [145818]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government believe that the best approach to tackling social exclusion brings the private, voluntary and community sectors and Government together. And business has a key role to play within this partnership—a role which we have encouraged through, for example, the introduction of new tax reliefs on corporate charitable giving, which formed part of the wider "Getting Britain Giving" package introduced in Budget 2000.
  706W
  Furthermore, as the Chancellor set out in his pre-Budget report in November, the Government welcome and endorse the recommendations of the Social Investment Taskforce Report regarding supporting the growth of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and introducing a Community Investment Tax Credit to encourage private investment in under-invested communities.

  Public Services (Investment)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on proposals for future investment in the health service and education. [145819]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In Budget 2000 the Government announced an unprecedented increase in NHS UK funding of 6.1 per cent. average annual real terms growth over the four years to 2003–04—the longest period of sustained growth in the history of the NHS. The Government announced in the 2000 Spending Review an increase in education spend of 5.4 per cent. average annual real terms growth over the four years to 2003–04.

  Tax Burden
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the amount of tax paid by the average family since 1997. [145820]

  Dawn Primarolo
  By April 2001 a single earner family on average earnings with two children will pay £200 a year less income tax and National Insurance Contributions than they would have under the 1997 system of tax and benefits. This family will also receive £170 a year more Child Benefit. The direct tax burden on this family will be the lowest since 1972.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations with which Treasury officials have had discussions in the last three months on the use of the term tax burden; and what advice and instructions were given on the use of that term. [145618]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The description of the amount of money taken by the Treasury in taxation is as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and pre-Budget Report; no other advice has been issued.

  Business Taxes and Regulations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost to businesses of new taxes and regulations introduced since May 1997. [145821]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Budget Reports. These are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost was of running Government Departments in(a) 1997 and (b) 2000. [145822]

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the annual running costs of Government Departments. [145827]
  707W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Annual costs of running Government Departments are published in HM Treasury's "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses" (PESA). The latest edition is available in the Library of the House.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have joined the New Deal for Young People since January 1998. [145823]

  Mr. Timms
  Since the Pathfinders were launched in January 1998, 568,400 people have joined the New Deal for Young People, of whom 269,210 have found employment meeting the Government's key target of placing 250,000 young people into jobs.

  The New Deal for Young People has proved extremely effective at getting young unemployed people off welfare and back into work.

  Department of Health (Misappropriations)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what misappropriations he has identified in the departmental expenditure limit for the Department of Health. [145824]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A copy of the latest published Appropriation Accounts for the Department of Health, including the audit certificate, is for 1998–99 (HC 11-XI) and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, the Department of Health Appropriate Accounts for 1999–2000 were certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before the House earlier today and are due to be published shortly.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trend in unemployment since the introduction of the national minimum wage. [145825]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since April 1999, when the national minimum wage was introduced, unemployment has continued to fall reflecting the prudent and sensible level at which the national minimum wage was set. ILO unemployment has fallen by well over 200,000, from 6.2 per cent. to 5.3 per cent.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of GDP in the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03. [145826]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury's latest GDP projections can be found in Annexe A of November's pre-Budget report; and the corresponding financial year assumptions used for projecting the public finances are set out in Annexe B (table B3).

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) charities and (b) Churches on Government plans to write off debt owed by the poorest countries. [145828]
  708W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Campaigns by nongovernmental organisations, faith groups and members of the public have helped to maintain the issue of debt relief at the top of the international agenda. Last year, around a third of all letters received by the Treasury related to debt relief.

  Faith groups and charities participated in three special seminars in Downing street last year, where they were able to put their concerns about debt relief directly to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for International Development, and international figures such as the head of the IMF, Horst Kohler. They will also play a key part in the upcoming Children's conference, which the UK Government will host in London in the near future.

  Inland Revenue (Malpractice)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are used by his Department to follow up decisions by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on malpractice by the Inland Revenue. [145797]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue always tries to make positive use of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's findings. Where a taxpayer has suffered injustice, the Inland Revenue will put matters right and, where appropriate, pay compensation.

  Where the Ombudsman's findings point to a more general problem, or a defect in the Department's systems and processes, his comments and recommendations are made available to officials responsible for that particular area of work, so that any lessons learnt from the case can be used when planning and reviewing the Department's business.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he collates regarding the age of people who pay capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [146261]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the age of taxpayers is held where it is needed to administer the tax system or where it has been provided by the taxpayer.

  Church Buildings (VAT)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has estimated the cost of reduction of VAT on listed church buildings; how many Church of England churches may qualify for the VAT reduction; and if he will make a statement. [146324]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the loss of VAT revenue for the proposed reduced rate of VAT on the repair of listed buildings used for worship, (b) the loss of VAT revenue from the conversion of residential properties into a different number of dwellings and (c) loss of revenue arising from the reduced rate of VAT on alterations to protected buildings. [146392]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]A recent report by the Churches Main Committee suggests that the VAT paid by all churches, including listed churches, for repairs and maintenance is £38 million per year.
  709W
  According to the last English Church Census, there were 16,000 Church of England churches but separate figures were not collected for listed buildings.

  Contributions Agency (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many whole-time equivalent jobs there were in the Contributions Agency in each district of Tyne and Wear in each of the last five years. [147007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]The number of whole-time equivalent jobs in Contributions Agency, in the unit comprising its Newcastle upon Tyne location (including its outstations), for each of the five years, from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1999, were as follows:

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995–5,650

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996–5,362

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997–4,465

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998–4,995

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999–4,795.

  Information on the number of whole-time jobs in the Contributions Agency's Northern Region Field Offices in the Tyne and Wear area is not readily available.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from interested organisations on his policies on business taxation. [145792]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government have received a number of representations from interested organisations on business taxation.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 126W on Customs and Excise, if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has in the past entered into a confidentiality agreement with a third party for the purpose of evaluating evidence from that third party which may have been offered in respect of litigation. [147017]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inquiries of current staff of the Solicitor's Office have not revealed any example of such a confidentiality agreement within the last five years.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate on average the number of(a) cigarettes, (b) cigars and (c) packets of hand-rolling tobacco smuggled each day into the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; [145874]

  (2) if he will estimate on average the number of (a) pints of beers and cider, (b) bottles of Scotch whisky, (c) bottles of London gin and (d) other spirits smuggled each day into the United Kingdom in the last 12 months;[145876]

  (3) if he will estimate the revenue lost to the Exchequer through (a) smuggling of (i) alcohol and (ii) tobacco in 2000 and (b) cross-border shopping for (1) alcohol and (2) tobacco in 1999. [145877]
  710W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the scale of alcohol and tobacco smuggling in 2000 are being worked on and will be published in due course.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the results of the Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling Survey of June 2000 have not been published; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library. [145875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cross-Channel survey is used to assess the volume of smuggling undertaken annually by travellers using light vehicles or on foot. For 1999 overall figures were produced for the total revenue loss from all forms of tobacco smuggling. Comparable figures for 2000 are being prepared and will be published in due course. These will include the results of the June 2000 survey.

  Lamfalussy Report
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the final report of the Lamfalussy Committee on the regulation of European securities markets to be presented. [147278]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The report is expected in February.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on specific investment incentive measures for new pump infrastructure in alternative fuels in rural areas. [146754]

  Mr. Timms
  I have received no such recent representations. However, the Government are encouraging the general growth of the market for alternative fuels and receive representations on alternative fuels from a wide range of interested groups. We recognise that an effective refuelling infrastructure is an essential part of developing a sustainable market for alternative fuels.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministers of Religion (House of Commons)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to allow ministers of religion to become Members of the House of Commons. [147688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will today introduce a Bill which will reform the existing unfair and outdated legislation. It will remove any disqualification from membership of the House of Commons that arises by reason of a person having been ordained or being a minister of a religious denomination.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Dame Angela Rumbold concerning the naturalisation applications of S. P. and G. P. Hinduja. [146094]
  711W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2001,Official Report, columns 351–52W, on British citizenship, (a) if he will list the other hon. Members who contacted him concerning this application, (b) on what date communications were received from each hon. Member who contacted him in this case, (c) if he will place in the Library copies of the letters received from (i) the hon. Members for (a) Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and (b) Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and (ii) the other hon. Members referred to in his answer, (d) if he will list the nationality applications since May 1997 concerning which communications have been received from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool other than those relating to his constituents and (e) if a reply was sent to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool; and if he will make a statement. [147183]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, announced on 24 January that he had asked former Treasury Solicitor, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, to review the full circumstances surrounding approaches to the Home Office in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. This review is starting immediately and will be completed as quickly as possible. The findings will be published and copies of these will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates on which applications for nationality have been received by(a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 1990. [147178]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. G. P. Hinduja applied for British citizenship on 21 February 1990 and 5 March 1997.

  Mr. S. P. Hinduja applied on 21 February 1990 and 20 October 1998.

  Police Management
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to assess the efficiency of police management. [147068]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In November 1998 the Home Office launched a police efficiency process which required police authorities and forces to plan and deliver efficiency gains equivalent to 2 per cent. of Net Revenue Expenditure (NRE) each year between 1999 and 2002. This process is monitored by audit and inspection and in 1999–2000 delivered efficiency gains totalling £183 million, or 2.46 per cent. of NRE.

  A Public Sector Productivity Panel report in April 2000 recommended a more sophisticated approach to measuring the relative efficiency of forces. The proposals are currently being trialled.

  In April 2000 the police became subject to Best Value legislation which requires each police authority to ensure that its services are delivered by the most effective, economic and efficient means available and, over a five year period, to review all of its functions.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received 712W
  on the impact of the proposed levy charge imposed at freight terminals on rail freight operators who inadvertently bring illegal immigrants into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [147080]

  Mrs. Roche
  The power to levy a civil penalty on rail operators who bring clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom concealed in rail freight wagons is contained within section 39(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This stipulates that powers to impose the charge are to be introduced by regulation and that the Secretary of State must consult those appearing to him to be likely to be affected by the imposition of penalties prior to their introduction.

  The formal consultation process began on 13 November 2000,with the issue of draft regulations, code of practice and regulatory impact assessment, and ended on 25 December2000. This was preceded by informal consultation during which representatives of the industry were invited to comment on an initial draft of the code of practice.

  We are now considering the draft regulations and code of practice in the light of the issues raised during the consultation process. Copies of a report detailing these contributions and the response of the Home Office to them will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Police Resources
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police concerning the resources available to him; [146996]

  (2) what plans he has to increase police resources for the Thames Valley Police Force. [146997]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Chief Constable of Thames Valley wrote to me on 8 December 2000 about Crime Fighting Fund resources.

  Under the provisional police funding settlement for 2001–02, Thames Valley Police Authority will receive central Government funding support of £245.2 million, an increase of 5.8 per cent. over 2000–01. Thames Valley also will receive additional funding of £4,301,000 on present estimates, for the Crime Fighting Fund, £8,652,000 for the Airwave Communications System, and £1,262,860 for rural policing.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of spending on police resources on an average per capita basis is(a) nationally and (b) in the South Buckinghamshire district council area. [146999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Spending on police resources on an average per capita basis in England and Wales was £123.19 in 1999–2000. Spend in the South Buckinghamshire district council area is not available, however spend per capita in the Thames Valley police force area was £108.88 in 1999–2000.

  Source:

  Audit Commission, January 2001
  713W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to chief constables about the diversion of police resources to town and city centres from the surrounding rural districts; and if he will make a statement. [147000]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]I have no plans to issue guidance to chief constables about the diversion of police resources to town and city centre from rural districts. The deployment of officers is an operational matter for the chief constable who will determine operational priorities, taking into account local needs.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial resources he plans to make available to improve recruitment and retention of police officers in the South Buckingamshire district council area. [146998]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]No financial resources are being made available specifically to improve recruitment and retention in the South Buckinghamshire district council area.

  Thames Valley police is, however, benefiting from measures introduced nationally to improve police recruitment. The force was allocated 325 recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative: 111 for

  £

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1997–98

  Grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966

  1,363,059

  739,615

  "Make a difference"

  —

  55,000

  1998–99

  Grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 19661

  1,398,498

  758,845

  "Make a difference"

  —

  30,000

  Youth Justice pilots

  17,000

  11,250

  1999–2000

  "Make a difference"

  —

  20,000

  Youth Justice pilots

  53,500

  38,930

  Drug Action Team development funding

  —

  35,782

  Adult and family asylum seekers

  10,192,480

  7,790,560

  2000–01

  Young offender referral order pilot

  72,000

  72,000

  Drug Action Team development funding

  —

  35,782

  Adult and family asylum seekers2

  6,375,743

  5,621,054

  Crime Reduction programme3

  0

  56,000

  2001–024

  Young offender referral order pilot

  72,000

  72,000

  Drug Action Team development funding

  —

  35,782

  Crime reduction programme

  1,925,000

  —

  1 The Ethnic Minorities and Travellers Achievement Grant, which replaced section 11 grant at the end of 1998–99, is administered by the Department for Education and Employment

  2 Actual grant payments for first six months only. No estimate is available for final six months; or for the unaccompanied asylum seeking children's grant, of which neither authority has received any payment to date.

  3 Actual grant payments to date. Total projected payments for 2000–01 are: Westminster £280,000; Kensington and Chelsea £177,000.

  4 Projected grant payments. No projections are available for the adult and family asylum seekers grants; or for the unaccompanied asylum seeking children's grant.

  Police Time (Funding Applications)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the
  714W
  2000–01, 108 for 2001–02 and 106 for 2002–03. It has been agreed that the force can defer 69 of its CFF allocation for 2000–01 into 2001–02. Funding for all the CFF recruits, including those deferred to 2001–02, will be provided from the date of appointment.

  We also launched the first ever national recruitment advertising campaign for the police service on 30 August 2000. The campaign is expected to cost £8.2 million (including VAT) in 2000–01. It is not possible to say what proportion of the cost of the campaign has benefited particular forces but, by 14 January 2001, 287 expressions of interest arising from the campaign had been forwarded to Thames Valley police.

  Government Grants (Central London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each category of grant, and the amount of each grant, paid by his Department to(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [146312]

  Mr. Straw
  The following table shows grants paid by the Home Office to the London boroughs of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01; and projected payments for 2000–02:

  number of senior police staff hours per annum which are devoted to initiating, writing and checking bids for central funds. [146264]
  715W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not centrally available. It could be obtained only by asking the forces that had submitted requests for special grants to estimate the time involved in the preparation of their bids.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the total amount of funding made available to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate for each of the last five years. [147171]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The total funding available to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate for each of the last five financial years has been as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  1,147,000

  1997–98

  1,160,000

  1998–99

  1,340,000

  1999–2000

  1,384,000

  2000–01

  1,495,000

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laboratories were licensed for using animals for the testing of drugs in(a) 1996 and (b) 2000. [146825]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the end of 1996, 300 certificates were in force designating establishments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Relevant statistics for 2000 are not yet available, but the corresponding figure for 1999 is 296.

  It is known that many of the designated establishments have been and are engaged upon licensed programmes of work which include aspects of drugs development. It is not, however, possible to isolate that activity from the broader categories of statistical data held centrally.

  Maximum sentences for offences listed in clause 1(1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill

  Offence

  Description of Offence

  Maximum sentence

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  Being drunk in a highway, other public place or licensed premises

  Level 1 fine

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  Throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare

  Level 5 fine

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  Knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade

  Three months imprisonment, Level 4 fine, or both

  Section 55 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949

  Trespassing on a railway

  Level 3 fine

  Section 56 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949

  Throwing stones etc at trains or other things on railways

  Level 3 fine, plus damages

  Section 169 C(3) of the Licensing Act 19641

  Buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under 18

  Level 3 fine

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  Disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place

  Level 3 fine

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

  Wasting police time or giving false report

  Six months, Level 4 fine, or both

  Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

  Destruction of, or damage to, property without lawful excuse

  Six months, Level 5 fine, or both

  Police Budget
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the police budget in England and Wales is for the financial years 2000–01 to 2003–04. [146278]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Net budgets for Police Authorities in England and Wales in 2000–01 totalled £7,713.4 million. Each police authority sets its annual budget before 1 March each year, so information for the years from 2001–02 is not available.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons he estimates will be convicted of an offence under Clause 14(4) of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill annually. [147225]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to estimate how many convictions there will be each year following arrest for the offence set out in Clause 14 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We expect this provision to have a deterrent effect, restricting the consumption of alcohol in those public places designated in accordance with Clause 15. Arrest will be appropriate only in the circumstances set out in Clause 14, where an individual fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a police officer's requirement that he or she should not consume alcohol in that place or should surrender alcohol and any opened alcohol containers.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the maximum punishment for each penalty offence in Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill and the maximum fine that a police officer could impose for each offence under Clause 2 of the Bill. [147223]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The maximum sentences available on summary conviction for the offences listed in Clause 1 are given in the table. Clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with a power to determine by order the penalties payable in respect of each offence under the penalty notice scheme, with the restriction that they may not exceed half the amount of the maximum fine for which a person is liable upon conviction. Police officers will have no discretion to vary the amounts of these penalties. No figures for the penalties have yet been set.
  717W

  Maximum sentences for offences listed in clause 1(1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill

  Offence

  Description of Offence

  Maximum sentence

  Section 43(1)b of the Telecommunications Act 1984

  Using public telecommunications system for sending a message known to be false in order to cause annoyance

  Six months, or Level 5 fine, or both

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

  Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour etc within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress

  Level 3 fine

  Section 14 of (this bill)

  Consumption of alcohol in a designated public place

  Level 2 fine

  1S 169 C(3) of the Licensing Act 1964 replaces S 169(3) of that Act by virtue of the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000.

  Level 1 fine: £200

  Level 2 fine: £500

  Level 3 fine: £1,000

  Level 4 fine: 2,500

  Level 5 fine: £5,000

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many penalty notices he estimates will be issued for each penalty offence under Clause 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill annually to persons(a) who would otherwise be cautioned, (b) who would otherwise be tried and (c) who would otherwise not be proceeded against in any way; [147224]

  (2) how many penalty notices he estimates will be issued for each penalty offence under Clause 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill annually; and what sum he estimates will be received in fines. [147222]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible at this stage to give accurate estimates of the information requested. Numbers of penalty notices issued, and to whom, will depend upon a number of factors, including the levels at which penalties are set and the way in which the police use the new scheme. For the purposes of planning a range of possible outcomes has been considered, varying between 20 per cent. and 95 per cent. of those currently pleading guilty and between 80 per cent. and 50 per cent. of those currently being cautioned being issued instead with a fixed penalty notice.

  As for those against whom no action is currently taken, the assumption is that at least 10 per cent. of all notices issued might be in respect of such people.

  The Bill includes a power to specify different penalties for different offences. No decision has yet been taken as to what these penalties will be.

  A more accurate assessment of numbers will be possible only once decisions have been taken about the level of fixed penalties and in the light of early experience of the scheme.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many travel restriction orders he estimates will be made under Clause 35 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill annually. [147227]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This is to be a discretionary power, subject to a sentencing threshold, for the courts to apply when they deem it appropriate. But the number of offenders liable to such a ban, based on 1998 sentencing data, would be in the region of 300 to 400.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his original estimate was of the number of anti-social behaviour orders that would be issued annually; how that estimate has been revised; and if he will make a statement. [147226]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figures in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were based on the possibility that up to 5,000 orders might be made in any one year. We have not revised that estimate and have no plans to do so, since we are not seeking to set a national target for such orders.

  It is more important that, where an order is made, it should be made on the basis that it will be the most effective method for dealing with a specific case. Our priority in this area is that local crime and disorder partnerships should be making effective use of all their powers to protect the rights of all citizens to lead their lives free from harassment and disorder.

  Fire-related Deaths
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of fire-related deaths in the home was in each of the last five years; what the total number of reported fires was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [145715]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information contained in the table, relates to fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom.

  Number of fires1 and fire-related deaths—1995 to 1999

  United Kingdom

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Total fire deaths

  736

  709

  723

  668

  663

  of which:

  dwellings

  559

  564

  562

  519

  466

  Total fires2

  604,200

  532,300

  469,000

  409,700

  467,900

  of which:

  dwellings

  68,700

  71,700

  72,500

  71,100

  72,100

  1 1999 data for fires attended are provisional. Figures for fire-related deaths have been estimated to account for revisions expected due to further information becoming available from inquests and death certificates etc.

  2 Consists of primary (property and/or involving casualties), secondary (mainly outdoors not involving property) and chimney fires.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of designing and preparing the new website for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [147147]

  Mrs. Roche
  The redesigned website was launched in December 2000 as part of the Home Office's ongoing commitment to drive forward e-government. The total cost of the redesign was approximately £150,000 representing Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff costs and external technical and design provision.

  Drug Misuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 272W, which prisons do not have a significant known level of dealing in unlawful drugs. [146713]

  Mr. Boateng
  Covert activity such as drug dealing is by nature very difficult to quantify. Figures from the random mandatory drug testing (RMDT) programme provide the best available measure of the levels of drug misuse. The table lists the establishments reporting rates of positive RMDT of less than five per cent. during each of the last two financial years.

  Establishments producing rates of positive random mandatory drug testing of less than 5 per cent. during the last two financial years

  Establishment

  April 1999 to March 2000

  April 2000 to November 2000

  Albany

  0.0

  1.1

  Blantyre House

  0.7

  2.2

  Cookham Wood

  0.6

  2.5

  Dartmoor

  3.0

  2.3

  Downview

  2.5

  3.5

  East Sutton Park

  0.9

  2.9

  Grendon

  3.9

  4.4

  Haslar

  1.0

  3.5

  Lancaster Farms

  3.2

  4.6

  Moorland

  3.3

  3.1

  Parkhurst

  1.6

  4.5

  Rochester

  3.2

  2.9

  Swinfen Hall

  2.8

  3.2

  Usk/Prescoed

  4.0

  2.0

  Verne

  3.5

  3.4

  Wakefield

  1.8

  3.3

  Werrington

  4.0

  4.7

  Whatton

  0.9

  3.1

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 272W, in which prisons (a) a governor grade manager and (b) another member of staff have been charged under (i) section 8 of the Misuse Drugs Act 1971 and (ii) other provisions with supplying prisoners with illegal drugs. [146714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service records available for the last two years show that no staff directly employed by the Service have been charged under section 8 of the 720W
  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Prison Service records for this period also show that six members of staff have been charged with other drug related offences.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 272W, if (a) he and (b) his officials have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service about the potential liability of management grade officers to prosecution under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [146719]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service Staff would be liable to prosecution under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 only if they took no action to stop illegal activities involving controlled drugs. I am satisfied that prisons operate effective strategies for preventing, as far as possible, the smuggling and using of drugs. Consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service is therefore unnecessary.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146591]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 373W. Further work would incur disproportionate cost.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it an offence for an adult to purchase alcohol for children aged under 18 years; and if he will make it a statement. [146575]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Licensing Act 1964 made it an offence for anyone to buy or attempt to buy alcohol for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a minor. The Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which came into force on 23 January, created a new offence of buying or attempting to buy alcohol in licensed premises on behalf of a person under 18. There will continue to be an exemption from these offences in respect of any adult who buys beer, porter or cider for a person aged 16 or 17 years of age for consumption at a meal in a part of licensed premises which is not the bar and is usually set aside for the service of meals.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions have taken place with regard to(a) fireworks causing distress to animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in each year from 1990 to date and (b) throwing or setting off fireworks in the street under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. [146683]
  721W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify the act of cruelty involved where offenders have been convicted under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Available information showing the number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for the throwing or setting off of fireworks in the street are given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under S80 of the Explosives Act 1875, England and Wales, 1990–99

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Conviction rate1

  1990

  65

  52

  80

  1991

  34

  27

  79

  1992

  19

  14

  74

  1993

  10

  5

  50

  1994

  22

  16

  73

  1995

  24

  18

  75

  1996

  43

  34

  79

  1997

  74

  49

  66

  1998

  52

  36

  69

  1999

  42

  27

  64

  1 Offenders convicted as a proportion of the number prosecuted

  Throwing, casting or firing any fireworks in or into any highway, street, etc. public place—S.80 the Explosive Act 1875

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Graffiti
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) senior police officers and (b) local authorities concerning graffiti-related criminal damage; and if he will make a statement. [146492]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Secretary and I have regular discussions with senior police officers and others on issues of crime and disorder. However, no recent discussions have been held concerning graffiti.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences of "conspiracy to defraud"1 by result (including length of sentence), England and Wales 1995–99

  Length of custodial sentence

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  Total Convicted

  Conviction rate2

  Total sentenced3

  Immediate custody

  Under 10 years

  10 years4

  1995

  1,003

  383

  38

  384

  262

  262

  —

  1996

  1,069

  477

  45

  477

  350

  350

  —

  1997

  1,119

  500

  45

  500

  325

  325

  —

  1998

  1,175

  466

  40

  466

  313

  313

  —

  1999

  1,174

  420

  36

  419

  275

  275

  —

  1 Offences under Common Law and s12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987

  2 Total convicted as a proportion of total proceeded against

  3 Sentencing may take place after conviction. In a small number of cases sentencing will occur in a later year than the relevant conviction

  4 The maximum sentence for both offences is 10 years imprisonment.

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) buggery,
  722W
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his decision not to issue guidance to paint spray manufacturers and retailers concerning age limits on the sale of their products. [146491]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No. The Government believe that tackling graffiti is best achieved by dealing with offenders rather than penalising retailers for selling a product that they may, in all honesty, believe is being purchased for legitimate reasons. There are no statutory age limits for the purchase of these products and it is not therefore appropriate to issue guidance to retailers.

  Ping Hughston
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the IND has failed to determine the application by a constituent, Ping Hughston, within the time period specified; and if he will make a statement. [146634]

  Mrs. Roche
  Mrs. Hughston's application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom was lodged on 1 December 2000 and completed on 10 January 2001. The application form that she submitted states that straightforward applications should be completed within three weeks of receipt, while cases which require further consideration are on average being completed within 12 weeks. Her case was not straightforward as it was considered outside the Immigration Rules yet was completed within six weeks.

  Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions have been brought in each year since 1995 for conspiracy to defraud; and how many and what percentage, of offenders were sentenced to prison terms of over(a) 20, (b) 15 and (c) 10 years. [146838]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available court data, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, covering "conspiracy to defraud" offences under Common Law and s12 of the Criminal. Justice Act 1987 are given in the table. Both offences carry maximum custodial sentences of 10 years.

  (b) indecent assault and (c) gross indecency, relating to males under the age of 16 years, have (i) been recorded (ii) led to charges being preferred and (iii) led to convictions in each police force area since 1997. [146441]
  723W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Centrally collected recorded crime statistics do not include details of either the age of victim or perpetrator for these offences in the detail required. Information on the number of persons charged is not available centrally.

  However, available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database on the number of persons prosecuted or convicted are given in the tables which have been placed in the Library. Detail is given on (1) the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted for offences where the male victim's age is known, and (2) the number of male defendants aged 10 to under 16 prosecuted and convicted by offence type.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what categories of data not-for-profit organisations are exempt from having to notify under the Data Protection Act 1998; [146757]

  (2) if voluntary sports clubs are classified as not-for-profit organisations under the Data Protection Act 1998; [146756]

  (3) if voluntary sports clubs are exempt from having to notify personal data relating to membership lists under the Data Protection Act 1998. [146758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.188) provides an exemption from notification under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the processing of personal data by non profit-making organisations. The conditions governing the exemption, including restrictions on the purposes of the processing and the categories of data that may be processed, are set out in paragraph 5. Whether or not a particular body is a non profit-making organisation for the purposes of paragraph 5 will depend upon its specific circumstances.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is(a) national governing bodies of sport and (b) voluntary sports clubs will be able to store criminal records information on volunteers and coaches under the Data Protection Act 1998. [146760]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information about individuals' criminal records is likely to comprise sensitive personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. Such data may be stored or otherwise processed if at least one of the grounds set out in Schedule 3 to the 1998 Act or in the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No. 417) is met, and the other requirements of the 1998 Act are satisfied.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce regulations regarding the notification of accounts and records data under the Data Protection Act 1998. [146759]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 188) provides an exemption from notification under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the processing of personal data for the purposes of keeping accounts and certain other records.
  724W
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to define a relevant filing system for manual records under the Data Protection Act 1998. [146762]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  "Relevant filing system" is defined in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Data Protection Commissioner has given guidance on this definition in her publication: "The Data Protection Act 1998: An Introduction". It is available on her website: www.dataprotection.gov.uk.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to enable national governing bodies of sport to store data relating to athletes, disciplinary procedures under the Data Protection Act 1998. [146761]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  National governing bodies of sport may store and otherwise process personal data comprising information about athletes' involvement in disciplinary proceedings provided that they comply with the data protection principles and the other requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Forecourt Drive-offs
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is concerning drivers who leave retail petrol sites without paying for fuel; how many reported incidents of drive-offs there were in 2000, broken down by constabulary in England and Wales; and how many successful prosecutions in respect of these there have been. [146970]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The offence of 'making off without payment' from petrol stations (commonly known as bilking) is one that industry/retailers and the police have already joined forces to tackle.

  The Home Office supports the British Oil Security Syndicate (BOSS), formed in 1991 by the oil industry, together with the Petrol Retailers Association (PRA), the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Its aims are to reduce the amount of crime taking place on Britain's petrol forecourts.

  Their scheme 'Forecourt Watch' provides an early warning system to keep retailers informed about crimes being committed on forecourts and provides details of suspects and their vehicles. When a crime is committed local petrol retailers immediately report the incident to the local police who transmit warnings about any suspects and their vehicles to all retailers via a communications system such as 'Ringmaster'. Messages can be transmitted to all scheme members extremely quickly.

  Retailers are also encouraged to inform their neighbouring petrol forecourts of the offence so that action can be taken before the crime is committed elsewhere.

  A pilot scheme in Lewisham, South London reduced forecourt crimes including drive-offs by 42 per cent. between December 1999 and December 2000.

  It is not possible in the statistics collected centrally on recorded crime to identify offences of making off without payment from other similar offences of fraud. Information held on the Home Office Court Proceedings database shows that there were 2,000 persons proceeded against in

  725W
  England and Wales in 1999 for offences of making off without payment (section 3 of the Theft Act 1978) but this will also include other similar offences such as making off without payment from restaurants, hotels etc. 1,400 of these persons were convicted.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders have committed further offences in the two years following the completion of their community service orders in each of the last five years. [146824]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on reoffending rates is not available. In addition, standard methodology for measuring reconviction rates for all types of community penalty measures the rates from date of commencement of the penalty as opposed to the date of completion.
  726W
  Two year reconviction rates following commencement of community service orders in the last five years for which data are available are shown in the table. Data for 1997 commencements are provisional.

  Since 1995, community penalty reconviction rates have been based on a sample of commencements during the first quarter of the year.

  Offenders reconvicted for standard list offences by year of commencement of a community service order

  Year of commencement

  Percentage reconvicted

  1993

  52

  1994

  48

  19951

  52

  19961

  50

  19971

  48

  1 First quarter

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Asylum Seekers: Interview Locations
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why asylum seekers living in London are being required to travel for interviews at cities in the north of England; and how they propose to prevent the inconvenience caused by such arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in order to reduce overall delays and maximise efficiency in the asylum system, it is necessary to use all available interviewing and screening capacity. Every effort is made to take account of the distance travelled by applicants and to allocate those with longer journeys to later slots. Early interview slots have recently been rescheduled to ten o'clock. Interviews are booked at least seven working days in advance to enable the applicant to plan the most economical way of attending. That period should allow sufficient time for National Asylum Support Service arrangements to be finalised. The interview booking unit in Liverpool is now also booking travel vouchers and, where necessary, overnight accommodation for NASS-supported applicants.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the news of those rather slight improvements. Is it not absurd that people living in London are required to travel to Leeds and Liverpool while other asylum seekers dispersed to the north are required to go to Croydon and even to Dover? Is the Minister aware of an extreme case of an Iranian in Glasgow, already in ill health, required to travel to Croydon? Can something be done to cut that ridiculous cross-traffic?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that case to my attention. I should be grateful to have the full details and will follow it up. We are trying to make maximum use of all the available interviewing times so that we can speed up the applications process. There is no doubt that we are being very successful in that regard. Yes, of course, it creates some difficulties but, as I suggested in my response, there is flexibility. The interviewing arrangements are designed to be as flexible as possible. We want to be helpful. We want the interviews to take place. We want to ensure that the applications process is kept on track and that we maximise all interviewing opportunities.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if someone arrives for the hearing
350
stressed and exhausted, he is not likely to do himself justice and that cannot be conducive to a just outcome? Can we have a total assurance that where someone must travel a long distance, convenient transport and proper accommodation will be made available?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, a person within the NASS scheme is provided with travel vouchers and accommodation where appropriate. The service is performing well and is extremely alive to individual sensitivities. It does all that it can to be as accommodating as possible. But it is in everyone's interests—and I repeat this point—that the application process is kept on track and that applications are processed as speedily as possible. Most people would accept that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is a proposal to house some asylum seekers in Cardiff prison, along with other gaols, and that the National Assembly for Wales is very much opposed to the proposal on humanitarian grounds? What reply will the Minister give to the Assembly when he receives its protest?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not aware of that proposal. Perhaps I should have been, if, indeed, it is a proposal. I should be very interested to hear from the noble Lord, perhaps in writing, the details as he understands them. Whatever proposals there are, I am sure that there will be detailed consultation. That is a very important part of the way in which we do our business. It is the case that from time to time we have had to use the Prison Service to house some asylum seekers but we are reducing that number. That is our commitment. We are trying to manage properly an estate to facilitate the applications process. I believe there is common agreement that that is working very well.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be more efficient and economical, as well as more compassionate, to move the interviewers to where the majority of asylum seekers are than the other way round?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at one stage interviews took place only in Croydon. We have established two other regional centres, in part for the convenience of applicants and to ensure that the process is speeded up. We are making great strides in that direction. It is worth recalling how many applicants we have to deal with. Because of those volumes of people, it is only right to maximise the amount of interviewing time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware that movement of people from one place to another is putting severe strain on community relations in local areas? Is he aware of the concern expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in relation to asylum seekers and refugees being victims of harassment, violence and so on? Will he please note

351
that there has been a resurgence of bodies like the National Front, the British National Party and Combat 18? What is being done to protect asylum seekers from such violent attacks upon them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that the Association of Chief Police Officers gave very good advice this week. We are all grateful for the way in which it has drawn out some of the problems which have undoubtedly existed. We all need to be vigilant against such racist attacks. They are appalling. Nobody can endorse them in any shape or form. It is important that we take a moral lead in government and a moral stand against those racist attacks. We must do all we can to ensure that where there are asylum seekers, asylum applicants, they are treated with dignity and humanity. That is in their best interests and it shows our country in a good light.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister now agree that the mess of the dispersal system, which has been demonstrated in the past few minutes by the exchanges in this House, has done absolutely nothing so far to deter applications, as the Minister, the Prime Minister and others promised at the time of the Bill? There were more applications last year—two and a half times the number four years ago—over three-quarters of which were judged to be bogus.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, last year was, indeed, a year in which there were a very large number of applications. But it must be remembered that last year was the year in which the new system was introduced. That system is working well, as are the dispersal and NASS systems. None of those things is absolutely perfect.
As for deterring unfounded applications, it is desirable that people who are not making a bona fide application are deterred. The system that we put in place is designed to be fair, firm and proportionate. It deserves to be supported. Our policies are proving successful. I should point out that we inherited a complete mess of a system, with lengthy delays in the processing of applications; employees in the service had been laid off; and queues were growing longer. We are reducing those queues. The backlog is down to some 66,000 applicants. I believe that the service is doing a very good job and that it deserves to be supported in that work.

European Year of Languages
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to mark the year 2001 as the European Year of Languages.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Minister for Europe and I hosted an event today to
352
promote the year. The Centre for Information on Language Teaching is managing the UK's contribution. Its publication Languages for Life sets out the events taking place.
On Monday, we announced nine new specialist language colleges to promote language learning, bringing the total to 108. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has produced guidance on primary level language teaching and an estimated one in five primary schools teaches foreign languages.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the welcome news contained in her reply. Does she agree that the Nuffield inquiry into the languages capability of the United Kingdom focused on areas where current provision needs to be improved? The Nuffield report was published about eight months ago but I understand that as yet there has been no formal response from the Government. When will that formal response be forthcoming and when will there be a commitment to action? I hope that it will be during the European Year of Languages.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government published the response to the Nuffield inquiry today. I shall ensure that that response is placed in the Library so that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and any other interested Members of your Lordships' House are able to read it. It proposes that a working party should be set up with Nuffield to develop action derived from its recommendations.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that one in five primary schools is introducing language teaching. Are the Government prepared to follow the continental practice of beginning all language teaching at the age of eight?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe it would be sensible for the Government to wait until the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's study of the pilots that are taking place in 150 primary schools has been completed before we make such commitments. However, the Government certainly welcome the voluntary commitment that substantial numbers of primary schools are now making to start teaching modern languages much earlier than in the past.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a long time has elapsed between the Nuffield inquiry that took place in May last year and the response of the Government? Do the Government recall that at that point Nuffield said that the Government lacked any coherent strategies to deal with the language crisis in Britain and in particular highlighted the fact that nine youngsters out of 10 at the age of 16 cease any kind of language instruction whatever? Can the Minister tell us whether any decisive action is to be taken to reverse such a damaging situation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in this country the lack of ability to speak modern languages is a function

353
of the education of us all over many years. A partnership action between employers, the Government and individuals needs to be taken to address such a situation. The Minister for Europe and I issued a challenge today to many more people to start learning a foreign language as adults. He has made a commitment to learn French and I have made a commitment to refresh my extremely rusty French.
In relation to young people giving up languages at the age of 16, I am pleased that, as a result of the Government's reforms to the 16 to 19 curriculum and the broadening of A-levels, there appears to be a bigger take-up in foreign languages by young people in that age group, with substantial additional numbers taking an AS-level in a modern language.
Lord Laird: My Lords, in talking about the European Year of Languages, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the minority languages, of which there are 40 that are recognised in the European Union. Is she as thrilled as many noble Lords are at the resurgence of Ulster Scots in my native land of Northern Ireland? In any actions that the Government may take, will she ensure that they look after the activities of those minority languages that are recognised by the European Union and which are spoken inside the United Kingdom?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. The European Year of Languages covers minority languages as well as the mother tongues spoken by the majority of the populations right across Europe.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in support of my noble friend Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, I ask the Minister whether she accepts that the younger one is the easier it is to learn a language. Does she recall how extremely easy she found it to learn English?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said earlier and what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said. It is well known that it is easier for small children to learn languages than it is to start learning a language in adulthood. On the other hand, it is also easy for small children to forget languages unless there is a consistent and long-term commitment to teach them throughout their schooling. The Government are committed to try to promote that and we are taking a variety of different actions to make language teaching in our schools more effective, including the specialist language schools to which I referred in my initial reply.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question put by my noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond, can the noble Baroness indicate whether over the past five years, in her opinion, there has been an improvement both in the extent and in the effectiveness of language teaching?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that we are beginning to see improvements as a result of the
354
fact that there are now 108 specialist secondary schools focusing on the teaching of foreign languages, although it will take some time for all the improvements that we would expect from that kind of development and from the expansion of the teaching of languages in our primary schools to be effective. I believe that in the longer term we shall see big improvements, but we have to be patient.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the Zeitgeist may demand a rapprochement with the languages of our European neighbours, it is becoming increasingly difficult as so many people speak English?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course, it is easy to be lazy. When travelling in Europe it is becoming easier and easier to get away with speaking English. That is probably the experience of every noble Lord. Regrettably, that is also the experience of many young people, so trying to motivate them to learn a foreign language is tougher in this country than in many countries of the European Union.

Crimes Against Humanity: Commemoration
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend the Commemoration of the Holocaust on 27th January to include other examples of genocide, as defined by United Nations criteria, and the Armenian massacre in 1915.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government decided that Holocaust Memorial Day should focus on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues—and not necessarily genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. A particular focus on events around the period 1939 to 1945 and thereafter should not be seen as failing to acknowledge, sympathise with and respect the deep concerns about earlier events like the massacre of Armenians in 1915 and 1916.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that partially encouraging reply. Does he agree that, without in any way detracting from the commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust, to deny recognition of other comparable crimes against humanity diminishes the significance? Does he also agree that one of the most important aspects of the commemoration is to discourage further genocide? Any genocide forgotten or denied may well encourage other genocides, as illustrated by Hitler's infamous question posed before he began the extermination of the Jews: "Who today speaks of the Armenians"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that we should not do anything to detract from the commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust. Nor should we deny history. We should try to learn the lessons of history. It must be the hope of everyone that the Governments of Turkey and Armenia have learnt the lessons of history and that they can in some way put the matter behind them. We must ensure that we have the sort of useful cooperation needed to increase stability and prosperity in that part of the world. That would be in everybody's best interests. We need to learn from history, but we should not be locked into history forever and become prisoners of the past. We need to look to the future. At least the national Holocaust remembrance celebrations will enable us to do that.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and I thank the Government and all the leaders of all our political parties and of our great religions for their support for this concept. Does he accept that, while Holocaust Memorial Day is of course important in remembering the tragic victims of the Holocaust, who included half of my family, it is also, and more important, to remind especially younger people what can happen if a racist dictatorship is allowed to take over in any country? In that way we can try to prevent further massacres, murders and genocides of any minority at any time and anywhere in the world.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, surely, that is the purpose of the forthcoming national commemoration. I return to the point that it is important to learn the lessons of history and I thank the noble Lord for focusing on that. Throughout we should focus precisely on that.
The Holocaust was appalling, as is any massacre of any race in the world. I believe that we should understand that and make our children and future generations fully aware of its impact. For that reason, the Government should be congratulated on the steps they have taken in that regard.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the Government accept that it is necessary for the human race to learn this lesson, surely it is necessary that it is learnt by all countries in which genocide has taken place or may do so. Is the Minister aware that in 1929 Winston Churchill said:
"In 1915 the Turkish Government began and ruthlessly carried out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor … whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust … There is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons"?
If those statements from a reliable source are true, surely they should be recognised in this process.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government of the day condemned the events in that part of Europe, and rightly so. I was not aware of Winston Churchill's important commentary on those
356
events but I do not seek to draw a particular distinction. We should learn the lessons of history and not be locked in it. We all agree that the Holocaust was an appalling event, as is any massacre of any size. We need to take the opportunities which are provided to reflect on that, so that future generations can learn lessons from history, turn themselves against it and live in greater harmony.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I commend the Minister's reply because he is right to draw a distinction—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I know that there is a great deal of interest in this Question but the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been trying to ask a question and the Liberal Democrats have not yet made a contribution.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House. May I commend the Minister because he is right to draw a distinction between the horrors of history? No one alive remembers the Armenian massacre, awful though it undoubtedly was. I believe that the Minister is right to commend the idea of conflict resolution and an attempt to reach a peaceful settlement of such issues. That is different from the Jewish Holocaust—and for that matter the Cambodian holocaust—which represented a systematic attempt to try to destroy an entire section of the people by a deliberate decision of government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She always speaks with great wisdom and experience of these matters and I am sure that the Government will welcome her comments.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that as regards such issues two important things are occurring? First, these events are of such a horror that the communities which are not involved have a tendency to suppress them and to want to forget them. Secondly, the communities which are involved so build them into the consciousness of those people that they shape the very way in which they see their lives and shape the way they react to issues.
Unless we have mechanisms for continual education and remembrance around such events, not only do we not remember the history but we do not understand the roots of many of the conflicts which continue to persist in our own time. Is that not reason enough for ensuring by the means of Holocaust memorials and other means that we remember all these matters?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can do no more than agree with the right reverend Prelate. Those are wise words and we all need to reflect on them, particularly in quieter moments.

Prisoners: Contribution to Upkeep
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether making prisoners contribute towards their upkeep in prison will help towards their rehabilitation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I have not asked my question.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I will not be silenced!
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is unaware that we have moved on to the fourth Question and that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has already put it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, effective resettlement work, in particular improving the opportunities for prisoners to obtain employment and accommodation on release, is a key priority for the Prison Service. It has recently established a new custody-to-work programme and has given one of its directors overall responsibility for resettlement.
Where a court order has already been made for the confiscation of assets obtained through the proceeds of crime, there may be scope for some of those funds to be used to offset the costs of imprisonment and the Government are carefully examining that option.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Anyone who watched David Frost's programme last Sunday would have wondered from where within the Home Office such a proposal emerged. Does he accept that, although there is general support for the confiscation of criminally acquired assets of wealthy offenders who have been involved in large-scale criminal activity, many prisoners have few assets other than homes and furniture?
Does the Minister further accept that it would be ridiculous for the basic necessities of such people to be confiscated by the state? Taking into account the fact that prisoners who are released homeless are two-and-a-half times more likely to reoffend and that prisoners without family support are seven-and-a-half times more likely to reoffend, does not the Minister consider that such a proposal will be of no help in reducing crime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in general, we are referring to making prisoners pay and it is right
358
that where it is possible, practical and feasible, those in prison should make a contribution to their care and custody. However, I accept that as regards that policy we must tread most carefully. From 1st April this year, we shall create a recovered assets fund and 50 per cent of the value of assets seized from crime will be paid into it. We are considering most carefully the criteria for expenditure from the fund, which is the right, sensible and pragmatic approach to adopt.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as a deterrent rather than rehabilitation, would not a common-sense approach be to require people who go to prison to pay for their keep, which averages £28,000 a year? Why should not those who can afford to do so pay their own "hotel bills"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened carefully to what I said, he would know that in principle I have not disagreed with him. It is worth reflecting on the fact that last year the turnover from prison industries and farms was the highest ever, at £53 million. Obviously, all prisoners who are working in those prison industries make a contribution to their keep—the noble Lord put it in that common-sense way.
We are trying to ensure that prisoners come out of prison with a greater potential for gaining employment. We are trying to double the number of prisoners obtaining a job because we believe that that is the best way to keep them away from a criminal future.
Lord Acton: My Lords, in the light of the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about prisoners paying for their own "hotel bills'', can my noble friend say whether such a policy has been implemented in other countries, and, if so, what effect it has had on the rate of reconviction?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the precise detail that he seeks. I am content to ensure that further research is undertaken. However, the general point that I make is an important one. The more people we can train and educate so that they are able to get jobs when they leave prison, the greater the chance that they will not reoffend, and that has a beneficial impact on offending rates within society generally. I believe that everyone supports that common-sense approach.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with so far as is necessary on Monday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

359
to be taken before the Second Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 31st January
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Tebbit set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Statutory instrument procedure]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Subject to subsection (6),").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 38 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 40. Subsections (3) to (7) of Clause 4 provide for subordinate provisions of orders to be amended by negative resolution procedure. We on this side of the Committee are very concerned about the potential for abuse by the use of that procedure. As presently drafted, the clause allows a Minister to designate certain provisions in an order as subordinate provisions for the purpose of that clause. There is no indication as to what provisions in an order can be subordinate.
The Minister can designate any provisions that he chooses to be subordinate provisions. Those subordinate provisions can then be modified and, more worryingly, the Minister can add other provisions relating to the modifications. All the Minister need do is to state in the order that the order makes only provision which either modifies the subordinate provisions of an order previously made or is incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental to the modification. All that the Minister is required to do is to make the statement in the order. The Minister may be completely wrong, but that is irrelevant. The only requirement for making a subordinate provisions order is that it contains the
360
relevant statement specified in subsection (4), however wrong that statement may be. The subordinate provisions order is then subject only to the negative resolution procedure. The result is that the provisions may become law on the mere say so of a Minister, however wrong he may be. There is then little that this Chamber can do about it. We believe that that is unacceptable.
In its second special report the Deregulation Committee in another place expressed similar concerns. The committee also said that the clause opened up potential for abuse and that Ministers would be able to avoid subjecting proposals to amend subordinate provisions to the rigorous scrutiny which the affirmative order procedure provided. The committee believed that Parliament would be unwise to accept that procedure. It concluded that the negative resolution procedure was not appropriate in the circumstances and should be withdrawn from the Bill before its introduction. Despite those helpful comments, the Government have ignored those recommendations.
I turn next to paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Notes in which it is said that on no occasion has a Minister ignored an adverse report from either committee. The notes go on to say that the Government intend to continue this practice in their use of regulatory reform orders, and the Minister reaffirmed that intention. Those words are hollow in light of the fact that the Government have ignored the recommendation of the Deregulation Committee that Clause 4(6), which applies the negative resolution procedure to subordinate provisions, should be withdrawn.
I have, however, digressed to an extent, because the negative resolution procedure does not involve seeking the views of the Deregulation Committee. However much that committee may oppose these orders, it is powerless; and it now appears that if it expresses a view it may well be ignored. It is our view that subsections (3) to (7) should be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I have listened with considerable interest to the noble Baroness. She will have noticed that shortly the Committee will turn to Amendment No. 45 in my name. Some of the remarks that I might have made then can be made now in opposition to the noble Baroness's observations. The noble Baroness suggests that there no basis for that part of Clause 4 which deals with subordinate provisions. She takes to extreme the views of the House of Commons, which up to a point are well justified; indeed, I flagged them up during Second Reading. The main argument against the case advanced by the noble Baroness is that in a regulatory reform Bill there are likely to be details relating to administrative forms and fees which a subsequent government may wish to alter. To suggest that that should be done by the super-affirmative resolution procedure to preserve the very proper parliamentary accountability which we desire is an exaggerated precaution. When the Committee comes to Amendment No. 45 I shall argue that that is adequate to deal with the variation of possibilities as to how important the special provisions are. I believe

361
that that is a better procedure than to do away altogether with those parts of the clause which deal with special provisions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The Bill is bedevilled with derogations from the unwritten constitution and, put simply, the way in which we have been traditionally governed. These amendments point to yet another such derogation. The recommendations of the committee have been ignored. The process has not yet hardened into a convention that such recommendations should be observed by government, but it is moving in that direction and these provisions are a derogation from it. For that reason I support the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: For the past eight years of my parliamentary life I have been part of a fairly flimsy bulwark against an increasingly over-powerful executive in the shape of my position on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments where the orders dealt with in the two amendments would fall to be considered. It is all very well for the original orders which pass through the super-affirmative procedure outlined in the Bill to allow supplementary orders to be made by negative resolution, and to that extent I disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. The problem is that the vetting procedure in the Joint Committee is not, and never has been, good enough. I have lost count of the times I have been told that I cannot pursue through our legal advisers questions to a department of state because their view is that the questions relate to policy.
There will be policy matters in these subordinate orders. Therefore, there will be no proper vetting. Until the system is changed—and I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord whether he has any proposals to change the system—these orders will be plain unsatisfactory.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important area of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for giving us the opportunity to discuss whether it is appropriate, first, that there should be provision for subordinate legislation under regulatory reform orders; and, secondly, what the correct procedure is to deal with them.
I understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to be directed not just at RROs but at subordinate legislation generally. It is not a narrow question focused simply on the subordinate provision here.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble and learned Lord is correct: it is like heaping Ossa upon Pelion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sure it is. Perhaps I may deal with the Bill. Orders under the Bill would be able, and indeed should be able, to make widescale reform to outdated, overcomplex and overburdensome regimes. These are reforms that would otherwise have to wait for a slot in the legislative programme. I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees
362
that, if such reforms were to be enacted via a Bill, such a Bill would undoubtedly require certain aspects of the reform to be implemented via subordinate provision, such as where a further order might be required.
For example, it will frequently not make much sense for the precise level of a fee, the layout of a written licence or other procedures to be frozen in time on the face of an order. We need the flexibility to be able to change such provisions. The accepted parliamentary route for this—this touches on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about its inadequacy—is via subordinate provisions. It would be wrong to require the super-affirmative procedure when what one wanted to do, for example, was to change the level of a fee or change the layout of a licence.
The technical case, therefore, for including such orders as subordinate provisions to RROs is practical, clear and strong. However, I fully understand that the objection of the noble Baroness is based on the appropriateness of having such a provision in what is secondary legislation. Her point is that it is secondary legislation on secondary legislation. While I understand that point, I do not agree with it. I feel strongly that the Bill as it stands contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that delegated power under RROs is, first, used appropriately, and, secondly, for reasons I will turn to in a moment, is done only in the appropriate form; for example, employing either the negative or affirmative procedure where appropriate.
Under Clause 4, an order would have to show clearly what was to be included as a subordinate provision order. Subsection (4) lays down that Parliament must see exactly what is proposed. There is no way that the Government could put forward a "skeleton" order whereby all the details were laid down in subordinate provision. The Bill calls for transparency and clarity. Again, it would be for the committees in both Houses and each Chamber of Parliament to decide what is and what is not appropriate to be included as a subordinate provision. The Government do not have a free hand to do as they like.
A separate issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Borrie, which he previewed in his speech on Second Reading. Like him, I look forward to the power in the Bill being used to enact many worthwhile and wide-ranging reforms. However, both he and the noble Baroness have raised the issue which was raised by the committee in another place.
The Government have considered carefully the arguments that have been put forward in the issue. We are persuaded that we should make the change that my noble friend Lord Borrie proposes in relation to subordinate provisions in regulatory reform orders. That means that they can be approved either by the negative or affirmative procedure, which means that the committees in both Houses would be able to express views about the matter. As noble Lords know, it is invariably the case that the Government accept the view of those committees.
I very much hope that that meets the quite legitimate concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the procedure and the point raised

363
by my noble friend Lord Borrie. It would be convenient for me to indicate that I accept Amendment No. 45, so that we can treat it as having been dealt with.
Perhaps I may deal with the much broader point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He is right that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does not deal with policy. However, if the House decides to subject subordinate provisions to the JCSI it will consider the statement to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, objects. That does not provide much of an answer. In terms of the principle, I cannot take the matter much further forward. It is for both Houses separately to consider whether or not they think the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments requires reform or change in the way it operates. We are rightly considering in considerable detail whether or not the procedures that we propose which flow from the Bill will be adequate to provide protection in relation to regulatory reform orders. I am not in a position to take the matter much further forward in relation to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understand the noble and learned Lord only too well. But, with the greatest of respect, that is more than a little of a cop-out. The problem is that although the Joint Committee reports to both Houses on—I am glad to say—an increasingly regular basis, and therefore usually within the 40 days praying time for individual instruments, the reports are seldom acted upon. Indeed, all the Joint Committee can do is to express doubt as to, for example, the vires. I suspect that is where the noble and learned Lord's real answer comes in. It is whether or not the negative resolution order which goes to the Joint Committee is within the vires of the super-affirmative order proposed under the Bill.
The position is unsatisfactory. But if we do not keep niggling away at the matter, we will never do anything about it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give some consideration to talking about this very serious matter within government because it desperately needs to be dealt with.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It applies, as he readily acknowledged earlier in the exchange, to all statutory instruments. He is much better equipped than I to judge the extent to which the problem needs to be addressed. While it is important for government to consider the problem, it is ultimately a matter for Parliament to decide how it is dealt with. In the meantime, I do not think the conclusion from the general point he raises is that it would be wrong to have subordinate provisions in RROs if the arguments otherwise supported that. I regard it as a legitimate opportunity for him to raise the matter.
364
Having dealt with the points raised by the noble Baroness and having regard to our acceptance of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Borrie, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. If it is correct that this amendment, which he proposes to accept, has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and if the committee is to decide the division between the two categories, that is a helpful concession. However, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will clarify whether, in the event that the committee takes a different view from that of the Minister, the Minister will be bound to accept that view.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The position would be as it is at the moment. The Minister is entitled to propose the terms of a statute or an order. Both committees then give advice on those terms. The Minister in either House is not bound to accept the views expressed by the committee. My experience is that as a matter of practice we almost invariably accept the advice of the committee, but if the Minister was minded to reject the advice, it would then be for each House to decide whether or not it was prepared to accept it. I make it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not require acceptance. If a draft Bill proposes a delegated order-making power, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will give advice on it, which the Minister is not bound to accept, though he almost invariably will. If he does not accept it, the House must decide whether or not to allow that provision, where the Minister is acting against the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for intervening at this point. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that this has been an important matter of interest to your Lordships' House ever since the establishment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as it used to be. This matter was raised in the margins of the central argument of yesterday's debate, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I was most interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to that debate, who substantially echoed what the Minister has just said.
To what extent do the Government say that we are developing a new constitutional convention, which, in practical terms, would mean that any government would be forced to accept the strictures of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, and that the performance of this and the previous government would make it impracticable for governments to resist the strictures of those committees, since certainly this House is increasingly disinclined to encourage the government of the day to buck that particular recommendation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am loath to discuss the question of constitutional convention. I am, however,

365
keen to describe what the practice has been. Constitutional conventions do not arise from what people say but from what institutions do. All one can do at this stage is consider what this House, interacting with the committee, has done. I am not in a position to say that it has never overridden a view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I expect that on occasions it has done so, albeit rarely. I do not want to comment on whether or not there is a constitutional convention. I simply direct the attention of the Committee to what the practice has been.
Perhaps I may make one point that I omitted to mention in my speech, which has nothing whatever to do with the question that we have just discussed. On Tuesday this week I referred to paragraph 26(2) of Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act. I said that that was an example of the statement-type provision for subordinate provisions frequently used in parliamentary drafting—the Minister making a statement that the order contains a statement. However, I am advised that I may have overstated the position in saying that it was frequently used in parliamentary drafting. I therefore wish to correct that impression. I apologise for misrepresenting the position on Tuesday.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, if we are not to discuss the constitution, we can put it aside for a moment. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord agrees that he proposes to introduce a procedure that has not previously been introduced. That is common ground. It is also to be implemented in a manner in which it has not previously been implemented. Having listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, I understand that the Minister is not bound by this procedure. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it appears to require a fairly high degree of scrutiny?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, I was not suggesting that I was not prepared to discuss the constitution. It is very important that I should discuss the constitution. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I said that I shall not say whether or not there is a constitutional convention but that we should look to it.
With regard to whether this is a new procedure, the super-affirmative order process has existed since 1994. We have taken it pretty well lock, stock and barrel from the 1994 Act. What is new is that under an RRO it is now possible to have a provision which states that they are subordinate provisions. It is a matter for the Minister, when proposing that order, to decide whether it is negative or affirmative, and the committee will then look at that issue just as it would in relation to a piece of primary legislation. To that extent, it is new, but it is a process in primary legislation with which the committee and the House are familiar. It is on that basis that the House must make a judgment about its appropriateness.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I also accept his apology with regard to the
366
paragraph in the Financial Services Act that was mentioned in debate earlier in Committee. I shall not pursue this point further at this stage. I shall listen with care to what the Minister says in response to Amendment No. 45 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. We may well return to this point on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("subject to such amendment or amendments as both Houses shall agree upon in respect of any order under section 1(1)(b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should start by acknowledging that my amendment, if agreed to by the Committee, would represent a fundamental change to the structure of the Bill. I also accept that it can be justified only if I can establish a real need for it. I beg your Lordships' indulgence in endeavouring to do that.
I say at the outset that my amendment does not constitute a novelty. At least 10 previous Acts of Parliament have incorporated a right of Parliament to amend any secondary legislation flowing from them. In a nutshell, this amendment is designed to restore to ordinary Members of this House a real, as opposed to a phantasmagorical, power over a limited range of statutory instruments, by allowing Parliament to amend, rather than only being able wholly to reject, an order which imposes a new burden on any citizen under the powers in Clause 1(1)(b) and (c).
The backdrop, of course, is that more and more legislation is effected by secondary legislative measures. Were it not for the excellent work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, for which I have very high praise, there would in recent times have been passed a whole series of skeleton Bills, the guts of which would have been left to legislation by secondary means.
The scale is immense. About 3,000 statutory instruments are enacted every year, divided roughly half and half between negative instruments and those requiring affirmative approval. That represents a doubling of negative instruments every 15 years or so and a 50 per cent increase in those requiring the affirmative procedure in the same time-scale. Those are crude statistics.
In a most learned and enlightening annual lecture given to the Statute Law Society last May, the Clerk to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee— note that position—Philippa Tudor, asked, "Is secondary legislation second class or crucial?" She answered both questions in the affirmative. She noted that there was,
"widespread agreement that Parliament's consideration of secondary legislation is second rate".
She pointed out that there is,
"a huge democratic deficit in current parliamentary scrutiny arrangements".
I may say that her lecture was given after the main report of her committee on this Bill, since when the Government have made changes to their draft Bill.
Those are words that one could find echoed far and wide among the limited community of those who give close attention to secondary legislation, which community, if we are honest, does not include anything like the majority of Peers and MPs. At present, as the Government have not ceased to repeat, either House of Parliament has the theoretical power to reject any secondary legislation. However, the simple fact is that that has happened only once in the past 30 years, during which time more than 50,000 statutory instruments have flooded through this Palace, hugely swollen, of course, by European Union requirements.
Why are we apparently so supine? First and foremost, many—I would be one—would have to admit that even the primary law-making functions of this House are, if not out of control, on the very brink of overload. That, I hasten to add, is not for lack of interest or conscientiousness, but a function of the amount and complexity of legislation and the many other duties which we are invited to shoulder.
I do not think that there can be any doubt but that the main reason why secondary legislation is not turned back is that, with most Peers already preoccupied with main Bills and committees, it is not in practice possible to get enough of us into the House when secondary legislation is being considered—often on a Friday—to have any chance of defeating the Government. The stark fact of only one turn-back in 30 years speaks for itself.
Secondly, the all or nothing rule—only outright rejection but no amendment—invariably serves to kill off any residual possibility of successful opposition to an instrument. Legislators in this House are reluctant to contemplate adopting such a drastic strategy, by which I mean outright rejection, especially if, as would often be the case, one would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. The debate on human embryology last Monday was a quite exceptional event and illustrated, if one needed it, that governments have no scruple about introducing highly contentious and fundamentally important matters via secondary procedures.
But, the Government tell us, we have the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to deal with these problems. On Tuesday, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, more than once took us through the stages by which consultation and committee scrutiny must proceed before any parliamentary consideration takes place. I accept that the super-affirmatory system is a real protection against breach of ultra vires or more general compliance. But, if I may say so, the Government are more easily satisfied with the committee than I am, and as I believe Back-Benchers in this House should be. To paraphrase the infamous saying, "They would be, wouldn't they?".
I call in aid of my concern the main 15th report of the Select Committee last May on the Bill. It said:
"We are conscious that the Government regards two Parliamentary Deregulation Committees as valuable protections against the abuse of this unprecedently wide power. In particular, it contemplates the two Committees deciding whether the use of the power is appropriate. Clearly the Committee would provide some protection. But from our own standpoint we do not consider—however flattering it might be to do so—that the fact that we carry out this work to the best of our ability within the existing framework is lasting protection against the misuse of the extremely wide powers now proposed".
In the same paragraph—paragraph 39—the committee went on to point out that although to date governments have acted on the committee's recommendations, they are,
"not obliged to do so, but only to take account of our reports".
It then went on to point out that although this Government say that they intend to continue that practice, that,
"is a promise given only on behalf of the present Government, and not its successors".
It thus concluded, in paragraph 45, that,
"the main issue which the present draft Bill raises—the considerable widening of the powers to legislate by order—is one for the House as a whole to decide".
But there are other considerations too. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is made up of no more than eight or nine Peers. However distinguished and however conscientious—and they are—they sit on a cross-party basis, and can in no way be a substitute for the knowledge and wisdom of their 700 colleagues; nor would they pretend to be.
Secondly, although the committee's terms of reference are wide and have, as a matter of government undertaking, been extended in this Bill to include whether or not the provisions of a regulatory order are "appropriate", they do not extend to the policy or political issues. They would allow the committee to look, for example, at whether the order satisfies the requirements of proportionality, necessary protection and reasonable expectation, but not at whether the Bill was politically misconceived or mischievous. In this respect the remit of the committee is seriously delimited. I also doubt whether its judgment on what is or is not "politically controversial"—because we are assured that this legislation will not be used if an order would be—is any substitute for the view of the whole House.
It is also a fact that the committee is almost invisible beyond these walls. It is not therefore a remotely satisfactory focus for public dissatisfaction which may or may not be tapped via the consultation the Bill provides for. The committee's low profile may serve it well in its dealings with government, but prevents it substituting for Parliament as a public sounding board.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, commented on Tuesday (at col. 221) that this is, "not a managerial Bill". Unfortunately, I believe that it is likely to be just that. It should not be, but it is only too likely to be.
Finally, the objection will be made that this amendment is not practical, because it does not provide a procedure to resolve any disagreement

369
between the two Houses as regards any amendment. Just such a procedure was agreed between the Officers of both Houses pursuant to the Government of India Act 1935 and the Government of Burma Act 1935, both of which gave powers to Parliament to amend statutory instruments promulgated under those enactments. I am indebted to the Library research staff for tracking down—it was tracking down—the protocol agreed between the Officers in 1935, and which served its purpose without any problem, as far as anyone can tell, until 1947.
On Tuesday the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated:
"It is most important that these new provisions are given new scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament because they will have an effect on what can be done by this form of secondary legislation and what must be done by primary legislation".—[Official Report, 23/1/00; col. 173.]
That is very true. The noble and learned Lord also said—he made the point several times—that the Bill is drafted for Parliament to deal with rather than the courts. As he put it:
"We have faith in the fact that Parliament will appropriately scrutinise the orders. If Parliament does not like what it sees, it will be able to prevent the orders from going through. That is the right approach—Parliament should be the body that determines such matters, not Parliament and the courts".—[Official Report, 23/1/ 00; col. 208.]
That was in the course of saying that he did not want the protections to be justiciable other than in extreme cases. It means in effect, "If we don't do it, don't look to the courts". That is why I want this Bill to have a chance of working in practice; and that means giving the Members of this House, and indeed the other place, the chance to amend regulatory orders which impose new burdens. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to add my support to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made out an important case which needs to be answered. I shall anticipate what objections the Minister may have to it. He may say that when measures are brought forward under this process the Motion in this House will be amendable. But that is not the case in the other place.
The other objection is likely to be the very reason for having secondary legislation. The argument against amending secondary legislation is that it would then become mini primary legislation in terms of procedure. However, as we have discussed previously, ways around that can be found. One is to use the conditional amendment approach which allows the House to reject a statutory instrument, but also to indicate what would be acceptable when it is brought back. There are ways of looking at this in terms of the exact procedure to be adopted, but the principle that has been enunciated in putting forward this amendment is enormously important. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has put a strong case which will require a serious response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for
370
explaining his concerns in such detail. Quite reasonably, a large part of his speech addressed the issue of secondary legislation in general rather than the secondary legislation which is proposed in the Bill. I thought that that formed a helpful contribution to our debate and I hope that he will submit his remarks to a journal such as the New Law Journal so that it can achieve a wider circulation than would usually be achieved by Hansard in this House. However, my response will not be anything like the one he anticipates. My answer will remain confined to the issue of the super-affirmative process. What I shall say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is that the super-affirmative process already permits the amendment of regulatory reform orders.
I agree entirely that it is right that both the House and individual Peers should have the power to propose amendments that are thought necessary to a particular draft regulatory reform order. That is essential to proper parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, the special parliamentary procedure proposed in the Bill for regulatory reform orders affords a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny than that which ordinary affirmative resolution orders receive. Furthermore, it affords the opportunity for amendment.
Perhaps I may take the Committee through the procedure as regards what happens during the committee-based scrutiny stages and after the committees have reported. First, the Minister lays his deregulation proposal before Parliament "in the form of" a draft order; by that I mean that it has not been formally laid before Parliament. Following the 60- day period of parliamentary consideration, the two deregulation committees make their first reports to their respective Houses. The words I have just quoted have been taken directly from the 1994 Act. They are important because they establish that the document is not at that stage a formally laid instrument and therefore does not attract any conventions as regards how such instruments are handled.
If the reports are favourable, the next stage is for the Minister formally to lay a draft order in each House, along with an explanation of any changes made compared to the earlier proposal. The committees can also report that the proposal would be acceptable only if certain amendments were made. Indeed, the committees may also make different recommendations for amendment. If the Minister is minded to accept any changes put forward by the committees in relation to the proposal between this stage and the final vote on the order, he will not lay the proposal until it has been amended, otherwise he would have to take it up and then re-lay it with amendments.
The ability to make changes, minor or otherwise, to the draft order while it is being scrutinised, and in response to the scrutiny, is a key feature of the order-making power. It is not available to statutory instruments made in the usual way. Ministers in charge of past deregulation orders have, on several occasions, taken the opportunity to change their draft orders in line with recommendations from the committee. On

371
no occasion has a Minister ignored an adverse report from either committee. The proposed order has always been recast or withdrawn accordingly.
That procedure represents amendment by the committee rather than by the House. I shall now move on to the next point. The final procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of draft deregulation orders are set out in Standing Orders. The Commons committee procedure produces a report on the draft order within 15 days; the Lords committee has no set time period, but usually reports within the same period.
We then come to the stage where the House as a whole takes a view on the Minister's proposals. Both Houses vote on the relevant committee report on the draft order, but follow different procedures. In this House, following the publication of the committee's second report, the Minister tables a Motion that the House should approve the draft order. That is the procedure for ordinary orders as well as for regulatory orders. However, there is also an opportunity for debate, if any Peer wishes it, on an accompanying Motion at the same time as the Motion to approve a draft order. The companion Motion is moved first and can be amended and voted on. This means that any Peer has the ability to propose amendments to the draft order. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer pointed out in our debate on Tuesday last, there is a government undertaking that, in the event of a Motion amending a draft deregulation order being agreed by the House, the Motion for the draft order would not be moved. That was agreed by the previous government on 20th October 1994 and this Government have confirmed it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, remarked, in its 15th report, last Session, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee drew,
"attention to the Government undertaking that, in the event of a motion hostile to a draft deregulation order being agreed to by the House of Lords, the motion for the draft order would not be moved. In oral evidence Lord Falconer accepted that … if a motion hostile to a draft order were agreed to the Government would have to start the order-making process again from scratch (Q 64). This is clearly the strongest ultimate safeguard".
That is an exhaustive rehearsal of the super-affirmative process, from which it should be clear that there is plenty of scope for amendment not only as regards Clause 1(1)(b) and (c), as addressed by this amendment, but for the whole of the content of the order. That scope for amendment is available either to the Minister on his own volition, or as recommended by the committee, or following a companion Motion by any noble Lord. Diagrams have been reproduced in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill which throw light on the important and rigorous arrangements for scrutiny, amendment and approval of draft orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, went on to draw attention to the possibility of disagreements. Of course, at this stage different amendments could be put forward from this House or from another place. It is true that no parliamentary procedure is provided for reconciling any differences between the two Houses;
372
they are co-equal in this matter. The key point here is that, contrary to the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, if a Minister cannot come up with a compromise acceptable to all concerned, he will lose the order. The Government have no defence against an impasse as they have with primary legislation through the Parliament Acts. Those Acts do not apply here. We need to reach agreement. I agree with the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that that is a powerful safeguard against the possibility of abuse by a wicked Minister—even a Minister so wicked that he refused to honour the commitments given by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.
I hope that this explanation will satisfy both the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as regards the robustness of what we propose. It does not address the wider issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred as regards secondary legislation, but it does address them in so far as they are concerned in the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation. My remarks were addressed exclusively to the Bill. I am well aware of the position as regards statutory instruments as a whole. However, as I have said, I addressed the matter only as it concerns the Bill because the effect of an amendment to a draft order in this House is to kill the order. That is the end of it. The matter is then left to the Government to decide whether they wish to take it away and amend the order or to negotiate with the House of Commons. They may then bring back an amended order, not bring it back at all, or bring it back in its original form.
All the points I made are, in substance, true; namely, that this House is in the position of being able only to reject the whole of an order or to do nothing. As I have said, the effect of attempting to amend the order is to kill the order, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out in his evidence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course the order would have to be re-laid, but if the Minister had any sense and felt that he had any chance of getting it through, it would need to be re-laid incorporating any amendments. I agree that there might be some delay in this process, but the ability to amend an order cannot be in doubt.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Again, with respect, I disagree with the Minister when he says that if the Minister has got any sense he will re-lay the order in accordance with the amendment. That is the whole point. It is only too frequent that governments, when defeated in this House with regard to an amendment to a Bill, bring back the Bill unamended and have a second go at it. My point is that we will never get to the position we are talking about unless Back-Benchers are allowed the prospect of amending a piece of delegated legislation without all this hoo-ha over defeating it, bringing it back or not bringing it back, amending it or not amending it. That is my first point.

373
Secondly, we all know very well the reality of secondary legislation. The chances of a government, with a much more Whipped force behind them, bringing back the piece of secondary legislation in unamended form and getting it through are almost overwhelming. But, I repeat, we will not even get that far.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is exactly the same in primary legislation. That is politics. The point that must be made is that our procedures have to allow for amendment—and they do. If in a companion Motion an order is amended, the Minister has exactly the same choice in that case as he does in primary legislation. He can decide to accept the amendment and re-lay the order accordingly, or he can decide to tough it out and re-lay the order without the amendment, as can happen with primary legislation, or he can abandon the whole thing. There is no difference between this and primary legislation.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may make a very small point, which may help the argument. Can the Minister tell the Committee what are the procedural implications of such an order being defeated in this House and having to be re-laid, with or without amendment? If the order was re-laid without amendment, would all the same procedures, hoops and timetabling have to be gone through as when it was first laid?
The reason I ask is that on many occasions Ministers pray in aid the fact that if this House were to take a certain course of action great delay would result. An example of this was in the recent cloning debate in this House, when it was said that research would be set back by a certain period of time. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, described it as a wholly exceptional event; it could happen again next Monday. There will be then another annulment Motion before the House, which will undoubtedly be voted upon.
The difference is that in ordinary secondary legislation, whether affirmative or negative, the Motion before the House can be either a fatal Motion—such as the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, last Monday or the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for next Monday—or it can be a non-fatal Motion. If it is a non-fatal Motion, there are perfectly good precedents of governments simply ignoring it and going ahead and making the order regardless. If not, you have to go back to the beginning.
If on a companion Motion an amendment was proposed and carried by the House, the Government have exactly the same options as for primary legislation. They can re-lay the order, they can tough it out, as I said, or they can abandon the whole project.
Viscount Goschen: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure it will be very helpful to the Committee. For the sake of clarity, if the Government
374
were defeated on an amendment to primary legislation in this House, it would then go to another place; the other place might insist on its original legislation and it would come back here. It is possible for us to see the same piece of legislation return very quickly indeed when we are considering Commons amendments. Would that be the case in timing terms under this set of circumstances?
I am thinking of Ministers praying in aid the argument that if the House disagrees with the legislation it can have either a small amendment or it can reject it—in which case the whole thing falls and the Lords are doing a terrible disservice to the nation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a greater delay than with primary legislation. Ministers could argue that point and the House would have to decide whether that argument was justified or not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the Minister for the clarity of his exposition on the situation. It is much appreciated. From what the noble Lord said, it would appear that we are wholly dependent upon the Joint Committee for scrutiny. It is the Joint Committee on secondary legislation, as I understand it. Has any thought be given as to the workload of that committee, how it will discharge its functions and whether it will be provided with adequate resources to discharge this mammoth task?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is precisely what I am not saying. I am not saying that it is only the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which can propose amendments. I am saying that when a companion Motion on a regulatory reform order is presented in the House, any Member of the House can propose an amendment. That is why I am saying that the situation is comparable to that in primary legislation.
As to the issue of the workload on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, that is a serious matter. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer acknowledged that on Tuesday. It is a matter for the House authorities to consider. I am sure they are taking it very seriously.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wishes to come back on that point, but perhaps I may elucidate a little bit further for the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. An order could be laid again without going through the whole procedure. So the argument of, "This is intolerable delay", which might otherwise arise, is slightly weakened. The House would be entitled to take any threat from wicked Ministers— none of whom is in this Government, of course—with a grain of salt.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I regret to say that the noble Lord misunderstood the committee to which I was referring. I was not referring to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I may have expressed myself badly. I was trying to refer to the Joint Committee on secondary legislation. I understood from the very full and clear exposition of

375
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that that committee has a pivotal part to play as regards scrutiny. Am I wrong in that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not once refer to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale is a member. As he said, that is a committee with very limited responsibilities, and certainly not policy responsibilities.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am sorry to prolong matters but I should like clarification in terms of the procedure outlined by the noble Lord. The Minister indicated that a Member of the House could move an amendment—in other words, it is not simply a recommendation of the committee as to an amendment. Is the noble Lord saying that that practice applies in both Chambers? On my reading of the procedure, it certainly would not apply if the committee in the other place did not divide on the proposal put forward by the Minister; it would just be put to the House without debate. But if the committee divided and it went through the normal processes, would there be an opportunity for a Member to propose an amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not familiar with the procedures in another place. As they are a matter for that House rather than for the Bill, I do not think it would be proper, let alone possible, for me to respond on that point.
I want to respond, if I may—I am sorry to delay the Committee but these are important matters—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the period between 1935 and 1947, when indeed the Government of India and the Government of Burma Acts appeared to provide for amendable subordinate legislation. I make two points. First, it is not clear whether that power was ever used. Secondly, following that, in 1971 to 1972, the committees of this House considered the proposition that we should go for amendable secondary legislation. For reasons which I shall not lay before the Committee now—but they seemed to me to be overwhelming in their power—they decided not to do so.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. It is an important matter. I hope that the Minister will consider what has been said and that we can return to the matter. The one thing that the Minister has not said—it has been obfuscated unintentionally, if I may say so—is that there is a massive difference between an amendment which has the effect of destroying the whole order and an amendment which has the effect of merely amending that which is amended. That is an enormous difference in practice and in psychology. If the Minister—I am tempted to say, if the Minister meant what he said, but that would have a note of disparagement that I do not
376
intend—is saying that there is a power of amendment here which is the same as, or as good as, in mainstream legislation, why not accept my Amendment No. 39 which puts that in simple, direct terms and avoids going round and round the mulberry bush hither and thither, backwards and forwards? Ultimately—surely the Government Front Bench are as interested in this as anyone else in this Chamber—surely we seek to revive the ability and vitality of this Chamber with regard to scrutiny of secondary legislation which is, frankly, flat on its back. In saying all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("consequential,").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 4 of the Bill restricts the type of provision that can be contained in a subordinate provisions order. The restrictions here are vital because subordinate provisions orders, as we have seen, are subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
These restrictions, in my submission, must be tightly drawn; and the Opposition are concerned especially about the restrictions in paragraph (b) which refer to provisions which are incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental to a provision which modifies the subordinate provisions of an order previously made. I think I understand what "incidental" means; and I am not troubled by the word "transitional".
However, I am preoccupied about the words "consequential" and "supplemental". What are their limits in this context? Banning shooting and fishing might be regarded as consequential to banning hunting. There seems to me to be very little limit to what the word "consequential" might mean. Similarly, "supplemental" has no limit. Almost anything can be supplemental to something else. A supplementary question in another place is a good illustration of what this word might mean.
I would have thought it quite sufficient for the provisions falling within paragraph (b) to be solely those provisions incidental or transitional to a provision modifying the subordinate provisions of an order previously made.
There may, of course, be some implied specific and identifiable limits as to what provision could be regarded as consequential or supplemental which the noble and learned Lord may be able to clarify. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Of the two words that my noble friend Lord Kingsland objects to, I find "supplemental" the most objectionable. I must have said, "This is a consequential drafting amendment. I beg to move", several thousand times during the course of legislation when I spoke from the Benches opposite in a previous administration. However, I am not sure that that meant anything other than the sentence, "I hope that the House will not take too

377
much time over this matter because we have already discussed the issues". Nevertheless, I am sure that my noble friend is utterly correct to point to the lack of meaning within the law.
I have difficulties with the word "supplemental". I notice that the Minister smiled when my noble friend drew attention to supplementary questions. Surely "supplemental" just means in addition to. Like so many other provisions of the Bill which we are assured are tightly drawn strictures, it is quite the opposite. If we are being offered the assurance that nothing can be done unless it is either consequential, transitional or supplemental, I believe that that is no stricture at all. I cannot see that the word "supplemental", undefined and unqualified, has any position within the subsection we are discussing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord has not addressed Amendment No. 44 which is in the same group and concerns the National Assembly for Wales.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise; that is incorrect.
As regards the term "consequential", I deal with the point that the noble Lord quite correctly made; namely, that the Bill as presently drafted permits only supplemental provisions to a regulatory reform order to be approvable by the negative procedure. The noble Lord is right to address his argument on that basis, but the effect of Amendment No. 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, if it were passed—we have indicated that we are prepared to accept it—would mean that there would be a choice as to whether it would be the negative or the affirmative procedure. While the noble Lord is absolutely right to address his argument on the basis that he did, if the Borrie amendment—if I may, with respect call it that—were to he accepted, there would be a wider choice. We intend to support that provision.
As regards the word "consequential", when reforming a large and complex regulatory regime, it is inevitable that some provision will have to be made that is merely consequential on the original order. Changing the licensing regime for small shops, for example, might involve some consequential changes to consumer legislation to make sure that the legislation still made sense and was consistent. Such changes are usually made to make the legislation make sense; for example, a change in a schedule number or a reference to a section. But, as always, the parent regulatory reform order would have to include the principles. There is nothing sinister here, as the noble Lord knows. It is a common word used in this kind of provision. It is a sensible, practical provision. I hope that the example I have given, which indicates the nature of the change, indicates the width of the word.
As regards the word "supplemental", the noble Lord objects to the ability of a subordinate provisions order to make supplemental provision. Again, I say with respect to the noble Lord that these fears are misplaced. As he knows, this is a perfectly normal
378
legislative provision. It would simply make it possible to make necessary supplemental changes that flowed directly from the provisions of the order. Let me give an example. The Competition Act 1998 states that notice must be made "in writing". But it does not say how that notice is to be served. Supplemental provision was made for this. That is a provision that is plainly supplemental to the requirement for there to be a notice made in writing. We also made supplemental provision to ensure that the land and vertical exclusions should have the same status as other exclusions in relation to the end of the transitional period.
Again I repeat, the principles governing such supplemental provisions would have to be set out in the parent order. There is no chance of slipping things in on the quiet. I believe that the noble Lord gave the example of hunting and fishing. One could not possibly treat those matters as supplemental provisions.
The wording in the Bill contains nothing surprising. I am on confident ground on this occasion when I say that it is perfectly standard legislative drafting. In those circumstances I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his response. In fact, I think that I used hunting and shooting as an example of a consequential rather than a supplemental matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 4(4)(b) refers to "consequential". The reference is totally beyond the ambit of the word "consequential"
Lord Kingsland: I expected the noble and learned Lord to say that and to express it in the robust manner that he did at the Dispatch Box.
My concerns about the paragraph were expressed in the context of the negative resolution procedure. I have been at least partially reassured by what the noble and learned Lord said about his attitude to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and by the prospect of his adopting it. I should like to reconsider my amendment in the light of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This subsection opens the gateway for the National Assembly for Wales to become involved in making subordinate provisions orders. I understand that an order may provide that the power to make subordinate provisions orders in Wales can be made only by a Minister with the agreement of the Assembly. That would be a privilege denied to your Lordships' House.
The acceptance by your Lordships' House of these provisions—they will permit subordinate provisions orders to be subject only to the negative resolution procedure—may be affected by the noble and learned Lord's comments on my previous amendment and his acceptance of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand what the noble Lord says about the effect of the Borrie amendment. With regard to the Welsh Assembly, we framed the Bill to reflect and respect the devolution settlement. Under that settlement the Assembly is given the power to make its own subordinate provisions if the parent legislation so decrees. We do not see why regulatory reform orders—they have the effect of changing primary legislation—should not confer on the Assembly the same powers. In effect, we are putting the Assembly into the same position as it would be in relation to primary legislation: it cannot make primary legislation but it can make subordinate provisions; so, equally, it should under the regulatory reform orders.
Amendment No. 44, which I take to be a probing amendment, would deprive the Assembly of that power. That looks strange in the devolution settlement. We want to ensure that the devolution continues to be a success and is reflected in the legislation which forms the basic settlement.
The parent order would have to state clearly for what areas the Assembly could make its own provisions and, as always, the committees and Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve those powers. I hope that that answer helps the noble Lord in his considerations.
Lord Kingsland: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I understand that in the context of devolution it is right that the National Assembly should have that power. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 11, leave out from ("order") to end of line 13 and insert ("if—

(a) it is not made by a Minister of the Crown,

(b) the order designating the subordinate provisions concerned ("the main order") provides that the subordinate provisions order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, or

(c) the main order provides that the subordinate provisions order—

(i) is to be laid before Parliament after being made; and

(ii) is to cease to have effect at the end of the relevant period unless before the end of that period it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament (but without that affecting anything done under it or the power to make a new order).

380
(6A) In subsection (6)(c) "relevant period" means a period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the subordinate provisions order is made.
(6B) In reckoning the period of twenty-eight days referred to in subsection (6A), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(6C) For the purposes of section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, provision falling within subsection (6)(b) is to be treated as provision made by an Act.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may shorten my remarks because I spoke on the matter in debate on the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Minister indicated that the Government were likely to support the amendment. However, the amendment requires a little explanation.
Clause 4(6) states that a subordinate provisions order would be subject only to the negative resolution procedure. My amendment is designed to achieve a little more flexibility. It allows for the subordinate provisions order—the amendment refers to it as "the main order"—to provide either for the subordinate provisions order to be subject to the negative resolution procedure; or that it be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure which is described in detail in the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to give Parliament power, when examining the regulatory reform order, to determine which procedure should apply if the Government at any time wish to amend subordinate provisions.
I mentioned earlier that an obvious example of subordinate provisions would be the changing of the details on an administrative form. In most cases it may be suitable for that to be subject simply to the negative resolution procedure. However, sometimes more detailed parliamentarian scrutiny, even of subordinate provisions such as forms to be used under a regulation, may be desirable. I cite the Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998. That reform hinged on getting that important form exactly right. So, unusually, a mere form was of some importance. There may be other instances.
The flexibility would be most useful. The Government and the parliamentary scrutiny committees should be able to say not only whether the matter is appropriate for the subordinate provisions procedure but also which procedure would be the most appropriate for parliamentary accountability. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure the Committee believes that the proposed amendment is a welcome addition. It is even more welcome that the noble Lord's Front Bench has accepted it. It gives more power to the deregulation committees of both Houses in respect of these orders.
However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a somewhat technical question. New subsection (6A) of the amendment defines the relevant period. The noble Lord has chosen 28 days. The super affirmative

381
procedure is 60 days. The normal negative resolution statutory instrument period is 21 days. Why has the noble Lord chosen the 28 day period?
Lord Borrie: There is not a great deal of difference between 28 and 21 days. It allows for the procedure where approval can be up to such a period, not counting Recess, after the order was made. That is to deal with matters which are sufficiently important to require Parliament's positive approval which arise during, or shortly before, a Recess when it is not possible to arrange a prior debate. So the matter can be dealt with fairly speedily but still leave Parliament the ultimate right to approve.
Lord Goodhart: In neither the 15th report of the previous Session, nor its second report of the present Session, did the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House feel it necessary to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House the powers in relation to subsidiary orders and subordinate provisions orders under Clause 4. That was not an oversight. Nevertheless, the Deregulation Committee in the other place raised the issue, so it is clearly a matter for concern.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in your Lordships' House has not had an opportunity to consider the amendment, because it is not the Committee's practice to consider Back-Bench or Opposition amendments, even if they would affect delegated powers. I cannot say what view the Committee might take, but the amendment appears to be a useful step. It would improve parliamentary scrutiny of regulatory reform orders, so I welcome it. I am glad that the Government are apparently to accept it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept my noble friend's arguments. I am pleased that everybody else who has spoken welcomes the amendment, subject to the point raised by thenoble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I think that I understood him to say that he welcomed the amendment in principle.
Lord Skelmersdale: My point was a simple interrogation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understood that. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Preliminary consultation]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 26, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) publish an invitation to all interested parties to make submissions").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would give effect to something that the Government are committed to. The case for it can be put briefly.
Clause 5 imposes a requirement to consult. The Minister has to consult certain specified bodies, depending on the nature of the order, as well as such other bodies,
"as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals".
Under subsection (1)(e), he may also,
"consult such other persons as he considers appropriate".
Apart from the bodies specified by the clause, it is up to the Minister to decide which bodies to consult.
The amendment is designed to provide for more open consultation, ensuring that those who wish to make submissions can do so without having to be recognised by the Minister as a body that he wishes to consult. That would benefit those bodies that wished to make a submission but whose existence or work was not known to the Minister. It would also benefit the Minister because it could result in him receiving more informed comments than would otherwise be the case. It would also mean that, when laying his report before Parliament, as required under Clause 6, he would not be open to the accusation that he had conducted his consultation with only a small group of organisations sympathetic to his cause.
Furthermore, the amendment would bring the provision for consultation into line with the Government's draft code of practice on written consultation. The Explanatory Notes say that the Government intend to apply the code to all their consultation exercises. The code lists seven consultation criteria. Criterion 4 says:
"Documents should be made widely available, using electronic means as far as possible (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups".
The first paragraph under that heading begins:
"Every effort should be made to ensure effective communication with all groups who are, or potentially are, interested".
Paragraph 2 opens with the words:
"That will generally mean publicising the consultation by a press release or similar announcement, and making the document available on the department's web site".
Paragraph 3 says,
"But those methods alone may not effectively reach all interested groups".
It goes on to identify other methods to be considered.
All that is eminently sensible. I have no quibbles with it—indeed, quite the reverse. I want to bring the clause in line with the code. I believe that my amendment would achieve that goal. It is clearly the Government's intention that the code should apply. I have already quoted the Explanatory Notes to that effect. The amendment would give the Government the opportunity to meet their intention. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not know whether it is permitted, but I suggest that we deal with my Amendment No. 57 now, although it is due to come up after an amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. That would save the time of the Committee because it is on the same theme. My amendment is to Clause 6, which details the matters

383
that have to be put to the Deregulation Committee. It would add to subsection (2)(j) a requirement that, as well as giving details of any consultation, the Government should particularly give details of the means and timescale of that consultation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall be delighted to deal with the two together if the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not object.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am obliged. I concur with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said. It is commonplace for us all to bemoan the state of democracy and the lack of public involvement with politics. There is a low-level cynicism among the public about the nature of consultations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life urged us to avoid the "pretence of consultation", which simply "causes cynicism and mistrust".
The committee also drew attention to the need to break out of the usual circle of privileged consultees and to get as wide a cross-section as possible. It is fair to say that the Government have made consultation a pillar of the process. The Explanatory Notes constantly refer to it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, slightly over-egged the pudding on Tuesday when he said:
"There is then an obligatory consultation period that will probably last for 12 weeks".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 207.]
There is no obligatory consultation period in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is trying to insert one. I am sure that that was a slip of the Minister's tongue, but it is interesting because it may betray a state of firmness in his own mind about the consultation arrangements that is not carried through into the Bill.
I should be happy with either the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, or mine. Mine would make life easier for the overburdened Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by specifying that it should consider the crucial issues of timescale and means in addition to the five other important criteria.
Viscount Goschen: I shall briefly support my noble friend Lord Norton. Consultation is key to the validity of the process that we have discussed this afternoon and on Tuesday. As well as being wide and appropriate, it is important that the consultation should be seen to be open. Bodies that feel that they have a view on an order should be able to respond to the Government and make their view known. No doubt, if such a body were shown to have no knowledge of the matter in hand, its views would be discounted. If it was seen to be a vexatious correspondent, which occasionally happens, its views would be cast aside.
My noble friend's amendment would give the Minister more protection, because it would not be possible for a body to come forward at a later stage claiming that it had a valid view but the Minister did not feel it appropriate to consult it. Rather than putting the burden on the Minister to consider what is appropriate—a phrase for which I have some
384
distaste—the amendment would put the burden on those who felt that they had some specialist knowledge or were affected by the order.
Given that Clause 5 goes to some length to describe the bodies which should be consulted, I certainly support making the provision very much wider by removing paragraph (e) and inserting a general invitation for consultees to respond.
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: At the risk of repetition, I rise simply to support my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. As has already been said, consultation is not merely a good idea; it is an essential part of the legislative process. During the course of this Parliament, the Government have made much of their activities in relation to consultation. That being the case, and if they are serious about this matter, they would accept in particular my noble friend's Amendment No. 48 and publish an invitation to all interested parties to make submissions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We certainly all agree about the importance of consultation. It has been described as the pillar of the process and as essential in going to the heart of the Bill. I entirely agree with that.
The current procedure demands wide and open consultation with all interested parties, whether in favour of or likely to be opposed to the proposals. However, I understand the point made in Amendment No. 48 that there should be a general announcement that the consultation is being carried out. The difficulty lies in what we mean by a "general announcement". There is no longer, as there might have been in the 18th century, a single journal which reaches all the people who might be concerned. I do not believe that we would be satisfied with The Times of London or the London Gazette.
I want to put a better alternative to the Committee. We plan to publish all consultation documents on proposals under the regulatory reform order process both on the website of the department concerned, which means that it is well known to those who are interested in the affairs of that department, and on the Cabinet Office's website.
The UK online Citizen Portal—on "ukonline.gov.uk"—is a website where people can access all government information and services which are available online. One of the four main features of the site is an area called "Citizen Space", which makes it easy for people to find out about government plans and consultation. All current public consultations are listed on the site, whose address is "ukonline.gov.uk/ online/citizenspace/default". It can be accessed without the need to go through all those domains. Users can search on key words to find out whether a consultation is being undertaken on a specific topic. Consultations on regulatory reform orders will be listed routinely on that site. There are direct links to each consultation document, and it is possible to

385
submit comments on any consultation by e-mail directly from the Portal. I believe that, in today's circumstances, that is probably the best way to achieve what would be very difficult by any print form of publication.
In that way, all proposals will be in the public domain and it will be open to any interested party to make representations to the Minister. Of course, the Minister must report on all representations and not only on those submitted from people to whom he sent the document. In other words, if a person replies online to the Citizen Portal, he is part of the consultation process and reporting obligations apply.
I turn to Amendment No. 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It concerns the report which the Minister must provide to Parliament alongside the document containing his proposals in the form of a draft order. The amendment suggests that the means and timescale of the consultation should be included in the details provided to Parliament.
I believe that the Bill covers those requirements. Currently the Minister is required to include in his report details of the matters specified in Clause 6(2). The amendment addresses subsection (j), which refers to,
"any consultation undertaken as required by section 5(1) or (3)".
If we are asked to provide details of the consultation, would not those details include the means and timescale? believe that they would have to.
The requirements on consultation in the Bill are strict. They demand a full and open process. The standard procedure requires the production of a written consultation document to be sent to all those who have an interest in the proposal. In all cases, consultation documents contain details of where to send representations and by when. In addition, as is currently the case with deregulation orders, it will be standard procedure for the department which issues a consultation document on a proposal for regulatory reform to send the names and addresses of consultees to both committees, together with a copy of the consultation document when it is first issued. All those consultation documents will be published on the Cabinet Office's website, as well as on the department's website.
I understand the implicit concern that the period in question must be long enough. As with Amendment No. 48, the consultations will be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation exercises, from which, indeed, Amendment No. 48 comes. The current code of practice requires a 12-week consultation period to be the norm. Where that is not adhered to, Ministers must provide their reasons why that is not the case.
However, we would not want to limit a consultation simply to being a written one. If it was clear that there was no representative body for a class of people or organisations, it would be open to the Minister to gauge the impact of his proposals through survey or research, whether qualitative or quantitative. We
386
would want to encourage such innovation so as to ensure that the consultation was as thorough as reasonably possible.
Another prompt for the Minister would be the scrutiny undertaken by committees in either House, with particular emphasis on the nature of the Minister's consultation exercise. The Minister will know that the scrutiny committees have the power to issue an adverse report on any proposal where they believe that the consultation has not been as thorough, as wide or as long as it should have been. They have not hesitated to do so in the past—the Sunday dancing example comes to mind. The result would be that a proposed order could be rejected. On several occasions the committees have also considered the length of consultation and, in relation to some, have said that it was barely adequate. We want that robust approach to continue. It is a strong procedural safeguard.
We face a difficulty in accepting these amendments. Certainly, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, uses the code of conduct as it is presently worded. We would be most reluctant to put the code of conduct on the face of primary legislation because it can, should and has changed over a period of time.
However, I would be prepared to consider—but I emphasise the enormous difficulties involved— whether a provision should be included in the Bill specifying that the Minister should comply with a code of conduct which is issued from time to time. Huge difficulties would arise because it would apply much more widely than this Bill and we would have to obtain agreement from a number of other government departments in order to do so. But, because I recognise the significance of the argument which has been put forward, I am prepared to go away and consider it.
However, I am not prepared to say that we shall come back with an amendment which will achieve that. It might be necessary to say that in the future we shall consider whether all such cases of legislation where consultation is required should be subject to a code of conduct. That would take much longer than the passage of this Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I fully recognise that he is making a genuine effort to move in my direction in terms of what I want to achieve. I readily put that on the record and acknowledge the move that he has made.
However, he has not quite assuaged me. Perhaps we may consider the reasons which he advanced against my amendment—that is, Amendment No. 48, although I can see that some of the points which he made are relevant to Amendment No. 49. My amendment requires the Minister to publish an invitation. He raised two objections. The first concerned the use of the word "publish" and the other was in relation to putting on the face of the Bill something that comes from the code.
On the first objection, the Minister in effect demolished his own argument. He did not argue

387
against the amendment; he explained how the Government would give effect to its provisions by publishing all of the material. That is what I want him to do. The amendment would enable him to do that which he intends to do, but I want the relevant provisions to appear in the Bill.
That brings me to my second point. The amendment would not add to the Bill any provisions that were restrictive or specific in relation to the code. The code indicates what the Government should do, but the amendment uses the phrase, "publish an invitation". The Minister's point was that the code may change in future, but I cannot see how it could do so in a way that would be relevant to the proposals in Amendment No. 48, which are very simple. I want to include in the Bill the requirement that the Minister shall "publish an invitation". The Minister made it clear that that is what the Government intend to do, and he outlined precisely the method to be adopted.
I cannot see what the problem is. I appreciate the Minister's comments, but I seek to be even more helpful to him; I want to ensure that he can do what he wants to do by making it clear in the Bill that that is the case. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fookes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Attlee, E.

Geddes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Biffen, L.

Goschen, V.

Blackwell, L.

Hambro, L.

Blaker, L.

Hanham, B.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Bowness, L.

Higgins, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Burnham, L.

Howe, E.

Buscombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kingsland, L.

Chadlington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Cox, B.

Luke, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denham, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dundee, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Monson, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Noakes, B.

Feldman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L. [Teller]

388

O'Cathain, B.

Selborne. E.

Onslow, E.

Selsdon, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Parkinson, L.

Stewartby, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Tebbit, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Vinson, L.

Rees, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Seccombe, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Janner of Braunstone. L.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Ahmed, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jeger, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Joffe, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Layard, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Billingham, B.

Levy, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Longford, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McNally, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale. B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux. L.

Desai, L.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sandberg. L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shore of Stepney. L.

Gale, B.

Simon. V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Strange. B.

Goodhart, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B.

Goudie, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson. L.

Greaves, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Walmsley, B.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Weatherill, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Mostyn. L.

Woolmer of Leeds. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("( )The period for consultation under subsection (1) shall be a minimum of eight weeks from the time of publication of the invitation to make submissions.").
The noble Lord said: The aim of this amendment is similar to the one that I have just moved. Like the previous amendment, it is designed to bring the provisions of the clause into line with the provisions of the draft code of practice on written consultation.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government intend to apply the code to all their consultation exercises under which, as a general rule, 12 weeks should be allowed for consultation. In fact, the code states:
"Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks is preferable, and eight weeks should be regarded as a general minimum".
That is criterion 5 under the code. It goes on to say:
"Inadequate time for responses is the single greatest cause of annoyance to people consulted by government".
The case for an adequate period of time for consultation is well made in the code. It stresses that eight weeks may be particularly inadequate if a substantial holiday period falls within it. In the education sector, it is not unknown for consultation periods to begin during or just after the start of the summer vacation and to close at or shortly after term resumes. The code suggests a norm of 12 weeks. That is fine.
However, the Bill is silent on the period for consultation. The clause stipulates that the Minister "shall" consult, but it does not say how long he must allow for that consultation. Given the importance of the Bill—I keep stressing the importance of the Bill throughout our debates—there is a case for including a minimum period. That is what my amendment does. It is in line with the draft code, stipulating a minimum period of eight weeks.
I recognise that the Minister may raise three objections. The first is that an eight-week minimum is in danger of becoming an eight-week norm. I recognize that danger. However, the inclusion of a minimum period is justified, not least in ensuring that no Minister is tempted to rush the consultation and in reassuring those who may be affected by the measure that there will be that period of consultation. It is better to have that minimum in the Bill and a norm established by the code than to have no period protected in the Bill.
The second objection that may be advanced is that it will be for Parliament to check that the period of consultation has been adequate and that the Minister has complied with the code. That is a fair point but it is not conclusive. It does not provide as strong a discipline as a minimum period clearly stipulated by statute.
However, I readily concede that an alternative way of addressing the point covered by my amendment would be to stipulate that the period of consultation must normally be 12 weeks and that any shorter period
390
would require the Minister making a special case for it in the document he lays before Parliament. It would then be for Parliament to decide whether the case for a shorter period were justified.
The third objections is that there may be cases where consultation needs to be completed in less than eight weeks. The code states:
"Where a question of real urgency arises, the consultation period may exceptionally have to be under eight weeks".
Given the nature of this Bill, I do not believe that a shorter period is necessary and it is certainly not desirable. It would still require the 60 days for parliamentary scrutiny before the order is laid so I think there is no scope for "fast-tracking" an order.
I do not believe that those objections outweigh the benefits of including a time period within the Bill. I have indicated an alternative to my amendment, should that be felt to be preferable to the amendment that I have tabled. But, either way, I do not believe that the Bill should remain silent as to the time to he devoted to consultation. The period contained within the code of practice seems sensible and that is what the Government say they intend to follow. So why not put it in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has very adequately answered his own proposition. Not only has he given three excellent arguments on the basis that I was going to bring them forward, but he has proposed an alternative to his own amendment. I agree with all those arguments, but not with his conclusion.
Of course, we have no intention whatever of pushing through a regulatory reform order with inadequate time for consultation. We must take account of the guidance on consultation documents which has been produced by the Cabinet Office. It requires 12 weeks to be the norm. The noble Lord was quite right to say in his first argument that if eight weeks were provided, that would become the norm. Of course, in any case, if the norm is not adhered to, Ministers must provide their reasons for that.
With this amendment, we should lose all the flexibility which is necessary when all parties, including Parliament and including committees, agree that rapid consultation might be justified. Let us suppose that we were in a situation whereby something had gone through public consultation; had become urgent because, for example, of a court judgment which altered the interpretation of the law; and for which there was great pressure to remove burdens. If we said, "Sorry, we cannot do it because we have only seven weeks and six days instead of eight weeks so we cannot do it in time to meet, for example, the deadline of midnight on 31st December", we should be a laughing stock.
In addition to the three arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put forward against his own amendment, I have a fourth one; namely, that the committees can look at the adequacy of the consultation period, including the adequacy of the time given to it, and if they do not like it, they can move

391
against it and we shall have to pay attention to them. So there are four excellent arguments against the amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth: The Minister has restated the arguments that I advanced. The only discussion may be as to whether I advanced them even better than the Minister or whether he advanced them better than I did.
My purpose in putting forward those arguments was not so much to undertake a balancing test but to anticipate what the Minister was going to say and to explain why I thought those objections did not outweigh the argument in favour of the amendment. As the Minister acknowledged, I indicated an alternative to what I had put forward. He did not undermine the case for the alternative by his reference to the possible need for speed, because that would be covered by the alternative which I mentioned. I appreciate that the Minister had to respond to the amendment that I had tabled.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has anticipated what I was going to say, which is that I respond to amendments that are on the Marshalled List. Of course, I shall read what he has said about his alternative amendment and, as always, I shall consider it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: I fully accept that the Minister, quite properly, was answering the amendment that I had tabled for this stage. I mentioned the alternative, as an improvement, in order to be helpful, in case the Minister wanted to indicate the way in which the Government would want to proceed.
I do not believe that the objections hold water. The principle of putting something into the Bill is important for ensuring that there is a statutory period and, returning to our discussion on an earlier amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned, for sending out a message to those who are affected by the measure, so that they know that period is there. It is important for those reasons as well.
The other point raised by the Minister, which I anticipated, was on the period limit if it were considered that something needed to be put through quickly. I am not necessarily persuaded by what he said because there is an alternative. I believe that if something were felt to be so important, perhaps on the basis of a court case or, as he suggested, because of widespread public concern that something must be done—although one has to be wary of that kind of pressure—the Government have an alternative which is called primary legislation.
I am not persuaded by the Minister's response to the arguments that I have advanced. I have indicated an alternative and so I shall not press my amendment at this stage. I want to explore whether it would be better to table the alternative for later discussion. I do not
392
believe that the Minister's argument works against the alternative. Having raised the issue, I may want to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Document to be laid before Parliament]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert (", and
( ) a statement analysing the impact on persons likely to be affected by the provisions of the proposed order").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59. One of the recommendations of the deregulation committee in another place was for a statutory requirement to make and lay before Parliament rigorous regulatory impact assessments. That was an important point made by the committee and, after hearing from the Minister, it suggested that the requirement for a regulatory impact assessment could be drafted in general terms as a duty to lay before Parliament a statement analysing the impact on persons likely to be affected by the enactment of the provisions of an order. The committee said that such a statement would overcome the difficulty of the rigidity of terminology which appeared to be the Minister's main concern.
We, on this side of the Committee, agree with those comments. Either of the amendments would be sufficient as they both satisfy the recommendations of the deregulation committee in another place.
As I said in relation to Amendment No. 48, consultation is an essential part of the legislative process, so I want to suggest that it may make sense, notwithstanding where I have placed these proposed amendments, for a regulatory impact assessment to be available at the time of consultation rather than later, when the draft order is laid before Parliament. If it were not available at the time of consultation, those who are really affected by it would not have the opportunity to consider it, to criticise it or to offer any suggestions to improve it.
We look to those people who are affected by the burdens, who are probably more expert and knowledgeable than those on the deregulation committee with regard to the specified burdens. I flag up that idea and I shall listen to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness acknowledges that the last point is not covered by her present amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I agree with the noble Baroness that any proposal needs to be accompanied by a full and detailed study of the information as to the likely impact of the proposal. We

393
believe that the Bill already contains what is in her amendments. Indeed, there would be problems in carrying it out in the way that she proposes because that would limit too much the information that would be provided.
As the noble Baroness knows, the list of matters in Clause 6 already deals with the impact that any order would have. The list refers to the fact that the Minister must report on the effect of burdens imposed by the proposal; how the rigorous safeguards are satisfied, including necessary protection, rights and freedoms, fair balance and proportionality; whether any savings or increases in cost are estimated to result from the proposals, why and how much; and what benefits (other than savings in cost) are expected to flow from the proposal.
It is worth reading out Clause 6(2)(f)
"whether the proposals would have the effect of creating a burden affecting any person in the carrying on of an activity and, if so",
how the relevant conditions are satisfied in relation to the burdens being created,
"(h) whether any savings or increases in cost are estimated to result from the proposals and, if so, either the estimated amount or the reasons why savings or increases in cost should be expected".
In the Bill we seek to spell out those matters that would be in a regulatory impact assessment. It is worth pointing out that the Government expect all legislative or regulatory proposals to be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment. The Cabinet Office has issued detailed guidance on this issue which goes to the heart of good policy making and such an RIA would be included in a consultation document that would be published at the time that the regulations are first published in draft.
While I understand and share the motives of the noble Baroness, I do not consider that her proposals bring any additional benefits in this respect. Perhaps I can deal with what I consider to be the problem with her proposals. She wants to have on the face of the Bill the words "regulatory impact assessment", as Amendment No. 59 suggests. Government thinking develops all the time and "regulatory impact assessment" is the form of words currently in use. A few years ago it was "compliance cost assessment". Putting the current state of affairs on the face of the Bill would freeze policy at current thinking.
Surely, it would be better to allow the policy to develop and not to impose an unnecessary straitjacket on the Bill. The list of matters in Clause 6 deals with the impact that any order would have and it sets out those points that the noble Baroness indicated in her speech that the public at large would be entitled to know. While I support the motives behind the amendment, I believe that we have already covered the point in the Bill and there would be problems in the proposals that she suggests. I urge the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him one question. The Government rely a good deal on Clause 6(2)(h) to indicate that the amendment of the noble Baroness is unnecessary. Clause 6(2)(h) states:
394
"whether any savings or increases in cost are estimated to result from the proposals and, if so, either the estimated amount or the reasons why savings or increases in cost should be expected"
Can the Minister explain why, in cases where it will be possible to give both—and it frequently will be—we should not be entitled to have the estimated amount and the reasons why savings or increases in costs should be expected?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Whether savings or increases in costs are estimated to result from the proposals is an interesting question which I shall need to consider. I need to write to the noble Lord about that.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the point that he raised. We should all like to have a copy of the Minister's letter.
The Minister told us that the information which we are asking to be provided through a regulatory impact assessment will be available to members of the general public and to all those whom the Government will be seeking to consult. Will that information be available at the beginning of the consultation process; that is, before the order is laid before Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I said that when a draft order is published and consultation begins, as a matter of practice and in accordance with Cabinet Office practice, it would normally contain a regulatory impact assessment. When one reaches the Clause 6 position, pursuant to the terms of the Act one must publish the results of the consultation, which include the items I have listed in relation to that clause.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister. I shall read his answer carefully and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Representations made in confidence or containing damaging information]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 5, line 32, after ("(3),") insert ("or, where the information contained in the representations relates to any other person or business, the person to whom the information relates or the person for the time being carrying on the business,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. If Clause 7(2) applies, the Minister must not disclose any representations made where a person, in making such representations, requests the Minister not to disclose them—unless one of two exceptions applies. The first is where the Minister obtains the consent of the representor and, if the information contained in the representations relates to any other person or business, also obtains the consent of the person to whom the information relates or of the person, for the time being, carrying on the business. The second exception is that, nevertheless, the Minister may

395
disclose those representations in such a manner as not to associate them with that respondent, or with such other person or business.
The gateway into subsection (2) is a request by the person making the representations. Only then will the Minister need to obtain the consent of the person to whom the information relates, or the person carrying on the business to which the information relates. If no request is made by the person making the representations, the Minister does not need to obtain the consent of the others.
I understand that the only protection which such persons have is contained in the weak provision in subsection (3), which applies if it appears to the Minister that disclosure of the information could adversely affect the interests of a third person and the Minister has been unable to verify the information and obtain the consent of that person.
We believe it appropriate to impose a restriction on disclosure if the Minister has been requested not to disclose the representations by the person to whom the information relates, or the person carrying on the business to which the information relates. Such information is, in a sense, his information and may be confidential. Those persons should have the right to request the Minister not to disclose that information. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments address the important issue of disclosure of information about third parties. They seek to address the cases in which representations have been made in response to a consultation exercise which contained information about a third party. That would enable those third parties to request that the Minister should not disclose those representations. It would have the result that the Minister could then disclose the representation only in anonymised form or if both the respondent and the third party agreed.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the protections for third parties under the provisions in the Bill dealing with disclosure of representations to the committees. First, if the respondent has requested non-disclosure, information on a third party can be used only in anonymised form or with the consent of both the respondent and the third party, or if the committee specifically requests it.
Secondly, in those cases where the respondent has not requested non-disclosure, the Minister is not obliged to disclose information on the third party where he thinks the disclose of that information could adversely affect the interests of the third party, and he has been unable either to verify the information or to obtain the consent of the third party to the disclosure.
The Minister must apply his mind as to whether to disclose damaging information. But a balance must be struck. If the information is sufficiently important, the Minister will have to disclose it even in those
396
circumstances, which he could do privately under subsection (4). Of course, if he does disclose damaging information, it will attract parliamentary privilege.
However, let us consider the alternatives. Let us suppose that there was some proposal to deregulate financial services law and someone wrote in saying that the kind of thing proposed was exactly what Peter Clowes got up to. That is clearly highly material and might well not be easily verifiable. But Peter Clowes would be unlikely to consent.
Similarly, if facing legal action, the accountants or other professionals involved might refuse if the representation was, for example, that an audit did not offer adequate protection as shown by the events in that case. But, again, it would be highly material and almost impossible to anomymise. That is why the previous government—those now putting forward the amendment—used the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 to publish the Barlow Clowes report and did the same in other exceptional cases. Of course, the person aggrieved would have a remedy if the disclosure to the Minister were malicious as it would then not attract qualified privilege from defamation.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable that the Minister should disclose those types of information to the committee and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, not to press his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for that answer. I shall read it and reflect on it. Investigations under the Financial Services Act of particular individuals are likely to be different from the kind of investigations which take place under this legislation. I understand that this legislation deals with burdens imposed by other legislation with a view to alleviating them. Is it not unlikely that a situation similar to Barlow Clowes would arise as a result of investigations made under this legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It might not arise directly. Suppose that the Financial Services Authority itself carried out an investigation of the kind to which the noble Lord refers and concluded that something had to be changed in primary legislation, secondary legislation or a directive. It would then promote a regulatory reform order through the Treasury. In order to promote that regulatory reform order the kind of evidence on which it had based its opinion would be relevant.
Lord Kingsland: This is a good example of the issue that the Committee debated on Tuesday—namely, the kind of legislation which would be likely to be affected by the operation of the Bill. The example that the Minister gives is wholly inappropriate to the application of this legislation, raising as it does questions about criminal prosecution, the rights of the individual in such circumstances and so on. I have heard what the Minister says and shall reflect upon it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("6(2)(k),") to ("shall") in line 36.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 61 is concerned with the same general theme. This amendment deals with a situation in which, even if a Minister has been requested not to disclose particular representations made by a person, he is nevertheless obliged to disclose the fact that the person has made some representations.
I illustrate my reservations by the example to be found in paragraph 78 of the Explanatory Notes which sets out the effect of Clause 7. The paragraph states:
"This clause sets out what should be done when someone responding to the consultation exercise on a proposed order requests that their response should not be disclosed".
The Explanatory Notes go on to give the following example:
"The reason for allowing representations to be made in confidence is that, for example, an elderly person living near a public house may want to give details of the disturbance caused if there is a proposal to extend the opening hours … but he or she may be justifiably concerned about reprisals".
But in a situation like that the elderly person may have previously expressed her views to one or two people, perhaps even the publican. If there is a proposal to extend the opening hours and it is disclosed that that elderly person has made some representations, it does not require a great deal of intelligence to work out that that elderly person has given details of her previously expressed views. If the Minister is obliged to disclose the fact that any particular person has made representations, inevitably there is a risk of reprisals. That risk is not proportionate to the benefit.
I go further and suggest that there is no benefit at all in disclosing the fact that a particular person has made representations if the representations must not be disclosed in a manner that identifies them with the person who made them. On that premise, the disclosure of the identity of the person who made representations, whatever they may be, is an entirely useless piece of information. It becomes useful only if one can put two and two together and identify the representations with the person whose identity is disclosed. But that is the mischief that the clause seeks to avoid.
The Committee must remove the obligation on the Minister to disclose the fact that any particular respondent has made a representation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord describes a possible conflict between an elderly lady who lives near licensed premises who may be affected by a regulatory reform order and the contrary case, which he did not put fully and rejected out of hand as having no validity. I do not deny that there is something in his case, or that it is conceivable that a regulatory reform order is so precise in its application that disclosure of the identity of a respondent to consultation, without the content of that response to the committees of both Houses, may damage that respondent. However, I believe that it is highly unlikely. We are not dealing here with planning
398
applications but much more general issues and burdens. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there is some weight on that side of the scales.
The alternative case, which in a sense is antigovernment, is one that the noble Lord dismisses out of hand. It is incumbent on Ministers to report everything that comes to them which is relevant to the consideration of the committees. If someone approached a wicked Minister, not of this Government or even the previous one, and asked him not to proceed with a particular regulatory reform, or, worse, to proceed with it because it would assist his despicable financial interests, should the Minister be able not to disclose those representations? Surely, the case for open government must be that when a consultation process is in place Ministers are not at liberty to pick and choose the representations or the names of respondents to make available to Parliament. That is the case on the other side, which I believe is a stronger one.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister will be relieved to hear that I shall not repeat my speech. I disagree with the noble Lord profoundly in his assessment of the balance. I put him on notice that I shall return to this matter at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Parliamentary consideration of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line 17, leave out ('of sixty days beginning on") and insert ("taken by Parliament to complete its consideration of the draft order, which shall be no shorter than forty days, and no more than ninety days, from").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) as it appears in the Bill reproduces the provision in the 1994 Act which has worked well. However, we now face a new situation. One point made at Second Reading was that, if the Bill was to live up to the Government's intentions, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would labour under a substantial burden of work. We are faced with considering how to help the committee cope with that burden. Much of what we can do does not entail statutory provision. We have to look to our Standing Orders and to the provision of staff resources. However, one resource of the committee that will be under pressure is time, and my amendment is directed to that particular problem.. My amendment is designed to give greater flexibility to the period of time that may be taken for parliamentary consideration by the committee. At present, the stipulated period is 60 days. When that period has elapsed a draft order may be laid. That repeats the provisions of the 1994 Act. I believe we are moving into new territory and that we may need to go beyond the existing provisions.
Under my amendment a draft order can be laid after 40 days if committee deliberation is complete, or it can be delayed for up to 90 days if the committee wants to take that long. Some flexibility may be useful. Orders made under the Bill are likely to differ significantly in scope and effect. Some may require little parliamentary scrutiny; others may require substantial scrutiny, perhaps taking longer than is presently the case with orders under the 1994 Act.
I readily concede that my amendment might not hit the mark. This is a probing amendment and one that is designed to elicit a response essentially from two quarters. One is from members of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I shall be guided by their views as to what is necessary. The other is from the Government: first, in terms of the thought they have given to the burden that will fall on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee; and, secondly, what resources will be necessary to enable it to fulfil what may well be an onerous duty. Given that the provisions of the Bill impose a burden on the Committee, and the Government wants to reduce burdens, it is appropriate that we turn our minds to achieving that.
My amendment is designed to focus attention on what is necessary and how we may assist the Committee in discharging what is likely to be an extremely onerous burden. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In principle, I support the amendment. As a probing amendment, it is concerned with the question of adequate time for scrutiny. In that context it relates to one of the aspects of Amendment No.10 to insert Clause 1A that my noble friend Lord Norton, and I move, and which I shall move on Report. Therefore, I support the amendment in principle as being relevant to that consideration.
Lord Goodhart: While I can be somewhat critical of the drafting of the amendment, particularly because what is laid before Parliament in the first instance is not a draft order but a document in the form of a draft order, nevertheless there is something in the substance of the amendment. I would prefer to see greater flexibility with regard to the time. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is willing to be probed on this matter. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Norton, wants to introduce a level of flexibility into the timetable against which the committees produce their report. The committees will undoubtedly face an additional burden in scrutinising reform orders under the Bill. That has always been acknowledged. It is a matter for the House authorities rather than the Government how that is achieved. The committee of this House and, so far as I am aware, the committee of the Commons, have not taken that as
400
being an overriding objection to the Bill. Clearly, the House will want to consider the matter of appropriate resourcing.
There are problems associated with the amendment. The problem lies more with the people who want to make representations to the committees than with the committees. We need to give them priority. One can imagine an interested party who thought he had 60 days in which to contribute to a debate suddenly discovering that the committee had decided to resolve the issue in 40 days, and that the committee had reported perhaps 20 days earlier. That matter arose in consultation on the earlier drafts of the Bill. When we consulted on the provisions of the Bill in March 1999 a number of people raised that issue.
We need to ensure that the scrutiny period is as transparent as possible and that everyone knows exactly where they stand. The Deregulation Committee of the House of Commons objected to any reduction of the period for this very reason. Sixty days was seen as sufficient time to scrutinise reform proposals. I believe that the Bill already gives the committees sufficient scope for scrutiny. Primary legislation receives detailed scrutiny over such a period. As the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said in its report, and as my noble friend Lord Borrie said in Committee on Tuesday (at col. 184 of the Official Report), the procedure under the Bill could arguably be seen as providing a greater level of scrutiny than that afforded to most Bills.
On that basis, although I recognise the advantages of scrutiny they are outweighed by the advantages of transparency.
Lord Skelmersdale: Since there has been much discussion about a proposed regulatory reform order on the reform of the fire protection legislation mentioned in the Explanatory Notes and several times during our debate on the Bill, can the Minister say whether it is possible for the Committee, first, to take representations, and, secondly, to complete its consideration within the 60 days provided for under the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The 60 days provided for under the Bill are 60 days for the committee to do its work. If an issue is sufficiently complicated I am sure that it would have been aired publicly in a more informal way a long time in advance of that. There is nothing to stop that happening.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, but the whole point is that the proposed legislation is very much nitty-gritty stuff. An enormous amount of work will need to be done by the committee and its advisers in order to understand the reformation which is going on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Can the provision be amended to allow for flexibility if it were required in the view of the committee? There may be cases where it will be required. It may be that there will be few cases

401
where it is. But cannot the straitjacket period on the face of the Bill be made more flexible so that if it is required it may be given?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I will think about that matter. But my instincts are very much against that. My instinct is that it is much better to have a transparent, known period for the committees' consideration of matters. It will start and finish on certain dates. Everyone will know those dates and anyone who wants to make representations will know the period in which they have to make them.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised the fire safety case. That kind of case may need an advance period of public debate so that everyone knows what is being talked about. But it would be undesirable for that provision to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion on the amendment. I hear what the Minister says. I understand his argument. I am not totally persuaded of his point in relation to the minimum period. One can have an adequate minimum period and some degree of flexibility. But it was a probing amendment.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. I am very grateful for his contribution, both in terms of principle, which persuades me that I should go away and think about the matter, and his correct point about the drafting. Therefore, on that basis I shall not pursue the amendment. I shall go away and reflect upon the matter in the light of what noble Lords have said and what the Minister has put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe: It is my intention to allow us to focus for a moment on the most important safeguard in this Bill, to which reference has already been made today; namely, the role of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
I preface what I have to say to the Committee with the assurance that it is not my intention to patronise either the members of the committee or the role that it fulfils. On the contrary, I hold the committee in great esteem and recognise that its work and its contribution are invaluable. In that respect, I believe that I speak for all noble Lords. It is because of those points that I am concerned.
We have heard much about the opportunities that this Bill, if it becomes law, will create—opportunities that we are told do not currently exist because the scope of the 1994 Act is too narrow and inflexible. We are already in receipt of an ever-growing list of potential regulatory reform orders that could be implemented under this Bill. It is fair to say that the excitement shown by officials at the prospect of this Bill is tangible. That slightly worries me, as they are
402
famous for wishing to regulate and in particular to gold-plate regulations coming in our direction from Europe. I hope that they are serious about changing their culture—and are being encouraged to that effect. In essence, we expect a raft of draft orders to come before the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the coming years.
The Minister has made a number of references during this stage of the Bill to fire safety legislation and the opportunities that this Bill would afford with regard to simplifying and consolidating the current law. Fire safety requirements are currently spread over 120 statutes. We are now asking the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to scrutinise each and every one of those 120 statues to ensure that, although the proposed order is intended to simplify enforcement for fire authorities and the duty of compliance for business and landlords, as well as to eliminate legislative anomalies and duplication, it will not, in fact, reduce existing standards.
It has been revealed this evening that there is a questionable opportunity to amend draft orders. A great deal of time is given on the Floor of the House and in Committee to the consideration of primary legislation. With those two points in mind, I wonder whether the prospect of this very eminent committee becoming awash with an increased consideration of Acts and orders, many of which will relate to an infinite number and variety of subject matters, is realistic. Should more resources now be found to support the committee? Would it not be sensible to set up a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to deal specifically with such draft orders and to support the work of the main committee? Do the Government have a view on this? In response to the previous amendment, the Minister said that the question of resourcing should be considered. I am grateful for that. However, I should also be grateful to the Minister for his views on this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am taken aback by that speech. If it is suggested that the problem concerns the workload of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, I had understood that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I had made it clear that it is a matter for the House authorities. If there had been a profound objection from the existing committee to the potential for an increased workload, I have no doubt that it would have said so. The committee will certainly consider the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about setting up a sub-committee. However, these are not matters for the Government to consider. Surely the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not telling this Committee that it should hold back on further deregulation because of the possibility of a lack of resources within this House.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I am saying precisely the opposite of that. I am suggesting that we do not want a situation in which that eminent committee is so

403
overburdened that it cannot proceed effectively with the number of draft orders that will come before it for consideration. I make it clear to the Committee that I am not suggesting that we should like to get in the way of the process, or indeed that what the Minister is suggesting will get in the way of the process. I have used this procedure to flag up the need for this Committee to make it clear that, although we greatly support the work of the Select Committee, we have real concerns that, in the event of this Bill becoming law, it will be deluged by a considerable extra workload. We are therefore concerned to ensure that the point can be addressed by that committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister responds, I am sure that he will have noted that about 85 per cent of the current committee's work relates to Bills, not orders. In my view, and perhaps in the committee's, it is already considerably overworked.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fully understand that giving notice of opposition to the Question that Clause 8 stand part of the Bill is a device for debate. I do not criticise that; I have done it on many occasions. However, if that opposition were to be carried, the effect would be to remove parliamentary consideration of proposals. That may be the opposite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said, but it is not the opposite of what a successful removal of Clause 8 would achieve.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He may recall that I began by saying that we are focusing on the most important safeguard, which is that the function of the Select Committee provides us with our best hope of such orders being properly policed. That is the point that we stress.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But not by removing Clause 8 of the Bill. We perfectly well understand the politics of this debate. We understand that it is the fixed view of the Opposition that in future this Bill could somehow be used to increase rather than reduce burdens. That is not the intention of the Bill. That is not what the Bill provides. I realise that this idea is fixed in the mind of the Opposition. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others refer to the enthusiasm of officials for these orders. The enthusiasm is not of officials for these orders. The enthusiasm is that of the Government, welcoming the pressure for deregulation by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and his Better Regulation Task Force. This Bill is about regulatory reform, not about increasing burdens.
If it is seriously suggested that the effect of this Bill will increase burdens, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or anybody else will tell me which of the 51 examples of measures that are high on our priority list for regulatory reform orders will actually increase burdens. Of course they will not. Whether or not officials are enthusiastic for these measures has nothing to do with the case. The Government are
404
enthusiastic for decreasing the burdens on businesses and individuals. That is why we want to see the measure go through. Although there may be difficulties for the parliamentary committees, I do not accept that those difficulties should be allowed to stand in the way of the immense benefits that can be achieved by relieving burdens on individuals.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, the noble Lord has hit the nail on the head. The problem is that this Bill can enable these extensions to be made. If we look at Clause 1(1)(c), we see that that is precisely the trouble which arises. Not only does it arise with us in this Chamber; it is precisely what was envisaged by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which, in the conclusions of its second report, said that very wide powers are given and that there have to be adequate safeguards. That is precisely the issue.
Let us forget about wicked Ministers. There are none in this Government and there were none in the previous government. But one cannot draft legislation on the basis that one will not have wicked Ministers. That is a real concern. It is not a political point. It is not something brought out to generate discussion. It is an essential point. It goes to the root of Clause 1 and safeguards.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I was about to put the Minister on notice that when we come to Report stage I shall quote his amazing words back at him. He said, "This Bill is not about increasing burdens". That is exactly what one sees that it is all about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are debating Clause 8. We are debating the clause which refers to the parliamentary scrutiny of proposals. The peg on which we are debating it is the argument that the committee of this House will be inadequately resourced to do the job that will arise as a result of the Bill. I accept that there will be an increase. I accept that there will be orders. I challenge those who claim that what is proposed will be damaging and should be constrained by the ability of Parliament to carry out scrutiny to tell me which of the 51 orders increases burdens rather reduces burdens. That is, in practice, what is before the Committee. Those who believe that the Bill will increase burdens rather than reduce them should oppose Clause 1 of the Bill and the Bill as a whole. But that is not the issue before the Committee at the moment.
Lord Norton of Louth: I agree with the Minister's final point. We are discussing Clause 8. But he is the one who raised the wider point. The objection is to Clause 1(1)(c), which some of us sought to remove. The Government resisted that. The Minister kept saying, "Here are our examples. Show us which ones will impose regulations". But of course they do not. The Government come up with examples that will do the opposite. That is what they keep arguing. The point is that the powers in the Bill could be used for other purposes. If the Government intended to use it

405
for other purposes, the last thing they would do is include in the list of examples things which impose regulations.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that I have often sat in the Officials' Box and been very irritated by the kind of remark which she made about officials, to which the officials could have no opportunity of replying. If I heard her right, she said that officials were famous for enjoying regulation and indeed for gold-plating them. It is the case that many allegations of that kind are made and that they attract a good deal of consideration. In my experience, it was rare that on actual examination those allegations turned out to be justified. I would suggest that it is not worthy of the noble Baroness to attribute that to officials.
Baroness Buscombe: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that the accepted range of gold-plated regulations have always been imposed on officials by politicians?
Lord Butler of Brockwell: No. What I am saying is that the British Government, including the Civil Service, have a reputation for being meticulous— perhaps more meticulous than some countries—in fulfilling their international obligations. But when particular allegations were examined of whether officials had taken the opportunity to elaborate regulations beyond what was required by our international obligations, those allegations were found to be unjustified.
Lord Goodhart: Though short, the debate seems to have ranged over a surprisingly wide field. It has covered the increased burdens that might he placed on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, it has covered the question of whether the powers under the Bill could be used to increase burdens on other people and it has covered the issue of gold-plating.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the first of those issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was right to raise it because there will be an increased burden on the committee. At this stage it is difficult to say how great that increase will be. There are remedies that could be introduced. One possibility, which will no doubt have to be looked at, is splitting the committee into two and having a delegated powers committee and a separate deregulation committee. That possibility might have to be considered if a substantial number of deregulation orders were brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was right to say that the great majority of the work that the committee now does is concerned with looking at the delegated powers contained in Bills rather than in deregulation orders.
It is also clear that the Minister is right to say that it is a matter for the authorities of the House and not one that it is appropriate to include on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dahrendorf: Perhaps I may add one or two sentences to what my noble friend Lord Goodhart has
406
said. I entirely agree with my noble friend. We are both members of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It should be said that at this moment it would be wrong to say that the committee is overworked. We do suffer from the fact that too many amendments are introduced to Bills at a late stage and after we have looked at the original text of the Bills. That leads to a somewhat unjustifiable pressure. But part of the reason we are not overworked is that we are outstandingly served by our Clerk and our legal adviser.
At the same time, it is perfectly possible that the Bill will lead to a considerable additional burden. It will be a different kind of burden. In an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed to the different kinds of burdens. What I mean is that it will lead to additional work, especially if the committee has to see witnesses in considerable numbers. I therefore sympathise with the earlier call of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for sufficient flexibility. Perhaps 'we can collectively give some thought to the question of whether the Bill leaves enough room tothe House for manoeuvre to introduce a certain amount of flexibility into the organisation and working patterns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. On the whole, I feel that we are perhaps exaggerating the number of orders that will come down in the immediate future. But that is neither here nor there in this connection. Flexibility is what is needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to reopen the debate. On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has just said. In so far as there are unreasonable demands on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, they are because of amendments—the noble Lord means government amendments — brought forward at a late stage to primary legislation. We have to do something about that. We have to do better than we have done in the past.
The second point I wish to make concerns the issue of workload. First, the powers provided in Clause 8 are simply a re-enactment of the powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. No change has been made to those powers. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that that was the case. The perfectly legitimate point that she made was that a new flush— it might or might not be called a deluge—of new orders might result, just as there was a flush of new orders after the 1994 Act. Although only 42 orders were finally laid, when that happened the workload of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee increased. However, it managed well. Ways must be found to manage this because removing and decreasing burdens on business and on individuals is a worthwhile goal. Parliamentary scrutiny is essential to achieving that.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Codes of practice relating to enforcement of regulatory requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 73 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Vinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 and 78A standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In order to help the Committee to follow my argument, I should explain that Amendment No. 78A corrects a fault—with the wisdom of hindsight, it probably was a fault—in the enforcement procedures laid down in the 1994 Act. Amendment No. 75 preserves that part of the Act which would otherwise be abolished. Thus, Clauses 9, 10 and 11 of this Bill are unnecessary because we would retain the relevant parts of the previous Act, along with the enforcement procedures which accompanied them.
Perhaps it would be useful to the Committee if I gave some background to my amendments. Noble Lords will recall that, prior to the 1994 Act, we would read repeatedly in the newspapers accounts of the misapplication of enforcement orders where overzealous officials—perfectly reasonably in that they were trying to do their jobs—got out of bed the wrong side, did not bother to do their homework correctly as regards the correct interpretation of the statutes they were enforcing and bulldozed in, thus unfairly generating a great deal of unreasonable and incorrect enforcement. At the time, the practice was strongly highlighted by that champion of the underdog, Christopher Booker. Indeed, today's "Christopher Booker index" of such unfortunate practices has dropped back. Huge improvements have taken place.
The enforcement procedures enshrined in the 1994 Act were responsible for those improvements. Prior to the Act, the regulated party felt that it was being regulated unjustly, the appeals procedures were arcane, tortuous and, in most cases, extremely lengthy. Ultimately, the only hope lay in judicial review. By that time, so much water had gone under the bridge, so much economic harm was done and such high costs were involved that a great many incorrect applications of the law were never put right. The revised enforcement procedures in the 1994 Act were designed to correct a situation which manifestly was causing public harm.
However, I suggest that the clever element in the Act was to recognise that the appropriate place to put right a misapplication of the law would be before it took place rather than to conduct endless subsequent appeals, with lawyers earning giant fees in their efforts to correct what should not have happened in the first place. The Act aimed to achieve a better and more sensible balance when working out precautions and so forth between the regulator and the party being regulated at the point of application, in readiness for the day when the regulation was to be enforced.
The consequence was that schedules were introduced which statutorily, as codes of practice were adopted, forced the regulator—at the point at which he was to apply the law—first to state clearly the
408
relevant statute under which he was applying a regulation; secondly, to invite the regulated party to speak to his superior officer in order to establish a fallback in case someone got it wrong; and, thirdly, once he had decided to apply the law, to make clear to the regulated party the routes of appeal. The objective was that any official who wished to do his job fairly and properly could then be confident that, if taken to appeal, he would have a good case. He would not think twice about explaining the route to such an appeal at that point.
Although that was admirable, unfortunately, it was overdone and the law was, I believe, overly prescriptive. Amendment No. 78A seeks to correct what was an imbalance. The relevant clause in the original Act stated that the officer,
"is considering taking the action and the reasons why he is considering it".
I do not think that that was what was intended. I believe that, from the first, the clause should have read, "when he intends to". I believe that the words "is considering" cause problems. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, touched on this at Second Reading when he mentioned that enforcement officers were worried about the "minded to" clause, as they referred to it; namely, that when they were considering or "minded to" take action, at that point the regulations force them to explain the appeal procedures. Clearly that pulls the rug from underneath their argument because the threat of enforcement is their most powerful weapon. At the point when officers are only considering taking action, the strength of their position is unreasonably undermined. I accept that.
This amendment is designed to put the matter right by substituting the word "intends" rather than "is considering" so that when an officer is only considering taking action—which is the case most of the time [and thus only threatening his intentions, he will not have to make clear the full appeal procedures. However, at the point at which he intends to or does apply the law as regards any regulations, then he will do so. This would put right a previous wrong.
Because many regulatory authorities rightly did not like the "considering" and "minded to" procedures, they have in effect asked for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water. Thus all the sensible elements which were built into the enforcement procedures under Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act are to be thrown out by the legislation before us. I put it to the Committee that it would be far better to correct and then to continue to use the previous legislation. That is the burden of my proposal.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise to speak against Amendment No. 78A in particular. It is more restrictive than the Bill as currently drafted.
At present, the Bill is drafted with a view to avoiding formal action being taken whenever possible. It should allow for discussions and negotiations to take place, during which time it is hoped that agreement will be reached over any difficulties between those who must enforce the regulations and those who have to follow

409
the regulations. The amendment would change this process and, in my view, that would not be for the better. Rather than the concept that enforcers "may" take action, the Bill would state that the enforcers "intend" to take action and therefore would give much less room for any negotiations or changing of positions to take place.
While serving on the Health and Safety Commission, I became very aware of how bureaucratic and confusing for everyone were the "minded to" provisions in health and safety legislation. It was a concept which was universally unpopular, not least with the officials who had to implement it. This contrasted with the proposals set out in the enforcement concordat which the Government have drawn up after considerable consultation with interested parties.
I am assuming that under the proposed new code a similar approach would be taken. It would give a chance for officials to talk over any particular area, with a view to resolving issues before any formal enforcement action is taken. This seems to me to be the most realistic and practical way to resolve difficulties whenever possible. Amendment No. 78A would appear to curtail this approach. I hope that the Minister will not accept it.
Lord Vinson: There is nothing between the noble Baroness and myself in recognising that the "minded to" proposals were harmful. But, contrary to what she is suggesting, my proposals meet that point. It depends on the way one reads them. Perhaps I have not drafted them very well. As it stands at the moment, when the enforcer is "considering", that is the point at which he is negotiating. Under my amendment, he can do what he likes when he is considering; he has the full powers to consider and to threaten without having to give the full route to appeal. It is only when he "intends"— when he has utterly made up his mind—that he has to give the appeal procedures. I think that that seems to meet the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, rather than going in the opposite direction.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: It seems to me that the word "considering" is less positive than "he intends to take action". The word "intends" is the difficulty.
Baroness Buscombe: I fully support my noble friend's amendment. As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, Amendment No. 78A does not deny consultation or negotiation—far from it. The whole point of the amendment is to address what we believe to be the Government's concern in relation to that part of the 1994 Act—that it was overprescriptive; that it sent out the wrong signals to those on the other end of the enforcement process.
This is a straightforward point. It is absolutely to do with timing. The whole interpretation of the use of the words which are, in a sense, being exchanged here could make a real difference to the way in which the enforcement process would be carried out. At the risk of a repetition of my noble friend's words, we feel that
410
throwing the baby out with the bath water—which is what the Bill intends—would be a great pity; there was a lot that was good in Section 5 of the 1994 Act. We would much rather see an amendment to that Act. We believe that that would send out the right signals, allowing all possible opportunities for negotiations and consultations to take place, after which it may then be decided that enforcement should proceed.
One of the enormous advantages of the amendment is that it would respond positively to a point made by the Minister earlier in our debates on the Bill in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would say. If the amendment were approved and accepted, we feel that it would, first, entirely meet the Government's concerns; secondly, it would do away with a lot of unnecessary words in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We would lose three clauses of this Bill but we would retain Section 5 and Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act.
Baroness Buscombe: We would retain an amended and improved 1994 Act.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 17 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. When there was consultation by the then government at the end of 1996 on proposals to apply Section 5 of the 1994 Act to the fields of trading standards, care services and environmental health, businesses themselves, according to the Explanatory Note, felt that sometimes businesses were confused between a "minded to" notice and formal enforcement action. I should have thought the same objection applied, indeed, perhaps even more strongly, that businesses would feel that a statement that it was "intended" to—not merely "minded to"—bring enforcement action would also be confused with formal enforcement action.
The same paragraph of the Explanatory Notes refers to the fear of local authority enforcement officers—particularly trading standards officers—of the proposal to apply Section 5 of the 1994 Act to trading standards. They felt that it could so easily be manipulated by what they call "illegitimate businesses"—"rogue traders", if you like. I feel that that objection, too, applies to the noble Lord's suggested amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: Looking at the Minister, I have a feeling that we shall not get much movement on this issue at this stage. Perhaps I may suggest that discussion on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his role as the head of the Better Regulation Unit, may be able to help us. We should perhaps ask him whether in his view this would he a sensible amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I should make it clear that we on these Benches regard Clauses 9, 10 and 11 as a considerable improvement on the provisions in the 1994 Act, whether amended as proposed or not.
Lord Vinson: Did I hear the Minister, who is always so courteous in these matters, suggest that Schedule 1

411
could be amended to make the difference between "considering" and "intends" quite clear? It is a very substantial difference. I believe that, on consideration, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would feel that this would meet his enforcement officers' fears. They are only fears; examples have not been given of where they have met corrupt traders who have exploited them through these procedures.
Perhaps the Minister will look at Amendment No. 78A. If he does not like the wording, perhaps he will come up with something that will put right what was obviously wrong or overprescribed in the previous Bill, and incorporate these schedules, as modified, in any guidelines for future procedures or codes of conduct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So far, I have hardly said a word. Everyone is acting as if I have made a speech and they are putting words into my mouth. All I commented on was the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that if we removed Clauses 9, 10 and 11 we would reduce the volume of the statute book. I contested that by reminding her that a large part of the 1994 Act would remain on the statute book.
I have difficulty with these amendments. History shows that there are difficulties which go back a long way—and that includes Amendment No. 78A, which I take seriously. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for his active role in the passage of the 1994 Act. He expressed concerns—which the government of the day took very seriously—that it would be difficult if businesses, in particular, were suddenly leapt upon and told "For reasons you did not understand before, this is now illegal".
The noble Lord persuaded the previous government to put in a whole series of procedures in Schedule 1 to the Act which provided that they would, to begin with, have to go along to businesses and say, "We are minded to take action", thus providing the opportunity for discussion. However, it did not work. Having paid tribute to the noble Lord for his diligence in that respect, I have to say that it did not work.
Lord Vinson: I prefer to judge by results, not by the conjectural worries of the statutory bodies. I have in mind the rapid fall-off in complaints from businesses that felt that they had been unjustly regulated in the past. We live in a different world now; indeed, one has only to ask Christopher Booker to find out about that. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I believe that it did work. That is why I am so anxious to see these provisions preserved in the broadest sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall rephrase what I said and say that these provisions were hardly used, although that may not be quite the same thing.
In December 1996, the previous administration launched a consultation exercise on using Section 5 in respect of legislation in the field of trading standards, care services and environmental health. My noble friend Lord Borrie referred to that fact, and it is set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. The feedback
412
from that consultation showed, first, that local authority enforcers felt the "minded to" provisions were excessively bureaucratic—and noble Lords can discount that if they wish—and that they could be manipulated by illegitimate businesses. I do not discount it. I believe that the views of those who have to enforce the legislation are of considerable importance. Secondly, that feedback showed that businesses were not entirely convinced and that they sometimes confused the "minded to" notice with formal enforcement action.
Therefore, in line with the consultation exercise carried out by the previous government, we have decided not to pursue Section 5 procedures, which, as I said, were hardly used. We have instead drawn up the Enforcement Concordat, following extensive consultation with businesses, the voluntary sector, the enforcement community and consumer groups. It provides a blueprint for fair, practical and consistent enforcement. The new enforcement provisions are in keeping with the policy. They allow the voluntary approach to spreading best practice to continue, while providing a power to intervene if that runs into problems.
The proposal is a more flexible tool to improve enforcement than the old Section 5, which can be applied only by specifying each individual piece of legislation to which the enforcement procedures that it sets out should apply. The new power is not limited to application in that way; for example, it could be applied by geographic area or by type of enforcer. That will make it easier to target the intervention on a specific problem. Nor are the procedures to which it should apply specified in advance. The targeting of, and the procedures to be applied in, any code of enforcement practice will be the subject of prior consultation. This means that the code can be developed with the particular problem in mind and specific practices that have proved to be an unreasonable burden on business can be addressed.
Any code of practice on enforcement set out under the code will almost certainly include procedures which might cover requirements on enforcers to explain why remedial action is necessary and over what time-scale; clearly distinguish legal requirements from best practice advice; provide suitable opportunities for discussion; provide explanations of immediate action in writing within a given time-scale; and give an explanation of the rights of appeal. The concordat says that, before enforcement action is taken, officers will provide an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the case and, if possible, resolve points of difference, unless immediate action is required. It is expected that any code would contain similar provisions.
I gave a report on progress towards acceptance of the concordat on Second Reading, but the present position is that over 84 per cent of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have adopted the concordat. Similarly, 80 per cent of central government agencies have adopted the concordat for all of their regulatory enforcement activities. In implementing the concordat, those agencies have

413
rewritten their codes of practice and charters to reflect the content of the concordat. These codes of practice and charters are available to those who have been regulated. They set out the procedures that the regulatory body will adopt. The Government are continuing actively to promote the concordat to local authorities and central government agencies, along with other partners such as the Local Government Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. We expect that adoption of the concordat will be close to 100 per cent by this July.
Under those circumstances, surely to abandon the voluntary approach, backed up if necessary by a code of practice, by re-instating Section 5 and Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act would be a retrograde step. Indeed, it would be a retrograde step, especially if Amendment No. 78A were to be agreed. The effect of that amendment would be to change the character of any notice that might be issued to conform with any order made under Section 5. It would make the notice more of a firm statement of the enforcer's threatened action, rather than a statement that the enforcer was considering taking action. Presumably, for that reason, it would be more difficult for the business being regulated to dissuade the enforcer from taking that formal action. I cannot see how there would be any advantage to business, or to anyone else, from this proposed change to retain Schedule 1 as part of statute law.
I appreciate the sincerity with which this matter has been approached by all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the noble Lord's proposals. But I ask the Committee to listen to my noble friend Lady Gibson, who knows from her membership of the Health and Safety Commission what has actually been happening, to my noble friend Lord Borrie, who knows more than any of us about the effect of these matters, and also to bear in mind the consultation exercise that was carried out by the previous government, as well as that carried out during the preparation of this Bill. I urge noble Lords not to accept these very major amendments to the Bill.
Lord Vinson: If we follow the route suggested by the Minister, we shall move from a regulatory regime where the regulatee has positive rights of appeal and the regulator has to act very properly within a statutory framework to a wishy-washy, voluntary concordat that may or may not have some of these provisions within it—provisions that I believe to be absolutely essential to seeing fair play at the point of the application of the law and which, in practice, have worked.
All we have heard from the other side is the fear that the existing provisions might not work or that they will be used against those concerned. But, in practice, they have not been so used. If the appeal provisions have not been used, it shows how well they are working in that such issues were sorted out before they went to appeal. That is precisely the outcome that we all wish
414
to see. However, this is not the time for me to press the matter to a Division. Nevertheless, we shall need to return to such issues on Report so as to try to get some of the essentially useful appeal mechanisms contained in Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act mandatorily incorporated into new codes of practice. They should not be left in a voluntary state so that they might or might not be adopted.
As I say, we may return to the matter on Report. In the intervening time I hope that the Minister will have good discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who I am sure would have wished to be present this evening—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, questioned the position of my noble friend Lord Haskins. Although my noble friend Lord Haskins has talked to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and has passed on his views to the Government, it ought to be made clear that he is not signed up to those views. We shall, of course, continue to discuss the matter with the Better Regulation Task Force and my noble friend Lord Haskins.
Lord Vinson: I did not suggest that the noble Lord had signed up to such views. However, I am sure that he would be sympathetic to some of them and no doubt to the incorporation of parts of them in any future concordats.
It was important to raise these issues. The voice of small businesses as regards the regulatory burdens under which they suffer is not often heard in this Chamber. The whole object of these amendments was to flag up what I believe is only just beginning to be an extraordinarily useful and effective mechanism in practice to get fairness, sensibleness and proportionality into the application of regulation. At this hour there is no more to be said. I note what the Minister said.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Making of codes of practice by Ministers of the Crown]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Making of codes of practice by National Assembly for Wales]:
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Repeals and savings]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
(" . A Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76 follows directly from the case I tried to make in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the argument put forward at that time. Having listened to a great deal of this Committee stage debate, it is clear to me that there are two great issues in the Bill— there are at least two—namely, the scope of the Bill and its safeguards. Amendment No. 76 addresses the issue of safeguards.
As the Committee is aware, the delegated powers committee wanted the House to consider the matter of a sunset clause. I am pleased that in a few moments we shall have the opportunity to do just that. I have given the matter of a sunset clause much thought. The more I thought about it, the more I felt that it may not be the most appropriate way to introduce safeguards at this stage. What we really need—if the Committee will pardon this naive statement—are sunset clauses in new regulations. We need that much more than a sunset clause in the Bill we are discussing, which, on the contrary, should be open-ended in offering opportunities to deregulate, which is the aspect of the Bill in which I am most interested.
I am not particularly persuaded by one argument against a sunset clause; namely, that after three years Ministers might no longer be inclined to introduce any orders under this Bill, if it is enacted. I was interested to read the comments of the Law Society on the sunset issue but my main point is that what we want to see limited is the effectiveness of regulatory orders and not so much the effectiveness of the Bill. The second report of the delegated powers committee at paragraph 20 on page seven contains a valuable element which I have tried to pick up in Amendment No. 76. It requires,
"a report on the operation of the Act to be laid before Parliament".
I like that text—how can I not like it when I am a member of the delegated powers committee?—which continues,
"thereby ensuring that the Act is kept under frequent review and that the powers have been both appropriately and effectively used".
The sole purpose of Amendment No. 76 is to make sure that that safeguard is not lost. Therefore, I propose that the wording in Amendment No. 76 be included in the Bill. I propose that a report is produced every year to offer Parliament the opportunity to discuss and review the operation of the Act and to exercise the duty of scrutiny which is so central to what we are doing. That is what Amendment No. 76 seeks to achieve. I very much hope that it will gain the Minister's support. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: The amendment asks a Minister to lay a report every 12 months on the working of the Act. Given that the working of the Act is something in which everyone in the Committee is interested, I should have thought there would be much support for that, at any rate from the Committee as constituted here this evening. Those who are present this evening will know that the Government seek to achieve regulatory reform by means of the Bill. Some members
416
of the Opposition who would rather it was concerned solely with deregulation know that that is not the case. We have heard important substantive arguments on that issue. Therefore, the concept that the Government should each year report on the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the Act seems well justified and worth while.
As the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—two distinguished members of that committee are present on the Liberal Democrat Benches—produces an annual report among other reports, perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to ask Ministers to respond to that committee's annual report, or at any rate to the parts of it which deal with the Bill which we hope will be enacted in a few weeks' time.
Lord Norton of Louth: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. It is an eminently sensible amendment. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says. However, I am concerned that his comments invite Ministers to follow the course he suggested. However, I would prefer to have a requirement such as that in Amendment No. 76 on the face of the Bill. The whole problem with the Bill is the extent to which the initiative is left to government rather than placing requirements on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. If I may say so, the Minister had what I would describe as a spasm of common sense earlier when he accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I hope that he will have a similar spasm in response to what I consider an eminently sensible amendment.
Lord Dahrendorf: I do not wish to take up more of the Committee's time. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the delegated powers committee has always insisted that it advises your Lordships' House. It would be unfortunate if in our debates and in assumptions that are made we increasingly seem to give that committee a separate and independent status which in my view it should not have. It should continue to offer this Chamber the best advice. For that reason I would prefer to see the obligation which I suggest in Amendment No. 76 on the face of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, rightly identifies two entirely separate strands. I believe he said that it would be rather confusing to have a sunset clause in a regulatory reform Bill and that the Bill does not impose regulation but effectively opens the door to removing regulations where that is appropriate and therefore should be open-ended. Therefore, we must decide as a matter of principle whether we think the Bill is worth having. If we decide that it is worth having, there is no logic in then saying that it is only worth having for a few years. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested on Second Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned that again today—that the House should consider the question of

417
a sunset clause. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not recommend the sunset clause. However, he raises a separate issue which introduces a new provision for the House. Should there be some regular way of considering how the procedure is operating? That is a totally different issue. The matter is raised in the context of the increased use of a procedure that is comparatively new.
We are open-minded about the issue. I am sceptical about whether a Minister laying a report every 12 months is the critical factor. Surely we want the interaction between Parliament's view of how the procedure is operating and Ministers' response to that view. The noble Lord's point relates to how the new procedure works. The new procedure is a parliamentary procedure. In those circumstances, the better approach may be along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie: the committee giving its report, and the government response. One then has both views. That is what one wants, not a report from each department saying, "We have this or that in mind".
It is an important issue. I shall consider carefully what has been said in Committee and return on Report with a reasoned response.
Lord Dahrendorf: I thank the Minister for his response. I look forward to the results of future deliberations. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

DURATION
(" .—(1) This Act shall continue in force for five years and shall then expire, subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide for all or any of the provisions of this Act to continue in force for a period not exceeding five years from the coming into operation of the order.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Such order shall be accompanied by a report laid before Parliament on the operation of the Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 78. Of the two amendments, we prefer Amendment No. 78. I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in the previous debate and that there should be sunset clauses on all regulations.
The Bill has serious constitutional implications. We have considered many of them. As has been said repeatedly, there is considerable concern in this Committee and elsewhere as regards the use that will be made of the Bill if enacted. There was similar concern with regard to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, but the proof, or disproof, of the pudding was in the eating. The powers in that
418
Act were not abused in any way. Because of the responsible way in which those powers have been used, this present Bill shows promise.
This Bill and the 1994 Act are very different creatures. The 1994 Act was a mouse of a Bill giving Ministers very limited powers. In contrast, this Bill is a beast; we do not know how it will work in practice. We believe, therefore, that it is sensible to muzzle it. That is why I propose the amendment which will allow us to reconsider the Bill in five years' time. If the beast has behaved, we can allow it to roam free for a few years. If the beast has become uncontrollable, we can deal with it humanely. Whoever may form the government in five years' time, they should have nothing to fear if the powers under the Bill have not been abused. On the other hand, if the Bill has been abused, it should not remain in force.
The proposed amendments also provide for a report on the use of the Bill to be laid before Parliament at the same time as a draft of the relevant order. We believe that that is important. The House will want to decide whether the Bill has been abused in the previous five years. The report should disclose the operation of the Bill over the period. Members of this House and another place can form their own views on whether the Bill has been used wisely and carefully, or has been abused.
The amendments will also go some way towards satisfying the recommendations of the deregulation committees which recommended a five-yearly review of orders made under the order-making powers, but we did not go as far as the recommendations of another place which suggested an annual report.
I understand arguments for an annual report but that is unacceptable to the Government. We are concerned that if we ask for an annual report, we shall not get it. If we ask for a report every five years but are not given one, we shall want a very good excuse.
In response to the Motion,
"to call attention to the Parliaments Acts and the Salisbury convention in the light of recent constitutional developments",
the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stated:
"Time and again the Leader has said that the Government accept the broad thrust of the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.— [Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 299.]
That is in contrast to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, during the course of this debate, when he said that the future of the Wakeham report is speculative. Are the prospects of its recommendations being adopted, were this Government re-elected, real? We could be faced with having on the statute book a Bill with extraordinarily wide powers and no certain opportunity for this House to safeguard its use. For that reason alone, I believe that a sunset clause should be put in place. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Amendment No. 80 has been grouped with these amendments; I make no complaint. I tabled that amendment, having listened to the Minister's opening speech and response at

419
Second Reading. He gave reasons why the Government do not like a sunset clause with a time limit. My noble friend's two amendments propose a period of five years. It was said, "That's all very well. We'll work like crazy for three years and in the last two years nothing will happen".
I sought to overcome the problem by putting into the Bill an inbuilt time bomb. It is totally open ended. The Bill continues in force until it is repealed by order with all the safeguards that are already in the previous clauses of the Bill. I am in favour of a sunset clause. I accept that it is a novel way of doing business. I do not think that it has ever occurred in any Act of Parliament, but that is no reason why it should not happen now.
Lord Borrie: I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is an optimist. If so, no doubt she thinks that during that five-year period a Conservative government may be elected. On that basis, will she say whether a Conservative government who introduced a regulatory reform order under the Bill would abide by the opposition of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in this House or the similar committee in another place?
Lord Goodhart: I rise with some regret to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I would much prefer to have the Bill in a satisfactory form so that it could go forward on a permanent basis safe in the knowledge that it could be used for the highly desirable purposes for which it is intended but could not be abused by a government determined to do so.
I have to say that, at the end of the Committee stage, I am not satisfied that we have got the Bill right. I am concerned about the extent of the powers in Clause 1(1), particularly paragraph (c). The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the Bill was intended to be deregulatory in effect, but it contains powers to add extensively to the existing list of regulations. If Clause 1 could be improved, I should be happy for the Act to remain in force until it was repealed. However, as matters stand, I would be willing to support a sunset clause to ensure that the legislation had to be reconsidered periodically by both Houses.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is another important issue that has been raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We should consider it carefully. I start with the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, made on the previous occasion: we have thought carefully about the issue and we do not think that it is appropriate to insert a sunset clause.
There are sunset clauses in some legislation, but no other Act of Parliament has a sunset clause of this sort. The suggestion is that the provisions should stop after five years unless continued by statutory instrument. Sunset clauses have a role to play in regulations, where their use should be considered on a case by case basis.
420
The Bill does not impose regulations—quite the reverse; it is intended to deregulate. I am of the firm opinion that there should not be a sunset clause in the Bill. It has been the subject of extensive pre-legislative scrutiny involving the DPDC. The committee was highly praised in the course of that. The Government believe that that process has resulted in a Bill that is based on a tried and tested scrutiny process and includes safeguards that are more than robust enough to prevent possible misuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the Conservatives will replicate our undertaking to withdraw an RRO if the relevant committee objects to it. The working of the Bill can be dealt with on the basis that if particular RROs are not liked, the Government will have to come back with them in a different form. It would be for the committee to report against a draft order if it felt that it was inappropriate.
It is my firm belief that, for those reasons, there is no need for a sunsetting provision, because the safeguards are adequate. Equally, as I said on Second Reading, if the sunsetting provision were put in, departments would not engage in the amount of work that is required for an RRO—which is similar to the work required for primary legislation and in some cases is much harder—because they would not know whether the legislative basis for their RRO existed. With the greatest respect, there is no benefit in including a sunset clause—in fact, there is a positive disbenefit. We have thought very hard about the issue and if we thought that there was merit in the idea, we would go along with it, but we do not think that there is.
Similar amendments were tabled when the 1994 Act was going through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, vehemently objected to a sunset clause then, rightly arguing that the House had to make a decision about whether, having regard to the existence of the safeguards, it was right to go ahead with the Act. The House decided that it was. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said, the House was right.
The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about giving the legislation an in-built ability to swallow itself at any time and under almost any circumstances fall foul of the same argument that it would provide no benefits because the protections are adequate. His amendment would create the additional problem that a department would never know when the legislative basis might be swept from under its feet. With the greatest respect, neither provision stands scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, legitimately, that if we were prepared to amend Clause 1 a little, he might be prepared to reconsider his position. That may be a sensible negotiating position, but it lacks a bit of logic. For all those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble and learned Lord may have ignored subsection (3) of my amendment. All the consultation provisions are included in the amendment. Any Government that proposed to do

421
away with the Act would be able to use the order-making procedure rather than using primary legislation, which they would have to do under any other circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord cited my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who is currently the leader of my party in this House, in support of his vehement opposition to the idea. Quite a lot of water has fallen over the weir since 1994. On reflection, perhaps my noble friend and I were wrong on that Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to as "the weir". I had taken subsection (3) of the noble Lord's amendment into account. That does not deal with our principled objection to the amendment, which is that the a department would never know whether the power existed to make its RRO, because, subject to a 60-day or three-month period, the Act could be repealed at any time by Parliament. That would be worse than providing for the Act to last for five years, because at least the department would know that the power was going to exist for a specified period. Under the noble Lord's proposal, subject to the time required for the consultation process, the department would not know whether the power was going to exist when it embarked on the long task of preparing an RRO.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments. I shall not repeat my arguments at this late hour. I merely reconfirm that we are debating a very different animal from the 1994 Act.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, knows that I cannot bind any future government, but, as a good parliamentarian, I can confirm that any parliamentary review of legislation would be taken seriously.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. Of course she cannot bind a future government, but she could tell us the present intention of the Conservative Party in relation to a recommendation from the committee.
Baroness Buscombe: We would follow the same practice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Therefore, the intention is that it would give such an undertaking if it were in government.
Baroness Buscombe: I am unable to give an undertaking. Of course, there is also a question mark, in a bigger sense, over what will happen in relation to the Wakeham report. That is one of my points. I believe that we should give consideration to this matter between now and Report and read carefully what the Minister said. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Clause 13 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 78A not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

AMENDMENT
(" .—(1) This Act may be amended by order made by statutory instrument.
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall be laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) Before laying an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall carry out the procedures set out in—.

(a) section 5(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e),

(b) section 6(1) with the omission of the words "together with details of the matters specified in subsection (2)",

(c) section 7, and

(d) section 8,

above.").
The noble Lord said: Part of the explanation for the Bill, given at Second Reading, put me in mind of the musical show of, I believe, the 1950s—"Oklahoma". The rationale was that the Government feel that they have gone as far as they can in respect of the 1994 Act. I am sure that Members of the Committee will remember the character to whom I refer. In my study of the Bill, it occurred to me that that position may well arise in 10 or 11 years' time. Therefore, I propose that it should be possible to amend the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as the circumstances require. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Fundamentally, the reason why the 1994 Act ran out of steam was because it could deal only with legislation up to and including the 1993–94 Session. Therefore, it had to run out of steam eventually. However, it also ran out of steam for other reasons. It was not possible to initiate a number of valuable projects which might have come under the scope of regulatory reform orders because the Act, was drawn too tightly. We have now introduced a Bill with wide powers and extensive safeguards, and we believe that it will have a longer shelf life than the 1994 Act.
Lord Skelmersdale: The proof of the pudding will, of course, be in the eating. I hope that in 10 or 12 years' time the noble Lord will be in a position to chew over and reflect upon what he has said this evening. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title and extent]:
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Business
Lord Burlison: My Lords, consideration of the Regulatory Reform Bill is now complete. This evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour available for business in the dinner break. Instead, a limit of one-and-a-half hours now applies. That change does not affect the time allocated to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey but it increases to 11 minutes the time available for each of the other speakers. Perhaps I may add that, if noble Lords have already prepared shorter speeches and would prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, they will attract no criticism from these Benches, nor, I suspect, from any other.

Tourism
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Anelayof St Johns rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote the marketing of British tourism to visitors from overseas.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, why should the Government be involved in promoting the marketing of British tourism to visitors from overseas? Who are the main players in the marketing world, and how can the Government help? Those are some of the issues which I hope to touch upon tonight. I thank the British Tourist Authority not only for its briefing in advance of this debate but also for making it possible for me to learn a little more about its work by sponsoring two visits to its offices overseas. I went to Paris for one day in 1999 and to Dublin for one-and-a-half days last year.
This month, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the report of the first stage of the five-yearly review of the BTA's work. I welcome the recommendation in that report that the BTA should continue to function as a non-departmental public body at arm's length from the Government and its conclusion that the functions of the BTA are necessary and should not be abolished. In particular, I also welcome the recommendations which endorse the proposals which we made in our policy document, Tourism Today, published in March last year.
My main question to the Minister tonight is: do the Government now endorse all the recommendations in that report and, if so, what is the timescale for their implementation? Will they, for example, take the opportunity offered in the Culture and Recreation Bill to implement specific recommendations? Of course, in order to be ever-helpful in that regard, I have tabled some of my own amendments on such subjects.
The tourism industry is vital to the health of the United Kingdom economy. It is one of the country's largest industries, employing approximately 7 per cent of our workforce, and it contributes £64 billion each year to our economy. We are, of course, in competition with the rest of the world. The United Kingdom ranks
424
fifth in the international tourism earnings league. Only the United States, Italy, France and Spain are ahead of us.
However, as the volume of tourism increases, it is estimated that we shall not benefit from that increase as much as will our competitors in the rest of Europe. We cannot afford to be complacent, and, indeed, the tourism industry is not. It recognises the challenges that lie ahead. The very diversity of the industry means that it cannot act strategically.
Therefore, I believe that it is right that the Government should take a close interest in the marketing of tourism to visitors from overseas. They should help the industry to succeed but without interfering in it. They should avoid unnecessary regulation which would impede the tourism industry. The Pink Guide published last year by the English Tourism Council provided an education about the nightmare of regulations which affect the industry.
The Government should ensure that the BTA works to the best of its ability and that it is funded appropriately. They should recognise that a variety of organisations have an interest in marketing Britain overseas and that they should be encouraged to complement and not conflict with each other in their work.
The BTA is of course the premier organisation which markets Britain abroad. It has offices in 27 countries overseas and works in partnership with the national tourist boards in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to promote an attractive image of Britain. It has demonstrated the benefits which Britain, the economy and the taxpayer receive for the public investment in BTA. It estimates that its work produces £30 for every £1 of public investment.
Under the previous Conservative government, a useful start was made in encouraging greater coordination and co-operation between the BTA, the British Council and the trade promotional functions of the Department of Trade and Industry. We believe that there is further scope for developing active links between those organisations.
When I visited Paris I saw at first hand how effectively the British Council works to promote British culture overseas and how it enhances the UK's reputation in the world as a valued partner. I therefore welcome Recommendation 9 of the report, which states that the BTA should consult the British Council and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about developing more widely the scope for joint working in countries where the BTA is not currently represented. Will the Minister also give a commitment that no more BTA offices will have to be closed down in countries where the authority is currently represented?
We on these Benches also commend the important contribution that has already been made to the tourism industry by the private sector. It ploughs back large sums in marketing investment. We believe that destination marketing is best achieved at a macro level through government involvement. That is why we

425
propose to offer a commitment, in partnership with the private sector, to invest in the marketing of Britain worldwide.
We have made a commitment that the next Conservative government will secure greater funding for the BTA through the introduction of a matching scheme. Government support will match, pound for pound—up to a maximum of £15 million per year—industry's sponsorship of the BTA. That additional £30 million could enable the reopening of some international offices and speed up the introduction of new technologies, which are increasingly essential to the marketing of British tourism internationally.
Other organisations naturally also play a vital part, either directly or indirectly, in marketing Britain overseas. I have already referred in passing to the valuable work of the British Council. The English Tourism Council, regional tourist boards and local authorities are key players, too. The work of individual local authority marketing campaigns should never be underestimated. Their established responsibilities for planning, transport and recreation, and their substantial support for the arts, will naturally give local authorities a key role in the industry's future development.
When I visited Dublin last year I was lucky enough to be present at the launch of the Marketing Manchester Campaign. It is very aware of the strength of its relationship with the BTA. It has already proved itself a success, with nearly 4,000 potential Irish visitors responding to the campaign and asking for more information about Manchester. The highlight, of course, of any campaign for that city is that it will host the Commonwealth Games in 2002.
In December, the All-Party Group for Tourism and the All-Party Group for Sports had a joint meeting, at which there was unanimous agreement about the fact that Britain could do more to promote its sporting events. I shall describe some of its recommendations. First, it said that promotion could be achieved only if a connection was made between sports groups and tourism organisations. Secondly, it recommended that Ministers should be made to realise that sports tourism needs sponsorship and funding from the government. Thirdly, it said that for smaller sporting events it would be useful to obtain tax cuts such as those allocated to films in the entertainment industry. It also recommended—its shopping list grows a little longer—that better promotion could involve the huge international fan clubs that exist worldwide. I was made aware in Dublin of the enormous size of Manchester United's fan club. People regularly fly to Manchester to watch their team. I had not previously appreciated how large is the team's fan club in China and America. Finally, the All-Party Groups recommended that events could be advertised abroad and holiday packages arranged to include those events; more effort could be made in that regard than is presently the case.
Have the Government had an opportunity to take note of those recommendations? Will they, for example, be discussed at the next tourism forum and/ or the next tourism summit?
426
I also pay tribute to the work of the business tourism sector in attracting overseas visitors. I am grateful to the Association of Recognised English Language Services for its briefing, which points out that English language courses are a vital part of tourism marketing. Figures show that Britain attracts almost half of the 1.2 million worldwide market share for English language students. They are invaluable to the British tourist industry not only because they are potential tourists of the future but because, I am advised, they are very high spenders, which boosts local economies. That is a success story to which I wish even more success in the future.
I was interested to note that the report recommends that the BTA should encourage awareness of business tourism. How do the Government anticipate better achieving that?
For the most part, people in the business world want the Government to keep out of their way, but there are issues that require leadership. Governments can provide that in a common-sense way by promoting the marketing of Britain to visitors from overseas.
I thank all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today, and I look forward, as ever, to the Minister's response.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for introducing this debate on a subject that is of great importance to every part of the United Kingdom. It is especially vital to some of the holiday tourist areas, which suffer from low wages and limited prospects for other business opportunities and fulfilling employment. I agree with many of the points that the noble Baroness made, and I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on behalf of the Government.
I have some specialist points to make, but I shall begin from my experience of having had enjoyable holidays in many parts of the UK and in many foreign countries. I am concerned about UK tourism. Very few of my foreign friends ever choose to have family holidays in the UK. Why? That question is particularly pressing because England is only 22 miles from arguably the world's most successful tourist country— namely, France. I shall make some suggestions about what the Government and their agencies could do and about the way in which other organisations, including, perhaps, the House of Lords, could contribute.
Several factors make for successful holiday tourism, the chief of which are people, scenery, recreational activities, cultural events, accommodation, food and finally—this is my speciality—the weather. The UK has marvellous people who are welcoming to tourists. We have magnificent scenery and interesting recreational activities, especially minority pursuits that are suitable in a northern climate, such as sailing, walking and fishing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, sport could be encouraged further.
The Government and UK organisations generally need to do better with regard to the other factors. One of the great attractions of holiday-making on the

427
continent is the opportunity to enjoy numerous cultural events, such as concerts in squares, town halls and churches. One can do so in holiday areas, and even in coastal resorts. Those events are well sponsored and publicised by regional governments, and I note are always well attended by British tourists. There is absolutely nothing like the same level of attendance at similar events in UK holiday areas. That is particularly surprising, in view of our weather.
Surely the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should ensure that in holiday areas which need to attract tourists there is greater sponsorship of concerts, plays, exhibitions and so on. Of course, we have our great cities, cathedrals and science and arts festivals, but they are not necessarily found in areas in which tourism is important and in which tourism may be declining.
When arts and science events are held—this point was made in an earlier debate—they greatly add to local tourism, as we have seen in the Bristol and Edinburgh science centres. Universities—I speak as a university professor—can help to ensure greater publicity and wider use of those centres, some of which, we read in the press, are in a precarious financial position. In France, the University of Poitiers, in central France, is close to a futuristic public science centre. To publicise it, the university regularly holds scientific conferences, and has even changed its postal address, which refers no longer to Poitiers but to Futuroscope. British universities could take similar steps. In fact, next month, London University will hold an open conference at the Science Museum. That is the sort of event that we should see more often.
On the last two factors in my list—food and the weather—tourism could benefit from more information. There are many excellent varieties of food and cooking in the regions of the UK, but they are not well known abroad, or even in the metropolis. I wonder whether the House of Lords could help in this context. Perhaps we could follow the example of the French Senate, which helped to popularise local dishes and to establish better links with the regions. Last summer, as Le Figaro described, there was a splendid occasion in the French Senate when it entertained more than 1,000 mayors from all over France, resplendent in their republican sashes, to a great party with all sorts of regional food. That is an excellent way of publicising the regions. There was doubtless a political element of schmoozing in order to be voted in, as they do in the French system.
Perhaps the UK Tourist Authority could organise something like that in the House of Lords. Within our regions there are some mouth-watering regional delicacies—Scottish herrings, Cornish pasties, our whisky, our beer and our cider.
Finally, I come to the UK weather which is major factor stated in relation to UK tourism. A recent visitor to the UK told me that he expected the weather to be dreadful but he was pleasantly surprised both by the weather and by reasonably good forecasts and a good presentation on the Met Office website. There is
428
now a very good BBC weather website which also includes information on air pollution which, for some people, is as important as the weather.
Tourists to the UK are put off by erroneous impressions about our weather and would be encouraged to come to this country if the UK tourist boards, hotels and travel companies provided more information and in appropriate ways. Reasonably reliable—at about a level of 70 per cent reliable—forecasts are available for the weather up to 30 days ahead and sometimes even longer range forecasts are available. Those are issued not only by the Met Office but also by the European centre in Reading.
Another feature of the British weather which we should remember is that in local areas of the UK, local forecasts are available and are very important. It needs to be explained to tourists that there is extreme local variability in the weather. The average rainfall on Exmoor is 70 inches per year whereas 15 miles away on Saunton Sands it is often very sunny and the rainfall is only 25 inches per year. So that great British secret should be more widely shared and by doing so, we should attract more tourists.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for introducing this debate. I hope that I can make a modest contribution to it. I should declare an interest. For 30 years, I have been non-executive chairman of a small hotel group in Suffolk. Indeed, if any of your Lordships are in Bury St Edmunds, the Angel Hotel or the Marlborough Hotel in Ipswich awaits your presence.
What is anecdotally true of that small but significant group in Suffolk tourist terms is true of many others, certainly in the eastern region of England; that is, that foreign tourism is vital. Not only do foreign tourists, particularly from mainland Europe, visit all year round and provide a steady stream of visitors but they are also on the increase, despite the problems of exchange rates. To some extent, they have compensated for the decline in American visitors who, of recent times, have tended to go more to mainland Europe because they get a bigger bang for their buck.
In 1999, there was a radical rearrangement and reorganisation of the tourist industry as a whole when the English Tourist Board was done away with and the English Tourist Council was created. Today, we do not have an English Tourist Board but we do have a British Tourist Authority and under it, as has already been mentioned, the country boards and seven or eight English regional boards.
My first suggestion is that there is an apprehension among many in the tourist industry in England that the demise of the English Tourist Board has been a drawback; that there is today no formal focus for the English tourist industry. There is an informal linkage between the regional boards but they lack a national focus, a national driving force. At a time when the difference between the countries comprising Britain is growing and when the Scottish and Welsh boards are

429
making great play of their independent or quasi-independent identity, there is a sense within England that it would be a good idea to try to resuscitate the English Tourist Board, even though that would leave the BTA with strategic responsibility for what would then be four national boards.
My next suggestion is that the Government could assist the English Tourist Council, which has responsibility for quality in particular in the tourist industry and for a degree of strategic planning, in a project which it has identified as being crucial for the industry as a whole—an integrated national booking network. I echo that from the experience I have. To create such a national network in the present age would be of immense national benefit. We have a high proportion of what one might call discriminating, high-spending tourists. To enable them to log onto a reliable network which would give them instant access to all the places which they may wish to visit or stay in could only be of considerable long-term value to British tourism as a whole. As has rightly been said, in the modern age, tourism, especially for countries with a declining manufacturing base, is not only hugely important now but will go on being more and more important.
Next, I want to refer to the regional boards related to the BTA. In saying what I am about to say, I do not want in any sense to detract from the appreciation which is felt for the work of the BTA, which is, principally, selling Britain abroad. But the regional boards could be given more core funding to enable them to do more of their own overseas selling. Of course they have significant internal obligations too but I am told and believe that if they could have a modest amount of extra core funding devolved to them, they would be able to use that highly effectively. After all, we live in a tourist world in which difference, distinctiveness and diversity are key to success and where more and more, the tourists of the future will look for those qualities in their favourite destinations. It is partly because of that that I believe that there should be an increase in funding for regional boards, still working with and under the BTA, and with an increased level of independence, so that they can come forward with their own very regional, very different initiatives to bespoke groups and audiences abroad. That is very often done in partnership with the private sector, whether it be transportation firms, hotels or travel agents and—let us not forget—local authorities. As your Lordships will know, they show great adeptness in gearing up the core funding that they receive by those joint ventures with the private sector and with local authorities. In terms of value for money, I suggest to the Government that they might look at increased spending in that direction.
Lastly, a point on deregulation which has already been mentioned, and the Pink Guide. In the country, most of the hotels are family businesses. They are not part of national or international hotel chains. They do not have access to the sort of capital to which the public companies have access. The regulatory overburden strikes them particularly hard. I should like to think that the Government would, wearing their
430
deregulatory hat—and earlier this afternoon, we have been thinking of nothing else—focus closely on what further action may be taken to diminish the existing burden of regulation and to make some distinction in relation to the smaller outlets when it comes to further regulation.
The growth of tourism is particularly important for rural areas. Their economic viability has been sapped, particularly in relation to agriculture. There is some potential for compensation in the continued steady growth of tourism in real terms. Again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing this debate.
8 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, first, I have an interest to declare. I am a director of British Airways which is a company that is heavily involved in the tourist industry. It is active in the marketing of British tourism overseas. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, the chairman of British Airways, dearly wanted to take part in this debate but unfortunately it clashes with an engagement promoting tourism.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay has said, tourism is one of the country's biggest industries. I sometimes think that the term "industry" conveys the wrong impression when talking about the tourist sector. Many people still consider that the term conveys the concept of large organisations involved in one or two major product lines such as the motor industry, the steel industry or the shipbuilding industry.
However, the tourist industry is different in so far as it is extremely fragmented. Therein lies its strengths and its weaknesses. The fragmentation ranges from bed-and-breakfast establishments on remote Yorkshire moors to large international hotel groups spread throughout the country, car hire companies and visitor attractions such as, if I may say so, the London Eye.
That fragmentation results in a fragmented approach to marketing. Some tourist organisations are brilliant at marketing and others do not have a clue. That is where help is needed, in view of the huge earnings of the industry, detailed by my noble friend Lady Anelay.
The funds available from the British Government to help to market British tourism are minimal. The British Tourist Association received a grant of £33.5 million in 1998–99. In that year overseas visitors spent £12.5 billion in this country, not to mention the £3. 17 billion that was spent on carriers for their journeys to and from this country. That equates to a total of £15.7 billion and the grant of the British Tourist Association of £33.5 million equates to a marketing spend, according to the back of my envelope, of about 0.4 per cent of sales. The Minister, with his great background in marketing, must find that figure quite derisory.
I want to make four short points. First, tourism is a world industry, a global industry. Nearly all countries compete for tourists and promote their countries to a greater or a lesser extent than we do. We still have the

431
edge. I am told by so many people that the United Kingdom is one of the top places that people throughout the world want to visit. However, it is essential that we do not rest on our laurels. We must not think that, because we have a great history, wonderful attractions, marvellous museums, wonderful scenery and all the other things of which we all aware, we can get away with being passive in our marketing.
I believe that it is essential that we extend our marketing to new countries in the tourism field; for example, to countries like China or Russia or some of the central European countries. Many people will say that there is not a lot of money nor many wealthy people in such countries who can afford to travel to countries such as the United Kingdom for holidays and tourist visits. I believe that that is a myth. In almost every country there are many wealthy people who, at this moment, are being wooed to visit other European countries, America, South America or other continents.
I am told that our embassy in Beijing is attempting to acquire "approved destination status" enabling wealthy Chinese to travel as tourists to the United Kingdom. There seems to be a problem with disjointed, as opposed to joined-up, government. The FCO is all for it, but the Home Office is not at all happy. The reason for the latter is that apparently the Home Office is concerned about the cost of people jumping ship. If we acquire "approved destination status" in China, that would enable the BTA to develop a market for UK tourism there. I am afraid that the Treasury would probably have to provide a little more money. That is a serious point. Australia and New Zealand have "approved destination status". They will benefit hugely and we need part of the action. Secondly, we have to ensure that every experience that a tourist has in the United Kingdom is a good experience. Tourists will not have ecstatic experiences all the time, particularly if they are caught in the middle of the Yorkshire moors in a shower of rain, although, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, there is no rain!
Currently a "Britain Assessment" exercise is being carried out, comparing our tourist offering with that of our major competitors in the world tourist market. We have to be absolutely certain that the reality matches the hype. First impressions are so important and I fear that frequently we fall down in that area. The Government really must help the sector by endeavouring to make arrival in this country a pleasant event and seamless onward travel the norm.
Not all our points of entry can be classified as being pleasant and sometimes there appears to be a complete lack of co-ordination with regard to onward transportation. I am sure that all noble Lords read with shame the description of tourists, and our fellow countrymen, who after the Christmas break arrived at Stansted airport to find that the last train into central London had left 30 minutes before the inbound flight arrived. What a welcome to the United Kingdom that
432
must have been. In the dead of night and freezing cold, people spent four hours or more attempting to get taxis or other forms of transport into central London.
This House is truly bored by recurrent complaints about transport in London, but I am convinced that it has a negative impact on our tourist sector. Up to now we have been able to balance that with all the good things in London, but if the transport is not fixed— and fixed fairly quickly—we are in danger of losing a large chunk of our tourist industry.
Thirdly, another area where government assistance would be most valuable, and would not cost much, is hotel classification. Currently, there is a voluntary scheme which is an experiment that is planned to last three years. At the end of the three-year period (at the end of calendar year 2002) if it is thought that the voluntary scheme does not work, the Government will do a great service to tourism if they introduce a compulsory scheme. There is such a huge variation between hotels within the same classification band, particularly at the lower end of the market. It is imperative that every tourist has confidence in the classification system. If they know they are going to a three-star hotel, they should have some idea of the basic provisions in that classification. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance on that.
Fourthly, the shortage of skilled labour is hitting tourism as it is hitting other sectors. We really must encourage more young people into the sector. About two years ago when I visited a resort in Arizona, all the staff appeared to be young—up to 25 or 26. They were bright American students or young American men and women who seemed to have a great enthusiasm for making each of the guests feel extremely important and satisfied. They encouraged visitors to think positively about doing things outside the particular resort, asked whether they could get more tennis partners for you and so on. I wonder whether that could be replicated here in a similar type of organisation. I doubt it.
We need to build up respect for careers in the tourist sector. People in the sector can have really interesting and worthwhile careers, but in this country there is still a stigma attached to the idea of serving people. How many people who come from, say, Portugal or France want to be served by or received in the hotels by Portuguese or French people? Tourists do not visit London or anywhere in the UK to be served or met by people from their own country. I would not want to go to France and be met and served by English people.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Has she observed the nationality of the people who serve us in this House?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have but this is a working organisation not a tourist organisation. The staff are wonderful in this House, but I do not want them to encourage me to go out and play tennis or whatever.

433
Training courses specifically promoted by the DfEE could be helpful. Those are four areas in which the Government could help in the marketing of UK tourism. None involves huge expenditure but they all involve encouragement and an enabling role. A force for good taken from various departments is truly joined-up government. Because of the fragmentation of the sector, such help could be highly beneficial and I hope that the Government agree.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was kind enough to tell me outside the Chamber that she welcomed what I, as a member of the Green Party, might say on sustainable tourism. I hope that she will not regret that, but I welcome the fact that only three speakers follow to savage me. I suspect that I shall be the irritant in the debate.
The BTA has a commitment to sustainable tourism, which is splendid. But in no way can it be said that visitor satisfaction and industry profitability, which are also commitments, are necessarily compatible with that. I am not suggesting that we should discourage tourism but that the tourism we offer should be of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature.
I do not want to pose as a puritan on this matter. During the past year I have sailed through the Yangtze gorges and I have visited Mexico. But wherever one goes there is an obvious need to limit tourism. Indeed, my grandchildren were probably among the last children to climb down the mountainous steps of Chichenitza, the wonderful monument in Mexico, before they close to the public in three months' time.
My first point relates to the crying scandal of the non-taxation of aviation fuel in an industry which seriously affects the whole business of global warming. I do not underrate the complexity of that, but steps should be taken at European level to tackle the problem. Meanwhile, I suggest that if any of your Lordships travel abroad as tourists they should, like me, send a donation to Future Forests in order that trees are planted to compensate to some extent for the damage they will be doing to the ozone layer and climate change.
Furthermore, where possible, tourist provision should be on as small a scale as possible. The hotel group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was probably a small-scale operation and much preferable to the big chains of often foreign investment around our country.
Our bed and breakfast accommodation is largely admirable. I speak from personal experience because I use it as often as I can. It is often infinitely preferable to staying in big hotels. The food they serve is good. Food is most important in tourism—it is to me but that is possibly because I am a greedy person! The founder of the Good Food Guide once said that the only first-class meal the British produced was breakfast and that they could produce it at any time of the day, whether at 8 a.m., 1 p.m. or 7 p.m., and that it was always very good.
434
We have moved on since then, although we should never underrate our basic local home-produced foods; for instance, kippers in Scotland. I remember that when I was a member of your Lordships' delegation to the Council of Europe and it came to the British turn to give a party we had a great success with a veal and ham pie with eggs in it. That pâté en croute was regarded as a notable gastronomic find by the members of the Council of Europe and we were much congratulated on it.
Now we have first-class young chefs and a great eclectic school of cooking. We also have good food and restaurants everywhere in the country. That is a good change on which we must concentrate because almost invariably—I know that there are exceptions— good food must be produced on a fairly small scale.
Where possible, money should be ploughed back locally. That will come from small-scale developments and encouragement of local tourism. Furthermore, in our efforts to be sustainable and to deal with climate change, we should encourage the use of public transport. We must make certain that it is such that we can do so with a clear conscience.
Several changes in taxation should be made in order to encourage the right kind of tourism developments and to discourage the wrong kind. I mentioned the possibility of a European tax on aviation fuel. The developments which are expensive as regards natural resources, and for which the proper external expenses are not paid—for instance, the immense amount of water used on golf courses—must be examined.
I believe that we can promote tourism with a clear conscience provided that we do our best to ensure that the tourism is as sustainable as possible. Where there is a clash, sustainability should have priority.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, we have just been taken on a nice journey down the gastronomic lane and are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay for raising this timely debate. It occurs just before the forthcoming tourist season. Concerns have been expressed about the future of the greatest success story of post-war Britain; that is, the growth of our tourist industry. I have been involved in it for almost 50 years. Until recently, year by year the number of overseas visitors to Britain has increased and the BTA certainly deserves congratulations on all it has done to contribute to that. It has occurred despite disruptive reviews by all governments from time to time.
Tonight we must face the facts. For the first time a downturn in the number of overseas visitors is evident. That is particularly depressing as the millennium year, with the attraction of the Dome, was meant to have been a bumper one for Great Britain. Attendance figures at many famous tourist sites up and down the country, including Madame Tussaud's, are down, some seriously. The situation has not been helped by a large number of new attractions financed by the lottery with no apparent future assessment of what damage they will inflict on well established local attractions and their ability to be viable without further financial help from the Government.

435
Despite BTA's most effective efforts, in the past two years not only has Britain's share of world tourism declined but it has fallen in real terms in comparison with the growth of our key European rivals. The situation is made worse by an unfavourable exchange rate which makes us appear to be expensive and encourages British residents to go abroad. But increased competition goes much deeper. Make no mistake that Rome, Paris and Amsterdam are increasingly attractive and cheaper. Further, their national tourism offices are annually more aggressive in the quest to attract new businesses which for years have tended to regard London as their first choice.
The activities of the BTA are rightly applauded. Having worked with BTA tourism promotions for the past 50 years, I can confirm that it is a dedicated and effective team which is the envy of our competitors. It is also well respected in the trade. Although we sometimes hear criticisms that its work reaches only a small proportion of visitors from overseas, the promotional programmes and the initiatives undertaken by the BTA have much wider impact. Having evolved and been sustained over many years, its work has become much more sophisticated and has had a cumulative effect. More than any other body, the BTA moulds the image of Britain in all our key markets and increases knowledge about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as potential holiday destinations. The BTA knows what attracts tourists to this country and how to do it. Government should not believe that they know best: past experience has proved disastrous.
Such marketing and promotional activities have a direct impact at the margin and tip the balance for potential visitors who are undecided into a positive decision to visit Britain. Therefore, when the final choice is made, instead of picking another European destination, they choose Britain. It is, therefore, very puzzling that in recent years the budget of the BTA has been limited and reduced in real terms. The budget has not kept pace with inflation or the promotional spending in our most important markets by our competitors.
Another worrying feature is that overseas visitors stay here for less time. Shorter stays have a much more serious effect because, although London may do well, fewer people tour the country. This is potentially very serious for all the regions as overseas visitors spend more money per day on their holidays than domestic visitors, who lately appear to prefer Sunday shopping. Many tourism enterprises are small businesses working on very thin margins, so any reduction in visitor numbers may force them into deficit. The result is less opportunity for reinvestment and to survive as healthy businesses. As they lose trade, many choose to close earlier because they cannot cover operating costs. Therefore, our tourism industry has a shorter season, or businesses may be tempted to reduce quality and the spiral of decline will begin to bite even harder.
In the spectrum of government spending, the funding of BTA is a relatively small sum. The fact is that it generates a direct incremental return. With just
436
a little additional funding, the BTA would have the opportunity to fight back against competitors and to boost tourist visits throughout Britain to the benefit of all regions.
In considering the need for further support of the work of the BTA, we must not forget that a key element of the product is critically weakened because it does not have a nationally co-ordinated marketing effort for England and in England. It is of great importance that the Government perhaps make a policy U-turn with regard to the English Tourism Council. They should give it an appropriate marketing remit so that it is represented at the table alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and can play a full part in helping the BTA to help to win back tourists. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will tell me that more money has already gone to the regions. As president of the Southern Tourist Board, I am well aware of that. However, it is not the same thing. We must have a central body to speak for England as a whole.
I should like to pick up one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He said that money should be given to the regions for overseas publicity. I believe that that would result in total chaos. The situation is bad enough anyway with all the different tourist offices in New York. To allow every region to have its own little office there would be totally confusing and self-defeating.
At the moment, tourists who arrive in Britain face a fragmented tourist information service provided by the different regions which, naturally, are competitive. That can lead only to difficulties when tourists try to plan an itinerary in the UK. There is a strong belief that the abolition of the English Tourist Board and the creation of the new English Tourism Council were dictated and influenced more by the policy of regionalisation than tourism, the interests of which may have been sacrificed to bolster the regional government policies of the Government. Not even the boundaries of the tourist regions and the regional governments always coincide.
I was always taught that it was wise to invest in success. The reduction of financial resources of the BTA clearly shows that this is not a philosophy that the present Government embrace. I believe that in dealing with one of our most important industries which is vital to employment, our heritage and thousands of small business, it is high time that the Government did embrace it. I believe that the health of our tourism industry could be put at risk.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may clarify what I said. I certainly did not suggest that there should be regional boards with offices abroad. I said specifically that there should be a modest increase in their budgets. They should continue to work under the BTA as they do now but with bespoke efforts to recruit foreign tourists.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, they do not work under the BTA now.
8.26 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for allowing the House to address the problems of tourism. I believe that there are problems. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, in trying to face a few facts which fundamentally affect the marketing of tourism in Britain. I spent most of my childhood and teenage years in south Devon, which was then one of the most desirable parts of these islands for the purposes of holidays for British people. I grew up in the area known as Torbay which, like other seaside resorts in Britain, has suffered badly in recent years from changes in the pattern of tourism, by which I mean holidays taken by British people. If they can, they replace that lost market by creating attractions for people from further afield.
A little historical perspective is perhaps necessary to understand why these changes have occurred. As with a number of seaside resorts where the climate is warmer and wetter—not so much East Anglia—Devon was an enormous attraction when holidays from work became more commonplace. The annual drift from the North, the Midlands and other industrial areas to the South West was an important part of the economy of Devon and Cornwall. So sure was it that in the years between the wars, and following the Second World War, locals in Devon in particular took it for granted and became rather snooty about visitors, who were referred to first as trippers and then holidaymakers.
A huge industry of small hotels and boarding houses grew up in Torquay. The town became well known through the television programme "Fawlty Towers", which was a caricature of a small hotel in a seaside resort. I do not think that any hotels were quite as extraordinary as "Fawlty Towers", but it was an example of the middle-range seaside hotel which in recent years has suffered incredibly badly.
Torquay actually had one of the most attractive hotels in Britain—the Imperial Hotel. It was called "Imperial" because the imperial Russian family used to stay there. For many years it drew an upmarket clientele to Devon. Rather optimistically they used to call the area the English Riviera. Torquay, like Rome, was built on a number of hills. It enjoyed a fine climate because it faced in the right direction. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is an expert on weather. It was known for growing palm trees and other plants which could not be found at the other side of the area, in Torbay, which faced north, and it had none of these attractions.
People came down in droves. They mostly came down by rail. As the use of the car became more common they came down in their motor cars. The roads got clogged up and were gradually improved. The war came. There was then a great expansion of foreign travel and package tours. It completely destroyed the hotel industry in Devon. People from the industrial Midlands, as they were in those days, and the North turned to foreign destinations. Places like Torquay and similar places in Cornwall have had a tough time.
438
In that area there was a particular market which attracted foreign visitors as well as the more affluent British visitor. That was the yachtsmen who came to Devon. A number of hotels along the coastline were developed specifically for that market. They, too, have suffered in recent years. But they knew in those days what their market was at all levels and what they needed to provide by way of product to satisfy that market.
It is now extremely difficult for the seaside resorts of Britain, having had this decline, to recover. This is set against the general trends in Britain which make marketing a very difficult exercise. Other noble Lords have talked about the difficulties of competing with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned France. France has put in an enormous amount of effort and tourism is one of its major industries. Tourism is fifth in Britain in importance of industries. In France it is considerably higher. The French have put a great deal of investment and energy into it. They are practical about these matters. I rather agree with the French view. They are rather chauvinistic people historically. But they look upon tourism as a business. They do not see anything intrinsically virtuous about tourism. In fact they look upon it as a necessary evil.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that, environmentally, one can see tourism as a necessary evil. But it is a business after all, and there is all the more need to raise the added value and the quality of what is offered to create income to compensate for the damage which it does by expanding and spreading the range of what is on offer to the foreign visitor. I fear that is not done
Other noble Lords have mentioned, either directly or by indirect reference, the poor quality compared to other countries of food, of hotel accommodation and certainly of travel. The noble Baroness. Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the parlous state of the railways. No one in their right mind who is planning a holiday in Britain would want to take a train to go anywhere. Indeed, would they want to take a motor car? I enjoy going to France. I only use my car in France.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, one can now travel to Cambridge as fast as one could in November. It takes about 50 minutes. It works very well indeed. So in some places it is working.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, while mugging up for this debate I read that it is cheaper to make a return trip to New York than to buy a rail ticket to Preston. I am sure the noble Lord is correct; there are exceptions. As my noble friend Lord Phillips said, his area is bucking the trend because, generally speaking, the number of foreign visitors is declining overall while our own people are increasingly going abroad on holiday. There is a deficit there that needs to be addressed.
I agree with my noble friend's point that there needs to be more marketing by the regional boards. They understand best what is on offer and how it can be

439
developed, particularly in the South West. The South West is so poor that it is not able even to contemplate evolving a strategy for doing this.
In preparation for the debate I had a brief from a group which has developed from a leisure company called Leisure Pares Limited which has taken over some of the assets of First Leisure. It plans to develop Blackpool. That is another great seaside resort which has seen great decline. Depending on what the gambling review body says, it wants to develop what it will call casino hotels in Blackpool. It is an idea which is worth visiting. Perhaps in the future we shall have the opportunity to debate that matter in the House. I do not think that it can be developed as a mini-Las Vegas for the world, whatever the gambling review body reports, but it is an interesting idea. The more people who have innovative ideas of this kind the better. Blackpool may well be a good place to develop carefully controlled, high-quality casino ventures of that kind. I wish them well.
It is clear that we do not compete satisfactorily with a number of our neighbours. Let us take £500. If one takes £500 at today's exchange rate, goes around England and stays in moderate hotels the money will not last long. One needs to bear in mind the travel and so on. If one takes £500 to France, one can stay everywhere in good, clean, cheap hotels. One can stay in a room anywhere with an en suite bathroom. Food is always good and the service is excellent.
Just to round off, I take up the point about service. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, service is one of the most important areas. Service in this country is, by and large, deplorable. It is deplorable because here there is a cultural aversion to serving people. That will not do. I do not know how we shall deal with the matter. I spoke to the managing director of a cinema group recently. I said, "How is it that in your cinemas you never know whether you will be treated well or rudely?" He replied, "We go to endless lengths to tell people who join us about this. We give them courses of all kinds. But there is an inbuilt resistance to serve. It is seen as demeaning". So it is better—
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that generally the service in an English pub is as good as that in a French bar? That has certainly always been my experience.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Government Whip was beginning to wave his arm. I will answer that question and wind up. There are always exceptions to what I am saying but, generally speaking, service here is appalling. That needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government will do their best to generate the kind of action that is needed to attempt to solve the problem.
8.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a winding-up speech of this kind usually begins with thanks to
440
noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. However, I have to remind your Lordships that the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper is,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote the marketing of British tourism to visitors from overseas".
I believe that the first step we should take is to suppress the record of this debate! Your Lordships have been candid and this has been a frank but fair exchange of views. I do not think that BTA will wish to hear some of the criticisms that have been made of tourist facilities and of this country, from its weather to its transport.
That does not prevent me from saying that this Government take tourism and the tourism industry extremely seriously. The tourism industry is of enormous economic importance to this country. I do not wish it to be regarded, by an association with dark satanic mills, in any other way. We have taken it seriously from the very beginning. Last year we published and debated in this House a strategy for tourism in the document, Tomorrow's Tourism, which sets out our strategy for the future development of tourism and our agenda for economically sustainable and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont wishes, environmentally sustainable growth in the years ahead.
We have done what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, wants. We have had joined-up government in respect of this matter. In March 2000 we held the first Tourism Summit following the publication of the strategy document. We brought together government Ministers from all the key government departments to discuss the whole range of issues impacting on the tourism and travel industries. It was a great success. The Ministers who attended left with commitments to give whatever help they could to the tourism industry, and we shall have another summit of that kind in March this year.
Despite some comments that have been made this evening, tourism is a major success story. After the United States, France, Italy and Spain, we are fifth in the world in terms of earnings from visitors. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said about the downturn in the number of visitors to some tourist attractions. However, despite the strength of sterling, or, to be more precise, the weakness of the euro, it is still the case that expenditure in 1999 by overseas visitors was £12.5 billion. Around 25.4 million visitors spent £3.17 billion on travel with British carriers. Although there may have been a downturn in some respects, the number of North American visitors, for example, increased by three per cent in the first 11 months of the year 2000, compared with 1999. When the final figures for 2000 have been confirmed, they are likely to show that, for the first time, we shall have had 4 million visitors from North America to Britain in one year. In addition, the business sector, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred is steadily growing. It is a particularly important market, since business visitors spend one-third more per day than other tourists.

441
As many speakers have said, it is true that we need to meet and exceed visitor expectations if we are to compete. I do not deny the points that have been made about the black spots in our tourism provision. I heard what was said about transport and what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in relation to the problems of seaside resorts. The English Tourism Council is addressing that problem by offering individual regeneration strategies to seaside resorts throughout the country. I do not deny that much work still needs to be done. However, I should like to say—and I am glad to have had the support of a number of noble Lords—what an excellent job the British Tourist Authority does. I am particularly grateful for the personal commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu.
The BTA has won many awards world-wide. In 1999 it was voted the best national tourist office by the travel trade in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and New York. It works closely with the UK tourism industry; it provides information on market trends, so that we remain competitive; it has a programme of inward press missions and a range of services and resources for international media, from which we are getting excellent media coverage. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, specifically raised a point about the overseas offices, to which I shall refer later.
With regard to the funding of the BTA, the impression seems to have been gained that we have been reducing funding. In practice, it was the previous government that reduced the funding for the BTA in real terms. After the first two years in which we kept to the previous government's revenue spending plans, our comprehensive spending review allowed us to give a significant increase of £5 million grant-in-aid over three years from the financial year 1999–2000 to the financial year 2001–02.
In addition, although I am congratulating the BTA, we have not been uncritical. We have carried out a very detailed review of the BTA, which was published earlier this month. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me whether we endorsed all the recommendations. It is a little early to do that in a period of only 13 days, but we shall be producing a response to that and we shall be encouraging and taking an active part in stage two of the review, which will follow from this year, and reporting next year. The report contains many detailed points, which time does not permit me to debate, but its fundamental finding was that we have the right organisation; that it should be a non-departmental public body; that it should not be privatised; that it should not be drawn into a department; that it generally has the right relationship with the English Tourism Council and the devolved administrations; and, therefore, that no fundamental organisational change is required. I am grateful for the welcome of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the review. I hope that we shall have her continued support for stage two.
We are now looking at performance targets, which is a difficult issue. On the basis of performance targets, which are, broadly speaking, the rate of return on
442
investment, which can be a crude measure—in other words, whether it is £31 of expenditure by overseas visitors for £1 of BTA expenditure or a lower or higher figure—it is sometimes possible for an organisation to make misjudgments. I am not suggesting that they have made a misjudgment in reducing the number of overseas offices. They have made other provision for the areas in which they have closed offices. But we have to consider whether there should be a development fund for markets that are going to be more important in the future, on which we might spend money without necessarily getting them immediately the same rate of return on investment. That is one of the issues to he addressed in the stage two review. Meantime, I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the assurance that we shall not close any of the offices.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, asked for just a little more funding. Everybody asks for just a little more funding. We are doing fairly well. Not only have we given more to the BTA, but this is part only of our expenditure on tourism. Under the current expenditure plans, we are increasing expenditure on the English Tourism Council from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12.5 million in 2003–04. We have given extra money to the London Tourist Board to work with the BTA on the Focus London project. We are spending £1 billion in the current year on the arts, Roy al Parks, palaces, museums and galleries, much of which directly benefits tourism. That is without taking into consideration the enormous expenditure of around £90 million by English local authorities. I certainly rebut any suggestion that the Government are being mean towards tourism. I would find that slightly odd coming from a party which felt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said in her opening speech, that we should keep out of the way as far as possible. That internal contradiction in Conservative thinking always causes me a certain amount of wry amusement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the Culture and Recreation Bill and asked about our future plans. We shall not be looking for an opportunity to make changes in primary legislation through the Bill as a result of the BTA review. We shall not be making any changes to the 1969 Act. We shall consult widely on the full implications of the proposals in the review. We certainly do not think that it is appropriate to leap into immediate legislation.
Much valuable comment was made on the marketing of England as a tourist destination. A number of noble Lords emphasised regional attractions. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, Lord Montagu and Lord Beaumont, made particularly valuable points. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that we should be giving more core funding to the English regions. That is exactly what we have been doing by the change in the remit of the England Tourism Council, of which he seems to disapprove; he wants to re-establish the English Tourist Board. That has enabled us to give more money directly to the regional tourist boards, which are not government organisations but companies limited by guarantee.

443
We do not think that any organisational change is called for at this time. We set up the ETC as a strategic body. It would not be able to perform that role effectively if it had a marketing remit as well. There would have to be a good deal of debate and research before we decided that the promotion of England as an entity was likely to be efficient. After all, we have the BTA and the regional tourist boards playing an important role in marketing England. We resist the suggestion in the Conservative tourism strategy that we should provide the ETC with a marketing voice.
I was interested in what was said about sports tourism and the recent all-party committee report. The BTA's Manchester marketing campaign strategy was its first specific campaign to market Manchester in Ireland. There will be an evaluation of its success. We are glad to have evidence on the ground, so to speak, from the visit of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to Dublin.
I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about China and emerging countries. A number of other noble Lords made comparable points. But, again, that is a proper subject for stage two of the review.
I was asked about e-tourism. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, we certainly appreciate the growing importance of the ability of people to make bookings and to gain information by electronic means. Janet Anderson, the Minister for Tourism, has set up a ministerial advisory group to advise on ways in which tourism-related businesses can exploit new technology. Again, this is not government doing it; it is the industry itself doing it. I appreciate also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about skill shortages. Several noble Lords asked why in our country young people do not as naturally go into tourism as in other countries. What I can say from personal experience is that it does seem to be changing.
444
The quality of young people from all kinds of different ethnic and national backgrounds going into tourism seems to be improving. That is helped by the national minimum wage and by the steps we are taking to improve the image of the tourism industry in its broadest sense.
I take very seriously the points made about the quality of service, particularly in the light of the derogatory comments that I have heard today. We have the quality grading scheme. It is a voluntary scheme. It is significantly increasing its coverage. It has just been extended to cover self-catering properties and caravan parks. It is a single grading scheme between the ETC and the RAC and the AA. If it does not work, we may be prepared to consider a compulsory scheme. But that would be a significant burden on business. The party which purports to seek to avoid burdens on business should be wary of going in too quickly.
There are some things we can do. There are some things, like the weather—pace my noble friend Lord Hunt—that we cannot do. But I understand my noble friend's point that we could teach people better about the weather and forecast it better than we do. I am more equivocal about the points which he and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made about our gastronomic successes.
I have spoken for far too long. We have a lot to offer in this country. We have a huge diversity of climate, heritage and visitor attractions. We are continually seeking to develop innovative ways of promoting Britain. The BTA is working enormously effectively in that regard. The Government are playing their part in promoting tourism by their commitment to cutting unnecessary red tape but making sure that regulation provides proper protection, driving up quality, working to improve career possibilities and listening to the views of the tourism industry.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o' clock.

  Chinook Helicopter Mk II: Conversion Training
  Chinook Helicopter Mk II: Conversion Training
  European Security and Defence Policy: Intelligence Management
  European Security and Defence Policy: Intelligence Management
  Rendlesham Forest Incident
  Rendlesham Forest Incident
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Arms Brokering and Trafficking: Licensing
  Arms Brokering and Trafficking: Licensing
  Mobile Operators: 3G Services Revenues
  Mobile Operators: 3G Services Revenues
  Aeroplane Seating
  Aeroplane Seating
  Ministers of Religion: Membership of House of Commons
  Ministers of Religion: Membership of House of Commons