Sitting of 3 July 2001

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

  Member Sworn
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law;
  Alan Meale, Mansfield

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the bill shall he presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the current session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
  That the petition relating to the bill which stood referred to the committee on the bill in the last Parliament shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the current session of Parliament;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
  That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Tuesday 10 July.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Resolved,
That Ms Karen Buck, Mr. James Cram Mr. John Heppell, Keith Hill, Phil Hope, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Sir George Young be members of the Committee of Selection.
126
That the members of the Committee of Selection nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Keith Hill.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

    East Coast Main Line
    Mr. A. J. Beith: If he will make a statement about the future of rail services on the east coast main line. [651]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am currently considering a request from the Strategic Rail Authority for a direction under section 26 of the Railways Act 1993, relating to the potential award of an early replacement inter-city east coast franchise
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that most regular travellers on the east coast main line would be appalled if the franchise went to Virgin and not to GNER? Will he make the decision soon and, once it is made, will he recognise how important it will be for GNER to invest in the rolling stock that can add to the capacity of the line and for Railtrack to invest in line capacity and to end its lamentable performance, which has seen the quality of service reduced because of the speed restrictions on the line?
    Mr. Byers: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a frequent traveller on the east coast main line, so I understand the importance of the franchise being awarded. The important point is that submissions from both bidders are given proper and due consideration, and that is happening at the moment. I would like to reach a decision on a direction as soon as possible, but it must take into account all the arguments that I shall need to reflect on. I do not intend to rush and make the wrong decision, but I am aware that the award of the franchise is keenly awaited by many travellers throughout the country.
    Hugh Bayley: The east coast main line is an economic lifeline for Yorkshire and the north-east of England and its present franchise holder, GNER, is a major employer in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain competition between the east coast main line and the west coast main line, with different companies operating the two franchises? Does he also agree that, because the modernisation of the west coast main line is already proceeding, any further delay will mean that the opportunity to modernise the east coast line will slip further and further behind?
    Mr. Byers: I hope that the House will understand that it would be wrong of me in circumstances in which I am

    127
    considering the information that I have received from the Strategic Rail Authority to enter into a debate about the merits of GNER or Virgin Stagecoach. However, I can tell the House that I am actively considering the merits of both bidders and I will reach a judgment in due course about the right way forward and as to whether I should make a direction to the Strategic Rail Authority. There are constraints on what I need to take into account and I will reflect seriously on the points that hon. Members have raised—I must do that—and be guided by the advice that I have received from the Strategic Rail Authority.
    Mr. John Greenway: I wish to associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), but will the Secretary of State be more specific about when he thinks that a decision will be concluded? As a user of the railway line, he must understand that GNER is reckoned generally to be one of the most successful companies since privatisation. What kind of message will it send for confidence in investment in the railway structure if such success is rewarded by it losing the franchise?
    Mr. Byers: I intend to make a decision on the direction as soon as possible. I hope that the House will understand the need to take all relevant factors into account, which is exactly what I am doing. I must give due consideration to the strengths of both bidders—GNER and Virgin Stagecoach—and need to reflect on that. Awarding a franchise is a significant part of improving the standards and quality of our railway network. From being in post for a little more than three weeks, I believe that one of our key levers with the Strategic Rail Authority is the franchising process. I want to ensure that we use that to the full, which is why on 16 July we will publish new procedures and guidance on the awarding of franchises.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that this is the third time that the franchise is about to be awarded. Although we are delighted to hear that he is considering the whole issue of franchising, unless some decisions are taken quite soon, real problems will occur in the railway industry. I hope that when he looks for good value for money for the taxpayer, he will remember not only that the awarding of franchises is the key, but that it needs to be turned quickly.
    Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend and she is right to highlight the important role that the awarding of franchises can and should play in the process of improving the quality of our railway services. However, she will also be aware that it is right that when I make the decision, I reflect properly on the strengths of the arguments. It would be improper of me not to do so. I can assure the House that whatever failings I have as a Secretary of State, making decisions is not one of them, and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

    Road Noise
    Mr. Michael Fallon: What proportion of the Highways Agency noise mitigation budget is being spent in the Sevenoaks constituency. [652]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I—[HON. MEMBERS: " "Hear, hear."] I hope that my response will be similarly received.
    Tim Loughton: Has the hon. Gentleman got a driving licence?
    Mr. Jamieson: I have responsibility for aviation and trains, but I neither fly a plane nor drive a train.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) welcomes the Government's provision for a ring-fenced budget for noise reduction measures to deal with the most urgent and pressing cases, and that he understands that there is strong competition for the available funds. However, he will be pleased to know that two locations in his constituency met the criteria for further consideration of possible measures.
    Mr. Fallon: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. Is he aware that my constituency surrounds a triangle of some of the busiest motorways in the country—the M25, M26 and M20? For places such as Kemsing, Otford and Swanley, noise is a real issue. Will he encourage the Highways Agency to experiment with different types of noise mitigation, such as muffling and noise protection, which are so impressively deployed on the new autoroutes in France?
    Mr. Jamieson: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks on my arrival at the Dispatch Box from the Trappist silence of the Whip's Bench. He will be pleased to know that the M25 at Swanley and the A21 between Bessel's Green and Dibden lane are the sites that are under consideration. If those projects are successful, they will attract between £2 million and £3 million of funding. He will also know of the Government's commitment to noise mitigation measures. I believe that he attended the ceremony to mark the opening of the section of the M25 between junction 5 and Clacketts lane where noise has been considerably reduced as part of the noise reduction programme. Our 10-year plan contains a commitment that 60 per cent. of roads will be resurfaced with quieter materials and that all concrete roads will be resurfaced.

    Council Tax Banding
    Shona McIsaac: What plans there are to review council tax banding. [653]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): A number of respondents to our Green Paper on local government finance, which we published last September, proposed that changes should be made to the structure of the council tax bands. We are considering what they had to say in the context of preparing a White Paper, which we intend to publish later this year.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome him to the Front Bench. I am sure that he will be hearing an awful lot from hon. Members about council tax banding. Will he acknowledge that the flawed system that was introduced by the previous Tory

    129
    Government penalises parts of the country, such as Grimsby and Cleethorpes, where the majority of properties are in band A? In particular, will he consider introducing a new lower band to acknowledge the fact that some people live in cheaper properties, such as mobile homes, bedsits or on residential parks, which are common in seaside resorts?
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, and I anticipate hearing from her and other hon. Members on this subject and many other council tax matters in the not-too-distant future.
    We are aware of the concerns that occupiers of low-value properties have about their council tax banding. A revaluation would be necessary to split a council tax banding, and we have no plans for such a revaluation at present. In the Green Paper, however, we invited views on whether there should be a fixed cycle for council tax revaluations and whether that would make the system fairer. Revaluations for business rates are carried out on a statutory five-year cycle, but at the moment there is no fixed cycle for council tax revaluation.
    Mr. David Cameron: When looking at council tax banding, will the Minister address the concerns of residents in west Oxfordshire about the review of the area cost adjustment? That could add £100 to my constituents' council tax bills. The review is under way; when does he expect it to be completed? Will he guarantee that local authorities in the south-east, which have problems with teacher shortages, will be no worse off?
    Dr. Whitehead: The Government are aware of the concerns of many people about area cost adjustment, and representations on the subject have been made by several hon. Members. The issue will be considered for the White Paper, which will be published later this year.
    Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend consider making the council tax system more progressive by increasing the multiplier on the top band?
    Dr. Whitehead: The Government are also aware of the opposite view, which is that council tax band H could be split, or the ratio between the lowest band and the highest band could be altered to make the system fairer. All those considerations were included in the Green Paper. Responses have been received, and the Government are considering how best to respond to them in the White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position? Did he, early in his time at the Department, find in the bottom of one of his red boxes the infamous leaked memo from No. 10, reported recently in The Sunday Times, which said:
    "there are some very tough decisions to take here and we will need to move very swiftly after the election to implement them, especially if we are talking about a large shift of resources from London to the north"?
    Does the Minister accept that whether or not he fiddles with the formulae, if council tax continues to rise at the rate that it has over the past four years, by 2005 it will be over £1,200 at band D? Does he accept also that if Labour were to introduce new council tax bands on higher value
    130
    properties, including a new banding between bands G and H and a corresponding increase, that could mean a 40 per cent. increase in council tax for some people? That could also mean, with band D increasing at the same rate as it has so far under Labour, that people in houses in the highest bands could be paying an extra £1,600 a year by the end of this Parliament. Will he comment on those figures?
    Dr. Whitehead: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whatever change one makes, either in the banding or the ratios between bands, the eventual council tax yield will remain the same, because any revaluation or rebanding results in other adjustments. The question to be asked of any revaluation or rebanding is whether it makes the distribution of council tax fairer. If a change is made, there will, of course, be winners and losers. That is an important consideration when one is deciding how best to deploy banding or valuation to ensure that council tax is as fair as possible.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not time that we took a serious look at what the banding would be of a big tent? First, Labour introduced a big tent; now they tell me that there is a Portillo big tent, a Clarke big tent and a couple of others—there is some money to be made here.
    Dr. Whitehead: The Government have received representations about mobile homes—perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind a tent on wheels. The Opposition's tent currently appears to be on wheels because of the voyage of discovery that some Opposition Members are apparently taking.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Graham Brady: What estimate he has made of the total cost to the Exchequer of referendums on the introduction of regional government in England. [654]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional government in England. It will address the question of the cost of elected regional assemblies. It is too early at this stage to make any estimate of likely costs.
    Mr. Brady: I hope that the Minister will ensure that accurate figures are provided to the public before they are expected to arrive at a judgment. Is it not likely that a cost of about £5 million—which is what the Scottish referendum cost—is a good starting point for his calculations? Does he agree that at a time when local authorities throughout the country cannot meet their social security budgets or pass funding on to schools and sixth forms, most people would regard spending £5 million on a referendum in each region as an appalling waste of money, given that the public manifestly do not want it?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have set out full costings in the White Paper. I counsel him against pursuing the analogy that he drew with Scotland, for two reasons. First, the figures that the Conservative party has recently been bandying about are

    131
    based on extrapolations and are entirely misleading and unfounded. Secondly, he will recall that the Conservatives initially opposed devolution in Scotland, then had to change their mind when they realised the will of the people; they opposed the restoration of citywide democratic government in London, then had to change their mind when they realised the will of the people. He will know that we are committed to holding referendums before introducing regional government in England. The Conservatives would do well not to prejudge the view of the electorate, or they will make themselves as irrelevant as they did on 7 June.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: It is amazing to hear the concerns of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does my right hon. Friend recall that current Conservative party policy is to impose a referendum before—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Conservative party policy has nothing to do with the Minister.
    Joyce Quin: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is to be dealing with this matter. May I press him on the timing of the White Paper: when does he expect it to be published? Does he agree that regional government elsewhere has shown itself to be good for jobs and prosperity and that to worry about the cost of a referendum at this stage is bizarre, especially when the questioner is a member of a party that was not at all worried about costing and paying for a referendum on the Nice treaty?
    Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and I shall make two points in response. First, in the White Paper, we shall of course examine carefully the benefits of a regional tier of government and set out the important factors she mentions in connection with regional economic development, as well as all the other factors that will bring advantage to those in the regions who want a regional assembly. Secondly, we are working hard on the matter, but, as she will understand, there are complex issues. We shall publish the White Paper at the earliest opportunity, but at this point—a mere three weeks into a new Government—it would be premature to give a definitive date for publication.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Minister accept that the people of the Isle of Wight find it hard enough to cope with a police authority run from Winchester and a health authority run from Portsmouth and that they certainly do not see why their taxes should be spent on a referendum that might result in more of their services being run from places like Woking?
    Mr. Raynsford: I simply counsel the hon. Gentleman to take care before he offends one of his hon. Friends, who probably has a strong case to make for Woking. We have indicated that progress towards regional assemblies will be based on the consent—indeed, the expressed wish—of people within each region. Where there is no wish, it will not happen.
    Mr. David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question from the hon. Member
    132
    for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is typical of an Opposition who want to know the cost of everything, but understand the value of very little indeed? Will he confirm that the Government's continuation of the devolution process will be based on its value to good government and our democracy, and that regional government is the natural next step along that road?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. The Government have a proud record over the past four years of developing a devolution agenda and extending to the people of the United Kingdom greater opportunities to play an effective role in the government of their nations and regions. We do not see that as a process that has ended; we shall continue to explore options to improve the quality of our democracy and extend opportunities along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend. Of course, we are concerned with value, rather than just cost.
    Tim Loughton: Can the Minister clear up the mystery of the absence of any mention of regional government in the Queen's Speech and, indeed, any apparent urgency to give a timetable today? Has the whole enterprise gone west, along with the Deputy Prime Minister, or has it simply been delayed? As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) claimed last month:
    "If a second-term Labour government fails to act on regional devolution it will leave the constitutional settlement enacted by New Labour dangerously unbalanced."
    Will the Minister now say exactly what form those referendums on regional government will take? What tier of existing local government will be scrapped to make way for it, and will it be financed by the 5 per cent. regional income tax so beloved of Liberal Democrat Members?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not paying much attention last night, when his colleague, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), spoke for the Opposition on the Homelessness Bill and made the valid point that, although there was no mention of the Bill in the Gracious Speech, it was the first Bill to be introduced in this Parliament The hon. Gentleman should therefore not draw any inferences at all from what is, or is not, in the Queen's Speech.
    I have indicated clearly to the House this afternoon that we are committed to publishing a White Paper, which will set out in detail the practical and factual basis on which we can proceed along that particular route. I am afraid to tell the hon. Gentleman that it will not fuel the kind of fantasies that he has voiced this afternoon. Those fantasies are all too typical of the Conservative party, which is prejudiced against devolving power to local communities and is fixated on cost, rather than value.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reasonable timetable would be a White Paper this autumn, followed by legislation in the 2002–03 Session, with a view to regional assembly

    133
    elections taking place in regions that want them in 2004, to coincide conveniently with the European parliamentary elections that year?
    Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend has set out a perfectly reasonable timetable; we shall consider it and other representations before reaching our conclusions. I am sure that he will accept that, at this stage, it would be premature to give a definitive date for the introduction of the White Paper before the necessary work has been done to ensure that it covers the important range of issues that must be covered.

    Rail Travel (Disabled People)
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the provision of rail travel for disabled people. [655]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): We have introduced regulations under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—the DDA—which requires new trains entering service since 1 January 1999 to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. More than 200 new rail vehicles have been introduced which meet those requirements. Access to stations is addressed under Part III of the DDA. The provisions of the DDA also extend to light rail systems and, with the introduction of new systems, such as Midland metro and Croydon tramlink, we are opening up new local transport opportunities for disabled people.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that disabled people are impatient for future improvements? Does he agree that there is something distasteful in the fact that constituents of mine—and, I fear, other people around the country—had to travel from Chelmsford to London in the guard's van of a train to make a hospital appointment eight weeks ago? Surely, in this day and age, it is unacceptable for disabled people on our railways to be treated, not as second-class citizens, but more like cattle.
    Mr. Spellar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I know that he has been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on the matter. As he knows, First Great Eastern has a rolling programme to replace the slam-door trains, which was the type of train available in the case that he mentions. There are other trains on that network that are more accessible to disabled people, and I know that First Great Eastern has taken on board the need to make sure that people are aware of that. There must be a rolling programme of replacement over the next two years, and there must be a balance between provision of information and provision of new stock.
    That ties in with a point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his correspondence about facilities at stations and the need for those to be repaired rapidly when they become inaccessible to disabled people. The company
    134
    acknowledges that the matter could have been better handled. We will certainly keep an eye on provision in the future, not just on that line, but on others.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the then Conservative Government who opposed the specific inclusion of transport in the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? In relation to the total passenger rail stock, has he consulted disabled people's organisation as to an end-date by which all passenger rail vehicles will be properly accessible?
    Mr. Spellar: As I said, on First Great Eastern the old slam-door rolling stock will be replaced by 2003. That is a welcome development. On my hon. Friend's first point, it would take an inordinate amount of time, way beyond today's questions, to list all the measures that the Conservatives opposed and subsequently found to be quite a good idea, starting with their efforts to privatise the railways, which I understand that their spokesman has acknowledged were a mistake.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister mentioned 2003 as the date by which slam-door stock would be replaced on one rail line. What about the other lines? Is any imaginative planning under way for those with sight problems? For years stations in Japan have had ticket machines that can be used by sightless people. More vision is needed in the Department and throughout the system.
    Mr. Spellar: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there is much scope for improvement beyond rolling stock. We need to look at what is often described as the software of the railway system, rather than just at the hardware. Under the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, all mark I rolling stock—that is, the slam-door rolling stock—has to be removed from the rail network by the end of 2004. There must be a rolling programme of replacement because of capacity limitations at the manufacturers, apart from anything else. I also take his point that we should be willing to consider innovations and ideas generated abroad, which we should not see simply under "the not invented here" heading, as has sometimes been symptomatic of our transport system in the past. Sometimes such innovations cannot be adapted, but sometimes they can, cost-effectively and with considerable benefit to the welfare of passenger users—able-bodied and disabled people alike.

    Regeneration Strategies (Tourism)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What plans he has for a joint approach with other Government Departments to promote local regeneration strategies based on tourism. [656]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): Regeneration strategies are being developed at regional and local level to boost tourism. Blackpool is a good example, and I am delighted to see that in round 6 of the single regeneration budget, Blackpool was awarded £20 million for the improvement

    135
    of its tourism facilities. As president of the British Resorts Association, my hon. Friend is aware of the close co-operation between Government Departments and other agencies on tourism. I am sure that he will use his position to promote the successful regeneration of British seaside towns.
    Mr. Marsden: In welcoming my hon. Friend to her post and congratulating her on that appointment, I also pay tribute to the work of her Department and its predecessor, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in respect of the money invested in SRB and other structural funding. Will the Department recognise the important involvement of other Departments in that process and the vital contribution that tourism makes to regional regeneration, not least via regional airports and a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises? In that regeneration process, will the Department take particular account of the needs of seaside and coastal towns, which, by their very nature, have a periphery of only 180 degrees?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend may be aware of the tourism summit in March this year. That was a good example of inter-departmental co-operation and many issues that arose there are being taken forward, including access of seaside resorts in terms of various Government policies and funding, planning for leisure and tourism, and matters affecting the Home Office, such as the licensing and gambling reviews.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: In considering single regeneration and its interaction with tourism, will the Government now consider allowing regeneration expenditure to be targeted outside the parameters currently set for the affected areas? Some attractions that need enlivenment and investment are situated outside the existing boundaries and cannot currently receive the resources. In the coastal strip that I represent, the money needs to be spread further.
    Ms Keeble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for money to be spread flexibly. The Government are committed in our regeneration strategy to taking on board the views of the local community and to ensuring that the regeneration money is spent where it will have maximum impact and meet the requirements of the different communities.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. Can she imagine the devastation caused by 44 cases of foot and mouth and the culling out of 240 farms in my constituency, and the effect that it has had on tourism? Will she consider closely the contribution that tourism can make to regeneration in the towns of Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle? Substantial amounts will be needed to market those areas, so I would be glad of a positive response.
    Ms Keeble: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his best wishes. The tourism summit that I mentioned earlier considered the impact of foot and mouth on
    136
    tourism. I have visited his constituency and seen a number of farms in the various beauty spots in the area, which is well worth visiting and deserves support.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister will be aware that Fylde lies next door to Blackpool. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and I therefore understand the importance of tourism in regenerating the Fylde coast. However, one big problem that tourists face is reaching the Fylde coast by the often overcrowded M6, especially at the weekend. When will her Department give us some news about proposals that would ease congestion on that vital routeway to the north-west?
    Ms Keeble: That was ingenious cross-cutting from one section of the Department to another. I am sure that the issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in relation to roads will be taken on board by the Department and that he will receive a response very shortly.

    Railtrack
    Clive Efford: What steps he will take to increase public accountability of the management of Railtrack. [657]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): The statement of principles agreed on 2 April between the Government and Railtrack set out a new agenda for the company and a new working relationship with the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority. Railtrack is now implementing the reforms and restructuring of its organisation agreed as part of that deal. In addition, the rail regulator has strengthened the accountability of Railtrack by rectifying weaknesses in the initial regime.
    Clive Efford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he accept that the House's inability to hold Railtrack's management directly responsible, especially for the decisions that led up to the Hatfield catastrophe and others, created some of the disaffection that voters felt at the general election? Does he also agree that public opinion is ahead of the House? People out there believe that the people who stand at the Dispatch Box are ultimately responsible for Railtrack's decisions. If we are to increase the House's standing in public opinion, we must make sure that Members of Parliament can hold companies such as Railtrack directly accountable for spending public money on public services.
    Mr. Byers: The priority is a railway network that operates on time, is safe, clean and comfortable. That is currently not the case. Yes, as Secretary of State, I have a responsibility, but so do all parts of the industry, such as Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority, the regulator and the train operating companies. The time has come for them to stop passing the buck and to take responsibility for providing a world-class rail service. The Transport Act 2000 contains the requisite legal provisions and the 10-year plan provides for investment of more than £60 billion in rail. That should improve the railway network. The British public want that, and we need to deliver it.
    Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State claims that there is no need for any major structural change.

    137
    Does not he accept that Railtrack has failed miserably to operate in the public interest? Operating as a private monopoly creates a conflict between passenger safety and profits for shareholders and former chief executives. Will he reconsider his decision to make no major structural changes and examine proposals for bringing the parts of Railtrack that directly run the railways into a not-for-profit public interest company? Secondly, will he consider giving train operating companies the opportunity to manage the maintenance of the track on which they operate?
    Mr. Byers: We need a period of stability to enable all the parties in the railway network to concentrate on providing a safe and reliable system. That must be the priority.
    Let us consider some of the hon. Gentleman's points. The market capitalisation of Railtrack amounts to some £2 billion and debt liabilities account for some £4 billion. That totals £6 billion, which could be spent on investment. His proposals would require legislation. They would simply introduce paralysis into the system, when we want genuine improvements. However, in the autumn, we expect Lord Cullen's second report on the rail crash at Ladbroke Grove, outside Paddington. It will deal with structural issues to do with the railway network. Clearly, the Government will need to reflect on its recommendations.
    Mr. George Stevenson: That response is helpful, but is not it obvious that, since privatisation, Railtrack's priority has been its shareholders? That continues to be the case. Railtrack was kicked out of the second phase of the channel tunnel link, opted out of the east coast main line and refused to modernise the west coast main line unless the public purse paid for it. For the massive amounts of public money that have been poured into Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority should take a direct, majority interest in it to ensure genuine public accountability in future. That is long overdue.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend will know that, last Friday, I issued new guidance and directions for the Strategic Rail Authority. They will change its relationship with Railtrack. One of the objectives of the guidance is ensuring that Railtrack concentrates on its day job, which must be to provide a safe and reliable network. To achieve that, it needs to work closely with the train operating companies. I met the new chairman of Railtrack, John Robinson, last week, and I am pleased that he is going to meet all its customers—the train operating companies—to identify a more positive way forward.
    The House will agree that one of the great weaknesses in the railway network over the past few years has been the inability of the respective parties to work together. I hope that, in the light of the experience of the past couple of years, they will recognise that it is in everyone's interest—in theirs and that of the travelling public—to put their house in order and concentrate on providing a railway network that runs on time and is safe and comfortable to travel on.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Did I hear the new Secretary of State correctly a few seconds ago, when he said that he was worried that structural change might
    138
    introduce paralysis into the rail network? What exactly does he think that the network has been suffering from over the past few years? Instead of arguing that other people are buck passing and not accepting responsibility, why does not he accept responsibility? Why does not he accept that it is impossible satisfactorily to control a private monopoly by regulation? Why does not he accept that, instead of having endless meetings with senior executives of Railtrack, he should engage in the structural change that could make a difference? Does he rule out the substantial public subsidy that flows each year into the railway network being used in the public interest to build up a majority share and ensure public accountability?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of many examples in which regulation is effective as far as the private sector is concerned. That is the reality of the situation.
    Mr. Salmond: They are not monopolies.
    Mr. Byers: If we look at gas and electricity, we can see where regulation has been effective.
    In this particular case, we need to ensure that the structures that exist, and the levers that we have, are used effectively. That is what I am committed to doing. The hon. Gentleman feels that things have been bad over the past two years—and I accept that they have; they have been grim—but they would be so much worse if we started the whole process again. We must use the powers that now exist under the Transport Act 2000, which was introduced last year, coupled with the 10-year plan and the £60 billion investment that is now in place. We must ensure that that money is delivered quickly so that we can have the kind of rail service that the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want.
    Mr. David Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the traffic chaos being caused in Bolton by the closure of Railtrack bridges? The footbridge across the railway line at Bromley Cross is so unsafe that two children have been injured. Will he ensure that Railtrack fulfils its public responsibility on bridge safety?
    Mr. Byers: As my hon. Friend will know, Railtrack has established a new body to deal with rail safety, which is just being put in place now. I am sure that it will want to reflect on the specific point that he has just made.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box in his new role. After four wasted years on transport, the British public are hoping very much that he will improve on his predecessor's record. May I also welcome the refreshing tone that the right hon. Gentleman adopted in his comments about the railway and Railtrack, and his acknowledgment that the industry needs a period of stability and an end to the blame game that was practised by his predecessor?
    I endorse entirely the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the structure of the railway, when he said that it would be imprudent to implement any changes to regulation, particularly of safety, before we have seen part 2 of Cullen. If he carries on in this vein, may I assure him that, if he delivers, he will have our support against his

    139
    Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party, all of whom want to take him back to the bad old days of nationalisation?
    Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. If he continues in the same vein, he is going to cause me enormous difficulties in the months ahead.
    Mr. Jenkin: I welcome specifically the right hon. Gentleman's statement ruling out renationalisation. May I question him about the constant threat of strikes? Does he support the right of trade unions to disrupt passenger services, when they are doing so simply to pursue the political agenda that they call "Take back the track"? Will he consider introducing legislation similar to that of other European countries that prevents strikes in essential public services such as the railways? He would have our support on that.
    Mr. Byers: I am pleased to say that I am able to disagree, which will be of enormous benefit to me. As I know from my previous role as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with responsibility for employment relations, the crucial point is that the structure does not allow any group of workers to strike for political reasons. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in that we would not support such action as it would be unlawful. However, we recognise that people involved in an industrial dispute should be able to strike.

    Cullen Inquiry
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry. [658]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Health and Safety Commission published part 1 of Lord Cullen's report into the Ladbroke Grove train crash on 19 June. I have asked the commission to ensure that the 89 recommendations are acted on, and to report back to me within six months. The chair of the HSC has asked the industry to tell him within a month how it intends to take forward the recommendations.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents who were bereaved or injured in the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes want the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry to be implemented. Will he give all hon. Members access to reports at the six monthly intervals outlined in the Cullen report, so that we can give our constituents the assurances that they are asking for: that safety is a priority, that safety issues are being actioned, and that safety on the railways will always remain a priority?
    Mr. Spellar: Understandably, my hon. Friend has been assiduous in pursuing issues arising from those two horrific incidents. We firmly believe that improvements in safety and the implementation of the various recommendations must be done, and must be seen to be done. I am pleased to provide the very necessary reassurance to commuters from her constituency and from across the country.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in supporting the call of the Select
    140
    Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to hold an independent investigation of every rail accident, as happens for civil aviation disasters?
    Mr. Spellar: In all honesty, I must tell the hon. Lady that we would have to define the nature of incidents. Such practice in the nuclear industry fell into disrepute when even minor incidents that had no relevance to nuclear safety were subjected to greater investigation and action than was required. I am in no way underestimating the need for safety, but there must be proportionality. As she knows, there have been public inquiries into major accidents on the railway system. Safety monitoring is on-going, not least by the Health and Safety Executive, which is doing a good job and is monitoring the outcome of the Cullen inquiry. We await part 2 of the Cullen inquiry, and the implementation of its recommendations.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will consider the Cullen recommendations to the Association of Train Operating Companies and the Railway Safety group where there may be room for Government action? I am thinking specifically of driver training, which was at the heart of the problem in that incident. The Cullen report shows how poor the standard of training was in Thames Trains. Cullen hinted at the need for a national curriculum and national standards for driver training. Will my hon. Friend try to lead the industry towards taking such action to make our trains safer?
    Mr. Spellar: I await an early report from the Health and Safety Commission. I take my hon. Friend's point, which applies not just to the railways, but to other transport systems. There is a need for rationalisation, for improvement in the training of drivers and other operatives and for the maintenance of standards. We are very keen on that. It is important for the industry and for public reassurance, and it is also important in view of our overwhelming desire, across Government, for the re-skilling of the country and the maintenance of high skills and technical standards.

    Local Government Elections
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will introduce a system of proportional representation in local government elections. [659]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have consistently made it clear that we have no proposals to change the voting system for local government, other than the introduction of the supplementary vote system for the election of directly elected mayors which is provided for in the Local Government Act 2000.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is that not a complacent answer, given the current levels of participation in elections to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom? If the Minister does not propose to consider the possibility of reinvigorating local democracy by introducing proportional representation, what other proposals has he? Now that executive structures are being created in authorities all over the UK under the new cabinet system,

    141
    is there not a powerful case for using PR to ensure that a broader spectrum of back benchers is elected to scrutinise them?
    Mr. Raynsford: Mr. Mayor—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: It is normally "Provost" where I come from.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    We are not complacent. We have an ambitious agenda for the modernisation of local government, but we believe that such modernisation involves far more fundamental processes than simply changing the way in which people vote.
    In anticipation of the hon. Gentleman's question, I asked my officials to look into the matter. They assured me that they were unable to identify any reliable data suggesting that the introduction of PR has had any effect on turnout.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will go on resisting the continual cooing and wooing of the Liberal Democrats—and that of some of my hon. Friends—in regard to proportional representation. Does he agree that PR leads only to deals being done by politicians—perhaps, nowadays, in smoke-free rooms—and the presentation of policies that no one voted for?
    Mr. Raynsford: I must initially disappoint my hon. Friend by reminding him that, when the Greater London Authority was introduced, I was responsible for the system of proportional representation for its assembly. He will appreciate, however, that the Government believe in solutions that are appropriate to different circumstances.
    142
    We do not believe that one size fits all, and I have made it clear that we have no proposals to introduce PR to local government.

    House Improvements (Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What additional resources he is making available to housing authorities in east Lancashire to help them tackle decaying private sector housing. [660]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): We recognise the very significant problems with private-sector housing in east Lancashire, and £9.7 million has been allocated to the six east Lancashire local authorities this year to improve housing through the housing investment programme. Nationally, housing capital resources will rise to some £2.6 billion in 2003–04, and east Lancashire should benefit from that increase.
    Mr. Prentice: That £9.7 million sounds like a lot of money, but it is not enough. In my constituency, 6 per cent. of houses are empty; across east Lancashire, one in five are unfit. The task is huge and daunting, involving not just Pendle but Burnley, Hyndburn and Blackburn.
    Housing is the major policy issue that has not been adequately addressed by this Labour Government. I call on my hon. Friend, her colleagues in the Cabinet and the Prime Minister to recognise that east Lancashire's housing is uniquely appalling, and to ensure that we are given special help to remedy some of the problems that are staring us in the face.
    Ms Keeble: The problems in my hon. Friend's part of the country are well recognised, in particular, those of empty homes and abandoned properties. The Government are considering some of those issues and will produce policy proposals to deal with them.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Finance) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.30 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is just the thing for a warm and soporific July afternoon. The Berlin European Council in March 1999 was an important step forward for the European Community and the United Kingdom. It initiated several important reforms to help to prepare the European Union for enlargement. It was also a negotiating success for the UK, securing no increase in the own resources ceiling, bringing EU spending under control and protecting the UK abatement. By making a shift away from the traditional own resources basis towards the gross national product basis the Council made contributions fairer and less vulnerable to fraud.
  The Bill will carry into effect the financing decisions of that Council. I commend it to the House and I hope that Conservative Members as well as Labour Members will support it. It will be something of a test of Conservative Members' readiness to listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and to engage sensibly with the serious realities of Europe. We will all be interested to see how they get on—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is giving us a taste of how they will get on. High though my regard is for him, I am disappointed that, yet again, I am denied the opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friends might well ask that. Every time that I challenge him to a debate he seems to be gagged and to have disappeared.
  Mr. John Redwood rose—
  Mr. Smith: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman on gagging the hon. Member for West Dorset.
  Mr. Redwood: I did not guarantee to talk about that issue. I want to talk about the issue at the heart of this debate. Will the Government tell us which European taxes they favour under clause 16 of the document from the Commission that we are discussing today? They signed up to the introduction of European taxes by 2006 and the House has a right to know what sort of taxes they want.
  Mr. Smith: As we have made clear, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, any change to the tax regime in Europe is a matter for unanimity. We have made the UK position clear: we do not accept the need to introduce new taxes. Moreover, we strongly support imposing and maintaining firm financial discipline on the expenditure of the Community, as does the Bill.
  In carrying into effect the financing decisions of the Berlin summit, the Bill is an important stage in the reform of EU finances. At Berlin, we met our key objectives of
  144
  bringing EU spending under better control, retaining the own resources ceiling at its previous level and safeguarding the UK abatement.
  To set those achievements in context, the earlier agreements on EU spending in 1988 and 1994 allowed for real increases of 17 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively over the five years of those deals. By contrast, the Berlin agreement will stabilise EU spending. For the first time, spending in the EU 15 is projected to be lower in real terms at the end of the seven-year planning period than it was at the beginning.
  The Berlin deal also maintained the UK's abatement in full and maintained the overall ceiling for Community own resources at a constant 1.27 per cent. of EU national income, thereby contributing to strict budget discipline and better control of EU spending.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Are things going to get better? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they are celebrating in four countries in Europe—Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands—because they have been assured that they will pay less. If they are to pay less, does not that mean that others will pay more?
  Mr. Smith: Proportionately and relatively, countries not on the hon. Gentleman's list—except the UK whose abatement is safeguarded—will contribute more to the UK abatement. As I was saying, it is an achievement of the Berlin agreement and a UK negotiating success that we fully protected the abatement. At the end of the planning period, expenditure in the EU 15—although there are costs of enlargement that I shall come to later—which was about 89.5 billion euros in 2000, will be 89.3 billion euros in 2006. Anyone with knowledge of the history of the growth of EU spending will know that to bring it under that degree of control is a considerable achievement.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not terribly clever so I do not quite understand how we can, at one and the same time, cap expenditure and expand the Community yet be allowed to retain a complete abatement. Is the Chief Secretary seriously telling us that, under other provisions in the measure, there will not be a way of taking in much more taxation for the use of Community institutions, but under a different heading?
  Mr. Smith: The ceiling of 1.27 per cent. to which I referred relates to gross national product. Of course, it is true that, as the EU's GNP grows, so too does the allowable expenditure. The financial perspective—the framework on spending—does indeed show lower real-terms expenditure planned in the EU 15 in 2006 than in 2000. In contrast to the history of the past growth of EU spending, that is an achievement and is to be praised.
  Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is far too wily a bird to be taken in by the right hon. Gentleman—the sooner he recognises that pertinent fact, the better. Will he return to the point that he was making a moment ago? He claimed fully to have protected the British rebate but then went on, in a stealthy, subordinate clause, to acknowledge that there are implications of EU enlargement. Why does he not spell out factually now,

  145
  in plain and simple terms, what we will soon realise to be the case—that this country will have to forgo, as part of the enlargement process, windfall gains that we would otherwise have secured?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is indeed too wily either to be taken in by, or to make too much common cause with, the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that we have protected the abatement. Moreover, we will benefit from abatement on any new expenditure incurred as a consequence of both enlargement and the ceilings in the existing EU 15.
  The hon. Gentleman refers to windfall gains. A precedent was given by Sir Geoffrey Howe who, I think, described a previous agreement as not a euro more, not a euro less. That precedent, which is fair, is that there should be neither a windfall gain nor a windfall loss as a consequence of these adjustments.
  The abatement is protected in full. The precedent, in both 1992 and 1998, was that it would be unfair for us to benefit twice: to benefit from the substance of the changes that we had argued for and welcomed, and to benefit accidentally as a result of the way in which the abatement was applied. There would have been a double gain if those windfall gains had not been adjusted in the way that I have described, which was consistent with what was done in 1992 and 1998.
  The important thing is that we said that we would protect the abatement, and we have protected the abatement. Moreover, the United Kingdom will benefit very considerably from the application of the abatement to any new expenditure on enlargement. Expenditure that was incurred before accession does not fall within the abatement, just as it does not fall within the basis of the calculation of the expenditure that I referred to previously.
  Therefore, the abatement has not been an issue as far as pre-accession expenditure is concerned, and the abatement will not apply to such expenditure as it continues in future, but it will apply to all new expenditure. That was a considerable negotiating gain. Many of our partners in Europe would have said that the United Kingdom should have surrendered the abatement. We certainly did not and would not, because we want United Kingdom contributions to the EC budget to continue on a basis that is fair, and is combined with the stricter discipline on overall EU expenditure—very much stronger discipline than Conservative Members voted for when they voted through the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Chief Secretary gave a very full answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but will he tell the House what contingency has been made for the situation that will arise if the economic growth to which he referred does not occur, and there is a reduction in growth in the European Union?
  Mr. Smith: If the GNP of the European Union were to come down, the ceiling on expenditure would come down with it. It is right for that discipline—ensuring that spending bears a relationship to what is affordable on the basis of the production and wealth of the EU—to be imposed.
  I draw a very strong contrast with what happened previously. When the last two EC finance Bills were passed, under a Conservative Administration, the ceiling
  146
  went up. We kept the ceiling in place at 1.27 per cent. Before Berlin, many Conservative Members claimed that we would be unable to safeguard the abatement or maintain financial discipline, but we did. It is reflected in the Bill, so Conservative Members should support it.
  The UK contribution will not increase as a result of the new own resources decision, and we shall gain a fair benefit from the application of the abatement to new costs of enlargement. The UK's abatement also means that other changes agreed at Berlin have a neutral financial impact on the UK. Overall, the new own resources decision is a very good deal for the UK, leading to no increases in our contribution and keeping the abatement.
  Other elements of the Berlin conclusions also benefit this country. The tight controls on common agricultural policy spending that we negotiated will mean a fall in the price of cereals, beef and milk, bringing benefits of £1 billion a year in Britain—about £70 a year for a family of four. Indeed, the summit represented the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since its inception; spending on the CAP will decline in real terms from 2002 onwards.
  Berlin also introduced the so-called second pillar of the CAP. The increased focus on rural development is a significant and welcome advance. It moves the CAP from production-based subsidies and towards incentives that are more sensitive to the environment, tackling some of the anomalies and perverse incentives of the current system.
  Another welcome feature of the changes to EC financing emanating from Berlin was the reform of EU structural and cohesion funds. That streamlined the categorisation of funds, while maintaining a level of funding for UK regions amounting to £10 billion over the years 2000 to 2006. The funds are addressing structural difficulties in qualifying regions, assisting economic development and promoting skills.
  The financial reforms to which the Bill commits us pave the way for the enlargement of the EU, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described in Warsaw as perhaps the EU's greatest challenge, but also its greatest opportunity. As I believe is widely acknowledged in the House, enlargement will bring great economic benefits to central and eastern Europe, providing an opportunity for growth, development and prosperity. EU membership will help to raise standards of living and spread education and employment opportunities. It is important to stress that it will benefit existing EU countries as well. Expanding the single market will increase trade, stimulate competition, cut input costs, improve access to larger labour markets and encourage productive investment.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Perhaps those of us who have always thought that enlargement was a big mistake should vote against the Bill, as it may be our only opportunity to express that point of view. Beyond that, given the excellent wisdom and judgment of the Irish people, expressed recently in a referendum, about what the Chief Secretary is now claiming for enlargement—they were not conned for a moment—will he now give us a referendum on Nice before we make the final commitment?
  Mr. Smith: No, and I have no intention of joining the right hon. Gentleman in ascribing motive or advice to

  147
  Ireland; it is a matter for the Irish people to sort out. I said that I thought, genuinely, that there was a measure of understanding on both sides of the House that enlargement was a good thing.
  Mr. Forth: Nonsense.
  Mr. Smith: That speaks volumes about the attitude of the Conservative party to this major historic opportunity to entrench greater stability, prosperity, freedom and respect for democratic rights in central and eastern Europe, of which every hon. Member should be proud.
  Mr. David Drew: On connecting the agricultural changes to enlargement, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the changes to the CAP are in place as soon as possible? Otherwise, any talk of expansion will be completely out of the question. That is particularly true of the dairy regime, where the introduction of Poland would completely wreck any CAP funding, unless that funding was completely changed beforehand.
  Mr. Smith: The Berlin conclusions represented a significant step forward in terms of the momentum behind reform of the CAP, and the fall in total expenditure between 2002 and 2006 is an achievement. No one underestimates the force of the argument that my hon. Friend advances. Further reform of the CAP must accompany enlargement. That is one way in which we can secure welfare gains for the existing populations of the EU, as well as the economic benefits that I have described for the peoples of central and eastern Europe.
  The Berlin reforms are an important part of a continuing process of reform in Europe, which the UK is leading. At Lisbon, Europe's Governments signed up to economic reforms to enhance labour market flexibility and capital and product market modernisation, bringing more open markets and greater competition. At Stockholm, the EU pressed ahead with measures to meet the strategic goal of raising the EU' s productivity and employment performance beyond that of the best in the world by 2010.
  Those measures will complement the Government's domestic efforts to raise productivity and we will continue to advocate this reform agenda so that we see the completion of the single market in utilities, energy, telecoms and financial and professional services. We want a reformed Europe that is outward looking, rather than inward looking, that actively pursues multilateral trade liberalisation and closer transatlantic trading links through the launch of a new world trade round and that lives up to our responsibilities to relieve the debt of poor countries and tackle global poverty.
  We also support administrative reform in Europe to cut out waste, fraud and corruption. The Government fully support Neil Kinnock's reform programme to modernise the administration of the Commission, and it was, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the establishment of the new European anti-fraud office, with independent powers to seek out and tackle fraud against the EC budget.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I want to make progress; I have given way a lot.
  148
  On EC finances, CAP reform, enlargement and honest administration, the Government and the Bill are on the side of modernisation and progress, with constructive engagement for change. It is instructive to compare the Bill with the previous European Communities (Finance) Bill, which was introduced in the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe in 1994. Unlike this Bill, that measure increased the ceiling on EC spending, did nothing to cut fraud and waste or to reform the CAP. In introducing it, he argued:
  "That increase in the contribution is … the price that we pay for the undoubted benefits of membership of the European Union. We pay for a seat at the table to enable us to influence the political and commercial character of that market."—[Official Report, 28 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 932.]
  That Bill, which became the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 and which would be repealed under this Bill, increased the United Kingdom's contributions. He said that it would do so by "about £250 million." Who voted for that Bill? The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe certainly did so—he has been consistent in such matters.
  Mr. Bercow: I certainly did not.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman was not even here then.
  Who else appeared on that Division list? Yes, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is on that list. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is also there, as is the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and, yes, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the then Member for Enfield, Southgate. All today's Tory leadership contenders voted for those higher contributions. That shows that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe can get most of the rest of the Tory party in the Division Lobby behind him on Europe—even though they were losing the argument then, just as they are now.
  It was not just the charms of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that got the Tory party to vote for the 1995 Act, nor even the then Prime Minister's having made it a vote of confidence; their argument then was that the House had to support the British Government in honouring their international obligations and commitments. If that were true then, it is equally true now, and Opposition Members should support the Bill. However, the more important reason why they should support it is that ours is a better Bill, based on a better agreement.
  This Bill is tougher. It will stabilise contributions and it will keep the EC budget to the same ceiling. It will tackle fraud and waste. It will reform the CAP and it will enable enlargement to proceed. The Berlin conclusions represent an important step in the on-going process of reform in Europe; they show that by engaging with Europe Britain can win the arguments and secure change. The Bill, under which the Berlin agreement will be ratified, will involve stronger controls on EU spending, the beginnings of a more effective agriculture policy and no increase in the own resources ceiling. The agreement is a good deal for the United Kingdom and an important step for the EU, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I am not sure about the billing that the right hon. Gentleman gave me, but I welcome him on his return to the Dispatch Box on what I think is the first occasion that he has spoken from it since his reappointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I also intend to pay him a compliment by saying that, having now heard his arguments for several months, I know that he never betrays the merest hint of doubt or timidity in putting the Government's case; he stays resolutely on message however overwhelming the evidence to the contrary. I have listened carefully to his arguments that the agreement was a good deal for Britain, but the more he was cross-examined by my hon. Friends, the more tortuous, unconvincing and lengthy his arguments became.
  The Chief Secretary asked us for our view, so I shall make it clear. We do not share the Government's evident sense of self-satisfaction or the description of the budgetary decisions that are embodied in the Bill as a negotiating success. Much needs to be done to reform the European Union budget and these decisions do not even begin to reform it. The outcome is disappointing for United Kingdom interests.
  The House will be aware that there are long-standing, natural and legitimate United Kingdom concerns about the EU budget, about the unbalanced nature of the Community's expenditure policy, about the incidence of fraud and waste in the EU's spending policies and about the net cost to the United Kingdom of the EU's revenue and expenditure policy. We believe that, in the decisions that are embodied in the Bill, the Government have missed an opportunity to do something about those concerns. The cost of that missed opportunity will be borne by taxpayers and households in the United Kingdom.
  I was interested to hear the Chief Secretary's history lesson. He took us back to the legislation of the 1980s and 1990s, and he went as far back as the time when Geoffrey Howe was responsible for such issues. Hon. Members will have noticed what a big point the Chief Secretary made about the abatement mechanism and how he claimed that it was an achievement of this Government to have continued it. However, I gently remind him of who exactly negotiated the rebate in the first place. It was negotiated by a Conservative Prime Minister in the face not only of the natural hostility of other European member states that were representing their interests but of the predictions from Labour Members that the then Prime Minister would go to the negotiations in Fontainebleau and return with not a penny piece. Amid all that hostility, it was a Conservative success and a real achievement to have negotiated the rebate mechanism that has saved much more than £20 billion for this country. Indeed, it will save us £2 billion this year.
  The United Kingdom, however, remains a net contributor to the European Union and, in the last calendar year, made a net contribution of just over £4 billion. As the Chief Secretary said, the own resources decisions provide for the continuation of that abatement mechanism, but although he tries to trumpet that as a success, it would appear on closer examination that, while the position of the United Kingdom remains the same, that of other member countries has been improved by the decision.
  150
  Given the requirements of European treaty making and decision making, it would have been difficult for the Government to fail to bring back the abatement mechanism, because they have a veto. Although they had a veto to protect their position on that, they did not succeed in taking the United Kingdom's position any further forward by returning any more resources to this country from the net contribution that we make to European Union funds.
  Joyce Quin rose—
  Dr. Nick Palmer rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady first, because she was a Minister with responsibility for Europe.
  Joyce Quin: Given that, before the meeting in Berlin, Conservative Members predicted that the abatement was in danger, that we were in danger of breaching the own resources ceiling and that we would get a poor settlement on structural funds, will the hon. Gentleman now admit that they were wrong on all three points?
  Mr. Clappison: Our view was based on a completely honest, accurate and objective evaluation of the negotiating skills of those who were representing us at the European summit. They came home with nothing.
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman stresses in critical tones that we are net contributors to the EU. Were we to have a Conservative Government, would it be their policy to refuse to be a net contributor in the future?
  Mr. Clappison: I think that the hon. Gentleman would make common cause with me in agreeing that we should try to bring down the net contribution by as much as possible, but the Government have failed to do that. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) shakes her head, but she will know the facts because she has been an Agriculture Minister as well. The Government have failed comprehensively in their attempts to bring down agricultural spending when their record is compared with that of Conservative Governments throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to the way in which other countries have benefited from the negotiations while we, at best, have stood still. Although the language in the explanatory notes is as torturous as the Minister's argument, the Government cannot avoid admitting that
  "the financing arrangements of the correction are changed to reduce the amount borne by Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands."
  We are also net contributors to the European budget, but our contribution has not been reduced.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend clarify a detail of the negotiation? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister yielded part of the abatement that we should have received as a windfall from enlargement, and is that not worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year?
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. He raises the important question, which I have pondered, of when is a

  151
  windfall a windfall, and when does it contribute something to someone else? A windfall is an interesting term to use.
  Before I deal with that, however, I want to emphasise the fact that although other member states in a budgetary position similar to the United Kingdom's benefited from the negotiations, little progress was made on reducing our net contribution to the EU budget. After the negotiations and the legislation, with which the Government are so pleased, the UK will continue to pay to receive the benefits of EU membership, to which the Minister referred, while other members obtain those benefits and receive a payment or make a smaller payment than we do. I listened carefully to what he said about the future of the net contribution. Implicit in his comments was the idea that the UK will remain a net contributor. He did not say whether that diminished or grew as a result of the negotiations.
  On the windfall, the explanatory notes say:
  "provision is made for the United Kingdom to forgo the 'windfall' gains it would have received from the"
  switch from VAT-based contributions to gross national product-based contributions and from the decision to allow members to retain a higher proportion of customs duties. It will be interesting to know why a change that the UK might obtain is characterised as a windfall and is thus a benefit that must be removed. Given that we have been such a large net contributor to the EU budget—the second largest after Germany—a windfall is exactly what many people see other member states getting as a result of our membership. Householders and taxpayers of this country will think that our Government should fight to preserve or obtain what is described as a windfall if it means making a cheaper contribution and lower taxes for our citizens. No doubt there will be an interesting technical explanation for that, and perhaps the Liberal Democrats will be able to give it.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that, but does he agree that the normal dictionary definition of a windfall gain is a one-off gain? Does he, like me, suspect that some of the windfall gains that are referred to in the explanatory note might be on-going gains?
  Mr. Clappison: I am surprised. That is a rare example of the phenomenon of a Liberal Democrat criticising the Government. The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point. The windfall to which he refers will recur year after year, and I am grateful to him for drawing attention to that.
  No doubt there will also be an interesting technical explanation for the claim in the Labour party manifesto that
  "our contributions are falling to similar levels as France and Italy."
  That may be true of gross contributions, but it is certainly not the complete picture for net contributions, which are what matter.
  The Economic Secretary pulls a face, so let me tell her what the Court of Auditors annual report for 1999 said about the net contributions. She might care to tell us later how that fits in with the Labour party's claims that our contributions are falling to levels similar to those of
  152
  France and Italy. The report gives the net contributions as follows: France, £766 million; Italy, £1,153 million; the United Kingdom, £3,482 million. I should be interested to know how those could possibly be described as similar levels.
  I turn now to EU expenditure on agriculture, which the Chief Secretary was brave enough to describe as the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy. He was prepared to go a little further than the Prime Minister, who in his statement following the Berlin European Council said that the Council had brought
  "the common agricultural policy under tighter control than before. Agriculture spending by 2006 is planned to be less than 2 per cent. in real terms above its level next year, and falling."—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328. c. 732.]
  In fact, agriculture spending, as a proportion of the total EU budget, is undiminished by the decisions made at Berlin, and I understand that the proportion will rise from 44 per cent. in 2000 to 46 per cent. in 2006. The old problem of the EU budget being unbalanced by huge spending on the CAP remains; the Government have made no progress on that, compared with the substantial progress made throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Government and the Prime Minister have simply failed to deliver.
  Mr. Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is being characteristically generous to the Chief Secretary and the Government by concentrating more on the United Kingdom's net contribution. The Bill will raise taxes on British people to make gross spending commitments far in excess of the net contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the spending commitments made by the European Commission in Britain are for projects or purposes that we would never support; and that, under the rules, many of the projects are in any case too marginal to be funded directly out of British taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Not only is there a net contribution, but some of the EU money that comes back to this country is not used for purposes that our Government and our people would regard as a priority.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Does this money form part of the £20 billion cuts? Will the hon. Gentleman start listing where they would fall?
  Mr. Clappison: We always know when we are hitting a nerve because the right hon. Gentleman has to come up with a completely different subject and a bogus statistic. I have genuine statistics from the Court of Auditors, on which he relies. I have drawn attention to this country's large net contribution and to the Government's statement that it is falling to a level similar to that of other countries. Of course, the Government want to try to cover up the fact that they have failed to get good value for the British taxpayer.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a master of understatement, and that is part of his natural charm. Will he confirm that although agriculture expenditure, as a proportion of the total EU budget, will rise by approximately 2 per cent., as he said a few moments ago, it will rise by about 7.5 per cent. in 2001, relative to 2000?
  Mr. Clappison: As well as being understated, I am honest, and I have to say that I do not have that statistic

  153
  at my fingertips, but knowing my hon. Friend's great interest in statistics, I would be surprised if he were not correct. Another point that might find favour with my hon. Friend—one with which more dedicated connoisseurs of European statistics than me might already be familiar—is that the financial perspective predicted by the EU often turns out to be an underestimate: spending is often far greater than originally predicted.
  There are strong grounds to suspect that EU spending on agriculture does not always meet the highest standards of financial regularity. My hon. Friend might think that that, too, is an understatement, but after the Chief Secretary's opening statement, I am trying to be as objective as possible. I think that the view that I have expressed is common ground among many. The Chief Secretary should be aware of the Court of Auditors' statement on the 1999 budget and the court's identification of unauthorised payments totalling more than 1 billion euros made to farmers under the EU agriculture programme.
  We are strongly interested in fraud and irregularity. We note the Chief Secretary's comment about the establishment of the anti-fraud office under Commissioner Kinnock. We wish it well, but hope that the predictions that emerge from that office will turn out to be more reliable than some of those made by the Commissioner in the past. We take fraud and irregularity seriously.
  On a related subject, we note that spending on administration—a matter with which the Chief Secretary did not deal—is to rise every year between now and 2006 and is to consume an increasing proportion of the EU budget. Spending on administration already amounts to 5 per cent. of the budget; it is set to rise to 6 per cent. in 2006. In fact, it appears to be one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest growing, items of expenditure in the EU budget between now and 2006. I should have thought that he would have more to say about that, given that it, too, is a cost to the British taxpayer.
  The Bill and the negotiations that underlie it represent a missed opportunity for the United Kingdom. Whatever spin they try to put on it, the Government have failed to deliver better value for money for the UK taxpayer. They argue that their approach to the EU has at least preserved the UK rebate—one that was negotiated by a Conservative Government. It is hard to envisage a Government as ineffective in negotiations as the current Government managing to secure such a rebate in the first place.
  The Government have made scant progress in addressing the problems of EU finance. It is hard to avoid concluding that, once again, they have missed the opportunity to address UK concerns and bring home better value for the UK taxpayer. The negotiations will benefit taxpayers in other countries, but not in this country. Whatever spin the Government put on it, they have missed an important opportunity.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The Bill makes possible the expansion of the European Union. Great difficulties in arriving at a suitable financial arrangement were expected, but they were overcome magnificently by the Berlin European Council of March 1999, which lies behind the Bill. What a pity the EU does not manage to trumpet its triumphs more loudly. Instead, a major achievement went almost unnoticed as just another EU meeting.
  154
  We would do well to remember the significance of making EU enlargement possible. It will entrench democracy and the principles of a modern economy in countries whose attachment to both has been fitful throughout the 20th century.
  Mr. Redwood: I quite agree that we should entrench democracy, but is not one of the main provisions the idea that, if there is a referendum in which people vote no, the answer is no, it means no, and the treaty falls?
  Mr. Beard: I gather that that is a reference to Ireland. We accept the sovereignty of individual member states: the matter is one for Ireland to sort out, not for this Parliament.
  As I said, the Bill will entrench democracy and the principles of a modern economy in countries whose attachment to both concepts was fitful throughout the 20th century. In doing so, it will underpin political and economic stability on the borders of western Europe; such stability has not been known for several hundred years, if ever. Not only does it provide for western European security, it enhances the life chances and the standard of living of people in those countries in ways that could only have been dreamt of before.
  Some people fear that enlargement will mean unwanted migration across Europe from the poorer to the more affluent countries, with tensions arising as a result. The best insurance against that is not police controls, but giving the people of the poorer countries of central and eastern Europe the hope of a better life in the culture and countryside that they know best. That now becomes possible as a result of the financing arrangements in the Bill.
  The advantages are not all one way. British firms will benefit from increased trade and investment, supplying goods and services to 500 million customers in the largest single market in the world, and the advantages that that will bring to British businesses will strengthen their competitiveness worldwide.
  The average intelligent inquirer would never guess that such prospects lie behind the Bill, with its obscure cross-references; nor do its explanatory notes expand understanding significantly. I urge the Government to explore ways in which we can deal with European policy more transparently and less obscurely. It is darkness that fertilises such an abundant crop of myths about Europe, the greatest of which is regularly propounded with froth and fantasy by the Opposition and concerns the evolution of the European Union into a European superstate that usurps the power of member nations. It is a demon, created to frighten the gullible, the innocent and those who do not observe facts too carefully.
  The European budgets that the Bill makes possible over the next five years range from a total of 1 per cent. to 1.2 per cent. of the EU' s gross national product—hardly a dominant aspect of European spending. The total European Union budget for 2001 will be £65.5 billion, compared with £400 billion for the United Kingdom Government's budget alone. The sum spent by the UK Government on welfare benefits in one year is 50 per cent. more than the total EU budget. To put it another way, for

  155
  every £1 spent by the Government of a member state in one year, the EU spends 2½p. It is on that flimsy foundation that Opposition Members have built the absurd spectre of a federal European superstate. Moreover, the chief question in selecting their leader in the coming weeks will be: who can best slay that dragon? Someone should turn the lights right up to show that the beast that the Opposition are stalking with such assiduity is, in fact, the shadow of a pussycat on the wall.
  Another myth that prevails among Opposition Members is that the Germans, French and Italians are always bossing us around and telling us to do things that are not in our interest. However, we have the same voting strength as the Germans and the French. The Germans pay 28 per cent. of the EU budget; the French, 17 per cent; and the Italians, 12 per cent, compared with the UK's 13 per cent. I wonder how we were bullied into letting the Germans and the French pay so much more than we do.
  The fatuous suspicion of everything emanating from the EU became self-fulfilling for the previous Conservative Government, which went to every negotiation seeking to domineer and ended up provoking the hostility of the majority. They isolated themselves, then sought to blame their isolation on scheming foreigners who were up to no good. Needless to say, they did not win friends or influence people.
  The Berlin Council negotiations, which are the foundation of the Bill, were a triumph for a wholly different approach by the Labour Government. Berlin was a triumph for the co-operative approach that seeks allies and presents a reasoned case, rather than table thumping to emphasise uncompromising demands.
  European Union spending, as has been said, is brought under control by being capped at 1.27 per cent. of total Union gross domestic product. Previous such budgets provided far greater increases. Moreover, there had been an expectation, promoted by the Opposition, that the rebate would have to be reduced to get agreement on expansion, but we have come away with the UK abatement maintained in full.
  Spending on the common agricultural policy was considered a tricky problem, given that nations entering the EU—Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic—are overwhelmingly agricultural, but as we have heard, common agricultural spending is budgeted to decline to less in 2006 than in 2001—a gain of about £70 a year for the average family in the UK. Although agricultural spending will be 45.5 per cent. of the total budget, that is well down from the dominance that agriculture once had in the EU' s affairs.
  That reduction has contributed to the decline in the overall budget for the next five years, ranging from 1.2 per cent. of gross national product in the Union in 2001 to 1 per cent. or just under in 2006—well within the cap of 1.27 per cent. of GDP that has been set. There can be no better demonstration that spending has indeed been brought under control.
  The fruits of successful negotiations are not seen solely in the big picture. The European Union has set aside £600 million a year to deal with foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease. Much of that will come to Britain in the next few years—from an organisation which, Tory Ministers used to say, stole their sweeties every time they negotiated with them.
  156
  One of the inflexible aspects of the European Union was the way in which its revenue was raised from member states. Some came from the customs duties of individual states; some came from a levy related to a country's VAT receipts. Where those sources of funds did not meet the budget, money was provided in proportion to the country's gross national product. The customs duties and VAT resources often introduced anomalies in the amounts paid by each country and were a source of fraud. This negotiation has revised the arrangements so that there is far less dependence on VAT, and revenue contributions depend much more on GNP. The arrangements are therefore fairer and less likely to lead to anomalies.
  Mr. Bercow: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech, but it is clear that he is a member of the Dr. Pangloss school of optimism. Can he tell the House what assessment he has made of the prognosis of the MacDougall report for the level of fiscal disbursements as a proportion of gross domestic product, in the event that we join the eurozone, as he wishes?
  Mr. Beard: I have made no further examination of Mr. MacDougall's report, which is many years old and irrelevant to the present circumstances, as is any concept of our being in the euro for this budget.
  The Berlin Council negotiations, which we are ratifying today, are a clear demonstration that constructive engagement pays off. Britain's negotiating objectives were achieved, and we confirmed and won friends among our allies. Contrast that with the Conservative Opposition, who have just fought a general election with demands fundamentally to renegotiate our position in Europe, knowing that, with no other European nation supporting them, the end would be humiliation or the need to pull out of the EU altogether.
  Despite total rejection of that policy at the general election, four out of five of the candidates for the Opposition leadership election would continue it. They must acknowledge that half the United Kingdom's total trade of £132 billion is with the European Union, and 17 per cent. with the United States. If we were to pull out of the European Union and join the North American Free Trade Agreement, as some Tory leadership contenders would prefer to do, there would be an immense upheaval for the whole of economic life in this country for many years—and for what? Furthermore, most inward investment into the United Kingdom would evaporate if we ceased to be a member of the European Union, with repercussions for our balance of payments and our national economic management in general. We cannot play games with those vital interests or secure them in isolation from our natural allies.
  I believe that the budget that we are ratifying demonstrates three major points. First, the cost of our membership of the European Union is trivial by comparison with the interests that it safeguards and secures. Secondly, the institutions of the European Union have proved that they can adapt to changing circumstances. Thirdly, this Government's approach to the EU, which is based on a spirit of co-operation with allies, secured more for British interests in four years than was gained throughout 18 years of Tory hectoring, denunciation and isolation.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) made an interesting speech, but rather oversold the Bill by suggesting that it was of such great historical importance. I am afraid that he might have been thinking of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which will be considered tomorrow. That Bill has a place in history, but I do not think that the Bill before us can be given the same billing. It is a modest measure that arises from the modest decisions taken at the Berlin summit. Indeed, its modesty explains why it is disappointing, as the agreement reached at Berlin was a missed opportunity for the European Union.
  Mr. Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there had been no agreement on financing the European Union after expansion, no expansion would have occurred?
  Mr. Davey: To that extent, the hon. Gentleman is correct, but the idea that the budget would suddenly disappear was not on the cards at Berlin and is something of an Aunt Sally.
  The modesty of the Bill was revealed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who told us that the triumph in the negotiations was what was defended and did not happen. He told us that Britain did not lose its abatement and that the ceiling on spending was not raised, but he did not try to sell the Bill to the House in respect of any positive way forward for the European Union and. Britain.
  Some of the missed opportunities relate to lack of reform and to the whole budget process. We need to be more ambitious in this House and in the European Union in looking for wider budgetary and common agricultural policy reform. One of the objectives of debates such as this, not only in the House but at European Union level and in the summits, should be to take the money out of the EU altogether. Tory Members should not become excited; I am not suggesting that there should be no budget at the European level and would not agree with such a suggestion. We must, however, focus the debate about money in the EU on policy and activity, not on pork-barrel politics. Much of the debate is currently about which country gains what, but we must move discussion away from that perspective and consider the purpose of the EU and the benefits of spending on particular EU policies and activities.
  Mr. Redwood: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that this is a modest Bill? It is staggeringly expensive: there will be a cost of about £60 million a year for every word in it, and it is a huge sting on British taxpayers. We are shown how Liberals care about other people's money when we see that they do not understand how much is involved or how much will be wasted or lost through fraud.
  Mr. Davey: I am disappointed by that intervention. As the Chief Secretary made clear, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) voted for such Bills, which provided for taking similar amounts of money from the British taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.
  I want to develop the point about taking money out of the political debate on the European Union. As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, the amounts
  158
  of money are small, and if we could remove their consideration from the debate we could focus on the EU's genuine benefits. They include the single market, benefits to internal and external security, environmental protection, and the EU's greater international standing and ability to negotiate trade agreements. British taxpayers, companies and citizens gain most from such benefits. The money debate is irrelevant in many ways. We do down the European project by always allowing the debate to revert to relatively small amounts of money—I stress the word "relatively" before the right hon. Member for Wokingham leaps to his feet.
  The Berlin decision and the process that underlies the Bill are regrettable. When we debate local government grant settlements, we appreciate how complicated the formulae for sharing the money between United Kingdom local authorities have become. They are even more byzantine than EU formulae. However, as we try to reform those processes for local government and national Government spending, we should share some of the lessons on budgetary reform with other EU countries, many of which are taking similar action. We are not learning the lessons of local and national budgetary reform collectively at European level.
  Why do we not consider budget making that focuses on outcomes and outputs? The Chief Secretary has been proud of his public service agreements. They suffer from a few problems, but they represent a move in the right direction. The EU needs to focus similarly. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that some improvements have been made, primarily through the initiatives of British Commissioners. The draft budget for 2001 was the first at European level to be divided into policy areas. That is an amazing change, which should have happened many years ago. It is the sort of change that we need to be able to analyse European spending sensibly and move away from pork-barrel politics, which the Conservatives go on about but which miss the point.
  The previous Conservative Government should take credit for some interesting developments in ensuring that European spending has a legal basis. I should have liked the Berlin agreement and the Bill to move further on that. The previous Conservative Government took a case to the European Court. They contended that some spending by the European Commission had no legal basis. The Labour Government continued with the case and the spending was successfully challenged. That was a UK triumph. Ensuring for the first time that EU spending lines have a legal basis has meant improvements in European budget making. However, much remains to be done, and the Bill is therefore disappointing.
  I should like to set out other aspects of budget reform that the Government should consider. If possible, they should use the Bill or any future European meetings to press them. I pay tribute to Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for East Midlands. He wrote an interesting article entitled "Spring Cleaning the EU. Doing Less to Do More". I owe some of the ideas on budgetary reform that I am about to set out to Nick Clegg's experience at the European Commission and Parliament. For example, he argues that far too many lines in the EU budgets deal with very small amounts of money. In other words, small pots of money are put forward in a very grand way and attached to grand-sounding policy initiatives, but they mean very little and amount to no more than a row of beans.

  159
  He argues in his paper that we should delete all those small lines in the budget which together amount to significant, although not huge, sums of money. In that way, the budget could be cut.
  We need to pursue the idea that there should be no budget allocations in the EU budget that are not related to core EU areas. The European Union, backed by the European Parliament, often puts forward small amounts of money that have nothing to do with the core competencies and functions of the European institutions. We should press for those to disappear under the philosophy of subsidiarity.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind, in that proposal, such matters as EU embassies around the world?
  Mr. Davey: That may be one of the areas in question, although EU embassies around the world relate to some of the core functions of the EU, namely security and international relations. The EU clearly has more of a core role there than it has in, for example, tourism in the UK.
  I should also like to see other changes. Commissioner Patten's analysis and scrutiny of the way in which the allocation of external aid from the EU has been carried out, or not carried out, in recent years would bear another look. The Government should push for Commissioner Patten's reforms in that area to be adopted.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Mr. Davey: I give way to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).
  Dr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting a total ban on EU spending outside the core areas? Is he thinking of running for the Conservative leadership?
  Mr. Davey: To the hon. Gentleman's second question I can give a resounding no. On the first question, I would not want a complete and utter ban because that could become too inflexible. However, we need a massive reduction in those areas because they are straining the European Commission and the institutions of Europe unnecessarily. Much official time surrounds the spending of small amounts of money: putting forward the bids and tenders, auditing and monitoring them, and so on. We are wasting the abilities of Commission officials on paltry policy initiatives. We need to ensure that Commission officials—the bureaucracy—in Brussels focus on what they are there for, namely international co-operation between members of the European Union.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. David Heath rose—
  Mr. Davey: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heath: Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not resile too far from the position that he admirably
  160
  sketched out? I entirely agree with him that it is essential that the European Union should stick to its core competencies, and that those should be far better defined than they are at present. I do not like the idea of slush funds that can be dipped into around Europe, and he is absolutely right to focus on that issue.
  Mr. Davey: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we in the Liberal Democrat Treasury team will work with our colleagues in the European Parliament to press for that reform agenda.
  A further example is the myriad community initiatives that are spending money in individual member states but are administered from Brussels. That is clearly nonsense and contravenes the principle of subsidiarity. I say that because I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has a wealth of ideas about subsidiarity and is dying to intervene on me. Just to help him, I shall give way.
  Mr. Bercow: I was hoping to help the hon. Gentleman, because I am a naturally helpful soul, as you can readily testify, Madam Deputy Speaker. He laments the narrow focus on moneys to the exclusion or detriment of considering who should be responsible for what. Given that the Prime Minister came to the House as long ago as 18 June 1997 to trumpet the supposed merits of the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam, and was ably supported in the process by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been one case of a directive or regulation of the European Union being repealed in accordance with the provisions of that protocol—just one?
  Mr. Davey: I am afraid that I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know whether there has been such a case. I do not claim to be an expert.
  Mr. Redwood: There has not been one.
  Mr. Davey: If that is true, I regret that. Clearly, we must ensure that the changes that enable such regulations to be repatriated are enforced. That would be welcome on both sides of the House, and the hon. Gentleman does the House no service by suggesting that only his party is interested in such matters.
  Another area of budgetary reform involving big numbers is the common agricultural policy. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us that major reform of the CAP lay behind the Berlin summit. I wish that were so, because greater reform is needed in the new world. The CAP was born in the 1950s and 1960s, when there were worries about food supply and the economies of European Union countries were much more rural. The world is different now, and we have also learned of the CAP's negative effect on developing countries, which is another reason for reform. The enlargement of the European Union may lead to an explosion of the budget if it remains in its current state, as eastern European countries join. We must be far bolder in reforming the CAP.
  We need to develop the painful issue of sustainable agriculture and sustainable management of our countryside. We should ensure that funding goes to

  161
  smaller farms rather than to huge agribusinesses, and we need to reduce the bureaucracy involved in managing payments from the CAP. Huge sums are wasted on government and private sector bureaucracy. There are only four farms in Kingston and Surbiton, so I cannot claim to be an expert on agricultural issues, but farmers in other constituencies have told me that they spend an enormous amount of time applying for these funds and then showing that they have been spent in the right way. We could get rid of a significant amount of bureaucracy in the private sector if we reformed the CAP sensibly.
  Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the dilemma that we face? The way to open up agriculture is through increased globalisation, which comes at a cost, given the increased risk of animal diseases and the problems with the method of producing crops.
  Mr. Davey: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is why the reform of the CAP should be based on wider issues, such as how it could help to develop organic farming across the European Union. That would be one way to deal with the pressures implied in his remarks.
  I want to refer to budget accountability. It is remarkable that in recent years the House has debated Bills relating to the European Union's budget in far greater detail than it has debated Bills on the United Kingdom Government's Budget. That goes against the whole debate on Europe. We are told that the European Union is not accountable and that this Parliament has no say, but this Parliament spends more time debating the intricacies of the European budget than it does debating the Budget of the Government who are directly accountable to it.
  That is worth mentioning because the House should have a greater hold on the UK Budget, and should consider repatriating some of the good practices on budget analysis at European level. The European Parliament has a debate on the budget ex ante, before it is agreed. How many times has the House had a meaningful debate on the Budget estimates? Under the Standing Orders, we have only three days to debate the Budget estimates. That is absolute nonsense. Again, we need to strengthen the ex-ante powers of the House, and I should have liked an indication in the Bill that the Government wanted to improve accountability more widely.
  Some Conservative Members have referred to the European Court of Auditors, which they are always praying in aid for their anti-Europe propaganda. That is partly because the Court of Auditors is such a strong body that it is actually able to root out some of the waste and corruption. We should argue for the strengthening of the auditors who report to the House, and suggest giving them some of the stronger powers conferred on the European Court of Auditors.
  The Bill is very modest. It does not do huge amounts for either the European Union or the British taxpayer, and to that extent it represents a missed opportunity. Even so, the Liberal Democrats will not obstruct modest measures, however lacking in courage they may be. We will support the Government tonight, but we hope that, in debating these issues in both the House and the European Union, they will be far more courageous than they have been up to now.
  4.46 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: The Bill gives effect to an excellent negotiating result, as has been emphasised by a number of speakers. Such things tend to be discounted in advance and forgotten afterwards. We should pause for a moment to recognise the success of the ministerial team that negotiated, and also that of Britain's overall approach in a positive and co-operative agenda.
  When I have travelled in Europe, I have always been struck by the fact that there is little schadenfreude in regard to the problems that have sometimes arisen in Britain over European policy. There is a genuine wish to co-operate and to work with us, and a substantial community of interest. When the British Government reach out to work with European partners and achieve a sensible conclusion, they have an excellent chance of success, as we have seen in this instance.
  The main substantive change in the Bill is a shift away from dependence on value-added tax and Customs revenues as the primary source of Community revenue towards a greater reliance on a fair reflection of each state's gross national product. That is welcome for several reasons. First, it is fairer to countries like Britain that have less agricultural, more balanced economies with a strong industrial base. Secondly, it is fairer right down to the individual level: VAT is not predominantly known as a progressive tax, and it is reasonable for each country to contribute according to GNP.
  Thirdly—this has not been mentioned so far; it was particularly striking that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not mention it—the shift will reduce the opportunity for fraud. Whereas in every EU country it is not unknown for people to try to evade VAT, I know of no attempt to change the figure for GNP. There is therefore a reasonable chance of a positive side effect, namely a reduction in fraud. I hope that in the long term the Government will aim to eliminate the historical and artificial basis of funding as a side effect of VAT and the tariff budget, and substitute a straightforward levy on the basis of GNP, so that each country is fairly treated.
  The commentary of the hon. Member for Hertsmere on the Bill reminded me of the old claim that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers. He focused to an extraordinary degree on very small sums of money, to the total neglect of the overall picture. I will give a couple of examples. The entire net contribution of the United Kingdom comes to less than 1 per cent. of Government expenditure.
  The hon. Gentleman is particularly exercised by administration, describing it as one of the fastest growing areas of expenditure. The growth rate for administration in the proposals is 1 per cent. The total extra cost to UK taxpayers of the entire increase that he described is 1p per taxpayer per year. That is the area on which the Conservative spokesman focused.
  If we are to spend our debating time challenging the figure of 1p, it is reasonable to ask whether the scrutiny that the budget is getting is appropriate—whether it is the sort of scrutiny that the Conservative party has repeatedly claimed is missing from the European scene.
  I also noted the hon. Gentleman's general attack on European spending in Britain. He refused to answer the Chief Secretary's question about which European projects in Britain he would cut. He still owes us that explanation. If he does not give it, I hope that the Conservative party

  163
  will give us further details, later in this debate or in the more general debate tomorrow, about where it wants the axe to fall.
  We have all shared in the pleasure of Britain's successful defence of the rebates. It is also fair to note that the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union observed that the objective of which we need to keep track is not the rebate but ensuring that Britain's share of contributions is fair. Until now, the rebate has served us well. In the long term, as the Committee argued, we should be prepared to consider any approach that secures a long-term basis for Britain's fair share—possibly one without some of the artificial side effects that result in us turning away European spending because of the impact that it would have on the rebate. For the time being, however, the outcome is entirely welcome.
  Before considering the detail of the debate it is worth looking at the fundamental question of why we are members of the European Union. Is it—as the hon. Member for Hertsmere seemed to suggest from time to time—to try to make a small profit and reduce our net contribution—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Whoever owns that audible pager should silence it or remove themselves from the Chamber.
  Dr. Palmer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Why have we decided to be members of the European Union? Is it to make a small profit, or to achieve some long-term concrete goals? If one studies the record of both Labour and Conservative Governments in the past 40 years, the goals become clear. The first is to achieve a lasting peace in Europe. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) recently attended the commemoration on the Somme and we all know from recent living memory how fatal it can be for our continent if we swerve away from that goal.
  That means that we must retain as an overriding objective the goal of European harmony. We spend much time arguing about European federalism and European unity, but the central goal of the European Union is European harmony. We disturb that at our peril. That is why expansion of the EU is so important. It is not to enable us to gain the economic strengths of, for example, Hungary or Poland, but to bring the eastern European countries into the European family of nations so that they, too, are committed to harmony and unity. If that costs us 1p each—or even 2p—we should accept that price.
  The second objective is the promotion of trade within the EU. The figures leave no room for doubt that that has been astonishingly successful over the years. It is crucial to Britain, as a central trading nation, that such trade continues to expand and develop.
  Some Opposition Members are extremely sceptical about our membership of the EU, but are none the less willing to pay lip service to the idea. They say, "In 1965, Sir Edward Heath persuaded me to vote 'Yes'. I thought I was only joining a trading community, but I see to my horror that it is something quite different." I believe that the overwhelming majority of British exporters would subscribe to the view that it is only within the EU that we
  164
  have a realistic prospect of maintaining the trading growth that is so crucial to our country. Is it worth 1p? Yes, it is—it is even worth 2p.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Dr. Palmer: I give way to the hon. Gentleman as I see that he is poised to spring.
  Mr. Bercow: Indeed.
  The hon. Gentleman is becoming positively misty-eyed on the matter. I acknowledge and respect the fact that he is a committed European federast, but I presume that he does not seriously suggest that the cause of peace in Europe has been, or will be, achieved by European Communities (Finance) Bills. Why does he not simply acknowledge the central fact that the crucial and noble goal of peace in Europe has been achieved not by the European Union, but by NATO?
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman will find little international support for the belief that European harmony was achieved without the European Union. Obviously, I agree that the Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that we are debating amendments to the arrangements for Community finance.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for protecting me from the siren voices on the Opposition Benches.
  The central issue is that, with the Bill, we are making a commitment that protects our current level of contribution to the EU. As I and other speakers have argued, that amount is a tiny proportion of our total spending. With that commitment, we are playing a part in achieving the goal of European harmony, European trade growth and European joint commitment to a common future.
  The Opposition do themselves no credit either with Labour Members or with the wider public when they try to focus the whole debate on small items of expenditure. The focus should be on where we take the European Union and whether our current finance base is sufficient for those goals.
  I commend the Bill to the House and I commend the Government for their negotiating achievement.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register in the normal way.
  The most important power that this House of Commons won over many centuries was the sole right to impose taxation on the British people. What we are debating here today is an incredibly expensive Bill that is a very large tax demand upon the British people, running to almost £8 billion in the current year, on the figures of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and perhaps more in subsequent years.
  One of the most unsatisfactory things about the Bill is that it puts forward a very complicated formula, derived from a correction to a European Commission document, for calculating how much the British people may have to

  165
  pay, and states that we shall not know until some time in the future exactly how that calculation can be made, and how big a tax bill the Government are proposing today for the British people as a result of this measure.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the last time that the House rejected a spending request from the Executive?
  Mr. Redwood: It happens all too infrequently when we have such an unbalanced Parliament, with so many unthinking and uncritical supporters of the Government on the Government Benches. But I remember that sometimes, under previous Governments, proposals were rejected when independently minded Back Benchers combined with more independently minded Labour Back Benchers, in those days when they were in opposition, to inflict justice on the country and correct the Government's wrong decisions. I welcomed that. I was not always in the rebel Lobby myself but, as an independently minded Member, I always admired a system that could make the Government think again.
  Mr. Davey rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I will give the hon. Gentleman a second chance.
  Mr. Davey: I just wanted to help the right hon. Gentleman. The last time that the House refused a request for spending from the Executive was in 1919.
  Mr. Redwood: I am not sure that I agree with that statement. I seem to remember that under Baroness Thatcher measures that had spending as well as legislative implications were rejected, so I believe that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. That is not unusual for the Liberal Democrats, who live in a fictitious world where they cosy up to the Government at every available opportunity and then try to tell the British people the biggest mistake of them all: that they are now in some way the official and effective Opposition. Yet we see them on their knees in the Chamber day after day, grovelling to, agreeing with and supporting the Government; and then they dare to tell the public outside the House that they are in some way Opposition MPs.
  Today the hon. Gentleman again showed that there was no stuffing in him. He said that he agreed with some of the things that the Government did. He said that he would support them in the Lobby tonight. However, if one listened carefully, one detected a soupcon of criticism because the Government were not giving enough of our money away—they were not going wholeheartedly enough in the European federal direction. So I will take no lectures from the Liberal Democrats on how to conduct ourselves in the Chamber and how to hold this unworthy Government to account.
  The Government are after our money yet again. After the stealth taxes of the last Parliament, they have the gall to come before us today with this socking great bill, and they cannot even tell us exactly how much money is entailed. Nor, of course, can they tell us how the money will be spent. In the debate, these important points have already been dragged out of a reluctant Government. They do not know how much will be spent. They do not know entirely how it will be spent. They have very little control
  166
  over how it will be spent. Even the money that we get back may be spent on causes and projects that we would not ourselves choose to finance. Under the rules of some schemes, indeed, projects must be ones that the British Government would not think worthy of financing; otherwise, they are ruled out of court.
  So I say to the House, do not just look at the net cost, whatever that may be; my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere suggested £3 billion as a good starting price. Look at the gross cost: £7.5 billion or rather more—it has been in other years—going out from our taxpayers. All that money will be spent in ways to be determined by unelected people in Brussels, and quite a lot of it spent in places far from any of our constituencies.
  Mr. Beard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is making a most interesting fact-free point. I have the figures. In 1995—remember who was in office then—our net contribution, with abatements, was £4 billion; in 1996, it was £2.3 billion; in 2000, it was scheduled to be £2.4 billion. Those figures should hardly turn the earth upside down and cause the revolution to which he is pointing.
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am pointing to a revolution, as I have not come to my prescription for what might be done in place of the Bill. He has missed my main point, which is that he should look at gross spending, which is what requires taxation to be levied in this country.
  My worry is that the Government, who recommend the surrender of 29 or more vetoes over important policy matters in the Nice treaty, are, by stealth, giving away the power of this place—and, therefore, of the British people—to tax themselves in the way in which they and their elected representatives choose.
  Two documents accompany this debate. The first is the Bill, which refers to the Commission decision of September 2000 contained in an extended paper. If it is passed, the Bill will expressly write the paper into our legislation. It is most important that we study the paper as carefully as we do this slim Bill. The Bill, as I have said, is probably the dearest Bill that has ever come before this House, costing about £60 million for every word.
  The document is even more worrying than the Bill itself. Labour Members and Ministers will argue that we have had finance Bills from the EU before. That is quite true; they have always caused me some difficulty, because they represent budgets that have high proportions of waste and fraud and expenditure in far-away countries that do not give any direct or indirect benefits to my constituents. What is worrying is the wording in the attached paper concerning future intentions over our abatement and the power of the Community to tax directly.
  Dr. Palmer: I do not want to be unkind—I know that the right hon. Gentleman grew up before the numeracy hour was introduced—but he says that the total cost of the Bill will be £60 million a word. As the total cost—or gross cost, as he prefers—is £7 billion, does he reckon that there are only 100 words in the Bill?
  Mr. Redwood: I make it about 120 words for the points in the Bill that matter for the purposes of legislation. I have not included the short title, which is

  167
  rather longer than the Bill itself. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill carefully and learns to count, he will come to a similar conclusion. He needs more time to practise; he looks a lot older than me, so he could not have benefited from the numeracy hour either.
  The important point in the attached document is paragraph 16, which states that the Commission shall undertake before 1 January 2006 a general review of the operation of the own resources system accompanied if necessary by appropriate proposals in the light of all relevant factors including the effects of enlargement on the financing of the budget of the European Union with the possibility of modifying the own resources structure by creating new autonomous own resources. From reading the document, one can see that it is wonderful prose. It is the kind of thing that one would fall asleep over whenever one picked it up. However, it is important that we do not fall asleep over this leaden, dead and deadly prose. What it means in normal language is that they have gone away and worked out how to impose direct, new European taxes on the British people—as well as citizens in other countries in the EU—because they are after our money and they would rather do it directly.
  The House and those who may hear about this outside need not believe me on this. They will say, "We all know that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is very sceptical on these matters." However, they should certainly believe the ambassador of Belgium who, on the "Today" programme only this week, affirmed that the Belgian presidency, which is about to start, has as one of its main aims the creation of those very autonomous own resources—those very European taxes—that we see written into the document and referred to in the Bill. So before the House allows the Bill to proceed, we need to ask what those new taxes might be and why the Government have signed up to the possibility of investigating such taxes, with the presumption—they always like to say that they get on with all the colleagues in the EU—that they will go along with the conclusions of the report, which will undoubtedly involve imposing direct new taxes on British and other voters in the EU.
  We already know exactly what the EU has in mind. The Paymaster General chaired a most important working group to try to get rid of what the EU calls unfair tax competition practices. She did so with the express intention of making corporation taxes more penal in the United Kingdom and its offshore islands and dependencies, which have more favourable business tax regimes. I am sure that that is one of the ideas that the EU intends to press home. There is no evidence that the British Government object in principle to that proposal; there is every evidence that they are collaborating by stealth.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept the assurances, which I gave earlier in answer to his question on this very point, that the Government do not support a new EU tax? I cannot put it clearer than that. We do not support such a tax and such matters should be decided by national Parliaments, accountable to national populations for the tax decisions that they make. Let him forget the fantasy strain of his argument.
  Mr. Redwood: How can it be fantasy when the words appear in the paper, which the Government have sanctioned, that we are considering—a proper, high-level study of new European taxes? Will the right hon. Gentleman now stand up and say that he will strike those proposals from the document and that he will move an amendment to the Bill tonight? Will he say that the Government have made an awful mistake and that they do not want the EU to investigate those new taxes? If he moves such an amendment, I shall rush to the Lobby to vote for it. I should be a co-signatory of such an amendment if he would like to share the Order Paper with me when we debate the Bill again.
  I offer the Chief Secretary the opportunity to intervene, but we see that the Government are signed up to the new European taxes. They will not strike those proposals from the document; they will not move a suitable amendment, as we know from the Government's actions. The Paymaster General chaired the working party, and the Chief Secretary cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and renounce her works, saying that, of course, it was a huge mistake that they were dragged into discussing unfair tax competition and that there is no unfair tax competition.
  I should like the British Government to say, "We want taxes to be lower here than in competitive countries." I should like them to say, "There is nothing unfair about having lower taxes than other countries." That is a sign of good sense and good management, and the main aim of public policy should be to have lower taxes so that people and businesses prosper and more investment is attracted to this country. We could then have better public services because a much more prosperous economy would be taxed at a lower rate. If only the Government would understand that and, instead of occasionally paying lip service to it when speaking to business audiences, actually do it, they might lift the growth rate and make us more prosperous.
  Mr. Beard: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why public services did not improve under the Governments of whom he was a member, who determined to have low taxes and under whom this country's public services rotted and declined to an unprecedented degree?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis at all. Many improvements were made in many public services during the Conservative years, which is why the Conservatives were regularly re-elected with large majorities.
  David Taylor: Name the improvements.
  Mr. Redwood: I should be very happy to name the improvements, but it would take a very long time; there are so many of them. A large number of improvements were made in the local police service in my area, with the recruitment of many more police and a falling crime rate in the later years. There were many new hospitals and schools, and many extra public service workers were recruited. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was a Member in those days and that he will remember the very long list of achievements that the then Prime Ministers

  169
  used to produce at Question Time in the days when Prime Ministers used to answer questions twice a week, instead of not answering them once a week.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the mark, despite having answered the intervention.
  Mr. Redwood: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand corrected. I was drawn on by the intervention and wanted to answer it.
  We cannot trust the Government on taxation because of their past actions. I give the Chief Secretary another example. He said that they would never accept new European taxes, but they were forced to accept the art levy. It is doing grave damage to the art market in Britain, as it was designed to do, and it does damage to art markets throughout the European Union. It will send many transactions and deals outside the EU altogether. At the time, the Government claimed that they were battling against the levy, but they then discovered that they could not succeed. Therefore, they caved in and we ended up with a tax that nobody in this country wanted.
  We fear that the same will happen with the energy levy, which is one of the most obvious candidates mentioned by the Belgium Government, who now hold the presidency. They want to impose a Community-wide energy tax and to produce from it direct revenues for the financing of Community expenditure.
  We know that the European Union harbours ambitions to turn VAT from a European-determined tax to a European-collected tax. It wishes to go the whole hog, so that all VAT is collected centrally through Brussels. We will no longer be able to determine under such a system how much is levied here and how much is levied in Belgium or France. It will he necessary to establish a grant formula rather like our complicated local government grant formulas to decide how much will be given back.
  Will the Government guarantee today that they will never accept such a proposal? Will they reassure us and say to our partners in Europe, through this debate, that there is no point in the Commission working on such proposals or in member states discussing them because the British Government will veto them? I shall be happy to give way to the Chief Secretary if he will confirm that we will never accept such a VAT system. Once again, he stays in his place, so it is clear that there is another item on the Government's secret stealth agenda to transfer VAT to Brussels as a European tax. [Interruption.] He chuckles and laughs but he will not give us the guarantee that any decent Chief Secretary would give if he had no serious intention of negotiating on such matters.
  Mr. Bercow: To support my right hon. Friend's argument, will he confirm that the European Parliament, with the active support of many of its Labour Members and in a self-important gesture, regularly seeks a direct relationship between the European Union and domestic taxpayers? Is that not part and parcel of the Parliament's bid to project its status from flyweight to heavyweight?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. European Union institutions are pushing out many tentacles to capture the powers that they need to have the
  170
  full range of government control over British citizens and those elsewhere in the Union. I am sure that he is right to say that the Parliament would like to be involved in tax raising.
  The most serious threat of tax raising comes from the work of the Commission that was put to the Council of Ministers and is nodded through when the British Government think that we are not watching or when they are asleep. They sometimes seem unaware of their own proposals, and they pretended to be so earlier in the debate when I challenged them.
  Another tax that we know the European Union wishes to impose and could be covered under the measures in the Bill is the withholding tax on savings. The Government made much of fighting a battle to persuade the EU to downgrade, for the time being, its request for a direct tax to be imposed on people's savings held outside their country of origin within the EU and, instead, to put in place in complicated procedures for disclosure so that national Administrations could make sure that they had collected all the due tax.
  I suspect, however, that the Government will be placed under enormous pressure to impose the whole withholding savings tax. The German Administration are keen to do that, and that would be very damaging to the offshore islands related to the United Kingdom under the Crown. I fear that the Government will not prove up to defending their position in the next four years. They gave more ground than they should have done in the past four years and they have never properly made the case in principle against the tax. They never seem to understand that it is a tax on enterprise, effort and prudence and that the tax would drive business outside the EU altogether.
  The tax would not succeed in capturing business for Frankfurt at the expense of London, Luxembourg, Gibraltar or the Channel Islands. It would drive much business offshore from all those places if they were all brought under its provisions. The Chief Secretary remains silent on this point, because he is clearly unable to put categorically on the record that the Government will never go along with such measures. We have to assume that by negotiating, discussing and talking endlessly about those things, the Government are prepared to compromise, which means sacrificing a vital British national interest.
  Mr. James Gray: The Government have not always been silent on the withholding tax. Does my right hon. Friend recall when no less a figure than the second person in the nation—the Deputy Prime Minister—was asked about it in the previous Parliament? Unfortunately, he did not answer yes or no because he did not know what it was.
  Mr. Redwood: It was one of the few magic moments in that Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister was, for once, at a loss for words when one of my hon. Friends asked a superb a question, which did all that it should by putting the Government on the spot and showing that they were hopeless. It resulted in a flurry of correspondence and press articles, which did much for the British people and their financial services industry by highlighting the dangers.
  Dr. Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman presses Government Front Benchers for assurances. Would he

  171
  press his Front Benchers for the same assurances if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were to lead it?
  Mr. Redwood: I can do better than that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman about all the items that I have raised with Front Benchers, who are admirably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, hon. Members are going wide of the mark.
  Mr. Redwood: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been too generous, which is always my weakness in such matters.
  The famous paragraph 16, which the Government did not mention, says that the Commission should undertake before 1 January 2006 a general review of the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom, as well as the granting to Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden of the reduction in the financing of the budgetary imbalances in favour of the United Kingdom. We have a double whammy. Not only will the study consider new European taxes—of which there is an even longer list than I have given to the House—but it will go over the ground of the British budgetary contribution in the light of possible enlargement. That is most worrying because, once again, the Government have not been entirely open with the House. Instead, they have come here to say that they came, they saw, they conquered and that all was well because the budgetary rebate was safe in their hands. Yet we discover that there is another study, the only purpose of which is to wear down the UK.
  Why did the British Government go along with the study? Why did they not say that the rebate has been negotiated—incidentally, by a far greater Prime Minister than we have today—and that the Prime Minister is sticking to it? Why did they not explain that we will veto any suggestion of changing the arrangements? The so-called windfall element—our just return under the excellent formula negotiated by previous Governments—has been partly given away. We discover from the infamous paragraph 16 that there is to be another study, and more pressure will be placed on the UK to find a formula that is so complicated that it will persuade some people that nothing damaging has been given away. However, when the consequences become apparent in a few years' time, we will undoubtedly find that we have lost out.
  On considering that sorry document, the conclusion must be that we are in a state of flux. The legislation is provisional and we could be a lot worse off than under the current settlement, which is vague and difficult to pin down. Article 3 of the Commission document sets out a formula, which is too long and complicated to include in Hansard, that amounts to a blank cheque. We still do not know how the formula will apply, so we have a massive bill without a clear price.
  Article 8 of the document states that the Community's resources that are referred to in articles 21A and B shall be collected by the member state in accordance with national provisions imposed by law which shall, where appropriate, be adapted to meet the requirement of
  172
  Community rules. The Commission shall examine at regular intervals the national provisions communicated to it by the member states, transmit to the member states the adjustments it deems necessary in order to ensure they comply with Community rules, and report to the budget authority.
  In other words, we have not only this colossal bill and the uncertainty about how much it will be in future, the giveaway on another study of our rebate and the huge study on European taxes, but in certain areas, particularly customs duties and levies, we are giving away wholesale this Parliament's power to decide how and when taxes should be levied, because anything that we do is subject to the approval of the Brussels governing machine.
  Labour Members have tried to widen the debate.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: You lot are doing that.
  Mr. Redwood: I have not widened the debate at all. I have stuck rigidly to the Bill. I am the first person to have mentioned the crucial document that we are meant to be debating because, naturally, the Government wanted to sweep it under the carpet. In their wider remarks, they have said that peace and trade flow only from the European Union and that if we had not joined, or if a Government, not a Conservative one, pulled us out, they would in some way be dissipated or removed. That is clearly untrue. Switzerland and the United States of America trade extremely successfully with the European Union even though they are not members. Germany would want to sell her BMWs to the United Kingdom, whatever our status. I am not recommending withdrawal.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has said that he will not fall foul of the rule.
  Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am not recommending withdrawal, but I think that Labour Members should correct the record when they have tried to make misleading points about our relationship with the European Community. Our position is that our relationship with the Community needs a thoroughgoing renegotiation, and the Government are unable to do that. We need to renegotiate the agriculture settlement, which is too dear and bad for customers and farmers, and mainly helps people in other countries. We need to renegotiate the regional and social funds, which are not well directed for British purposes.
  I often go on holiday to Spain to enjoy the marvellous roads that my fellow taxpayers in Wokingham and I have generously paid for. Signs on all those roads, which carry the famous European logo with the 12 stars, or 12 apostles, tell me that they were lavishly paid for with European funds and that I was standing treat. It is a great sadness to me that I will not be going this year, so I will not get my money's worth. All those roads are being built with our money, and we do not get the benefit if we do not go on holiday. However, it would not be much of a holiday to have to put up with the air traffic controllers acting as they are at present.
  The Government cannot to negotiate a decent deal on expenditure or on the protection of the rebate in perpetuity. There are difficulties with the detail of the

  173
  rebate, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. I am sure that other colleagues will make that point if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are selling the pass on the right of this House to have the sole charge of taxation, subject to the will of the British people in general elections. The Chief Secretary is scowling, but we have discovered in this debate that he cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and offer us the guarantees that we need.
  Paragraph 16 of the Commission document is deeply worrying. We are on track for more European taxes, following the art tax that has already been imposed. We discovered last year at Budget time that the Government wanted to cut VAT on church maintenance and repairs; the Opposition wanted to support them. The Government were told by Brussels that they could not take that action, and they backed off. That was a harbinger of what will happen under this Government: more stealth taxes, more taxes from Brussels, more control of life from Brussels and the pass being well and truly sold.
  I hope that my colleagues will stand up for the democratic right of this Parliament to be the only place that imposes taxation on the British people. I hope that they will stand up for the right of the British people to a tax rebate and a budget rebate from Brussels. I hope that they will stand up for the right to spend money on the things that we want, and not on what Brussels wants. I hope that they agree that this is a rotten Bill, delivered by a rotten Government who are trying to get it through the House before anyone notices it.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: It is a joy to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), because he is such an easy target. This is the first European debate of the Session, and it is interesting to reflect on the styles of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is minor and unimportant, whereas the right hon. Gentleman described it as dangerous and "a socking great Bill". He then went straight into pork-barrel mode, moaning that he wanted money spent in his constituency and nowhere else. I assume that that means in no other constituency than his own, rather than no other country than the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Gentleman made an error when he spoke about a tax on the art world. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, which has considered the directive. It allows a royalty to be paid to artists on the second sale of their works of art—it is not a tax. I did not agree with the Government's resistance to the measure, because it strikes me as entirely fair: if someone makes a record and sells a number of copies, it is fair that they receive a royalty on each; likewise, it is eminently sensible that someone who creates an original piece of artwork should, when it is sold a second time for more than a certain value, get something back. That too is fair; it is not a tax. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to distinguish between genuine taxes and items that he wants to throw into the mix simply to frighten the populace.
  Was the right hon. Gentleman frightened by something to do with Europe when he was a young child; or was it the experience of Mrs. Thatcher, now Lady Thatcher,
  174
  ramming through the Single European Act 1985, which created the single European Union that he is now fighting to get out of; or was it the experience of Mrs. Thatcher similarly ramming through—at the time with his support—the legislation on the Maastricht treaty? Some experience must have frightened him so much that he acts in an irrational and somewhat paranoid way when matters relating to Europe come up. I do not know whether he has thought about the events ofthe past two months, when his party universally adopted the same attitude as his and was rejected by the people of the United Kingdom. If the Conservatives do not find some way of tempering that attitude, we will remain on the Government Benches and they on the Opposition Benches for a long time to come.
  It was rather churlish of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to mock my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who has some vision about Europe. The hon. Gentleman gave us a lesson on the "Nick Clegg MEP budget process", which he seemed to think a valuable contribution. That reminds me of why the Liberal Democrats have 52 Members of Parliament, compared with the Scottish Labour group's 55 Members. That is more than the whole Liberal Democrat parliamentary party. [Interruption.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says it, let me acknowledge that the north-west group has more members than the Scottish group.
  We must look far beyond budget processes for the heart of people's interest in European debates. Today's is the first European debate of the new Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated what has been achieved—a stabilising of the UK contribution to the EU budget. That is especially important when seen in the light of previous agreements. The 1988 agreement, reached under a Conservative Government, allowed for a 17 per cent. increase and the 1994 agreement led to a 22 per cent. increase over five years. Those are large increases, whereas the Bill reflects negotiations that resulted in a freezing of our contribution and a securing of the abatement.
  We are not talking about Nice, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham appeared to think at one point. We are talking about the Berlin European Council agreement of March 1999. That is worth focusing on, because it is significant—it is not a minor matter. Perhaps we did not achieve everything we wanted in terms of changing the European Union budgeting system and its outcomes, but a solid step forward in the right direction was taken.
  After increases of 17 per cent. and 22 per cent., stabilising our budgetary relationship with the other countries represents significant progress. Despite the thrashings about of Conservative Members today, had their party remained in government, the UK contribution could have continued to rise and I suspect that it would have, so we should acknowledge that a significant gain has been made. I have seen a briefing that describes the outcome as a triumph; I am not into triumphalism, so I would describe it as a significant and positive change in the relationship between the UK and the European Community.
  The fact that the abatement is kept in full is significant. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), referred to Lady Thatcher's securing of the rebate; there is no doubt that that was

  175
  commendable, and we should not take that achievement away from the lady. Now that time has passed, we have been able to retain the rebate when, as we move towards enlargement, there are clearly aspirations in the EU to try to get increased contributions from the UK. The matter is therefore important, and we should commend the negotiating team for its efforts.
  We should also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) for pointing out the simple and important fact that the most significant thing is the transfer of resources from the value added tax base to the gross national product base. We discussed that transfer at various times in the European Scrutiny Committee; we think that it is correct and commendable.
  It is true that some windfalls will be forgone, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said. However, it is nonsense to stir up the debate with things that have to be given up, as talked about by the Opposition. Negotiation is about reaching a balanced settlement: one which retains our abatement in full and guarantees that, when we go into the enlargement process, we can similarly secure a negotiation that will continue throughout that period. That is an extremely strong positive which is not diminished in any way by the fact that we have had to accept that we must give up some windfalls from VAT/GNP transfers.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if had we taken the windfall, it would, in effect, have been double counting? We already benefit from the rebate, so we would benefit doubly, which would not be fair.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend made that point very well in his contribution, and I hope that it will be taken seriously. He is right; if we demand, as we say in Scotland, that our eggs be double yolked, that would not be to our benefit later, as other European Community countries would notice our double counting and eventually demand redress. We would probably see a slip in our reputation, which is now extremely high in the EU; after the fracas at the end of the previous Government, we are making progress. As my hon. Friend knows, when we go to other European countries, we are treated with respect and seen as fair negotiators who are genuinely and positively involved in the European process. Sadly, that seems to have slipped from the agenda of most of the Conservative leadership.
  There has been a move to make a slight amendment to the common agricultural policy. I would not make much of that, although I know that it sounds good to say that the amendment will bring benefits, from 2002, equivalent to £70 per family or £1 billion to the country. When I look at CAP regimes, the one that always strikes me as the most bizarre is that in which 1 billion euros is contributed to the growing of tobacco in the EU. None of that tobacco is of a sufficiently high health and safety standard to be used within the EU, so we provide export subsidies to companies to sell it to the Caribbean and Africa. In the light of that billion, just getting rid of that regime would probably improve the health of people in the Caribbean and Africa and would save as much as we will in the first tranche of CAP savings up to 2002.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while £70 a year is a worthwhile saving for the average family
  176
  of four, nevertheless there remains the sum of about £930 a year that such a family is paying in higher food prices because of the disaster of the residual CAP? Much more needs to be done, even though that step is worth while.
  Mr. Connarty: I agree; the point of discussing the Bill is to debate it as the first European Bill in the context of progress that has been made. We should not in any way see it as the only step that we can take; in fact, it is not the Government's only aspiration to make that amendment to the CAP. Many more will come during this Parliament and future terms of a Labour Government, and they will bring significant benefits. Some amendments, we know, are long overdue, but it is difficult to change an established regime which many farming communities throughout the EU, including some of our own, rely on and regard as a bankable cheque. We have to negotiate at great length before putting in a better and fairer regime and, at the same time, achieve the benefits for the consumer that my hon. Friend wants.
  The negotiation was the first time that we had tried radically to reform the CAP, and we should have been given some credit for that. The churlish way in which it was dismissed by Conservative spokesmen was wrong. If the public outside see us, at the beginning of a new Parliament, getting into point scoring, that continues the devaluation of the process of government and opposition. The ranting of the right hon. Member for Wokingham will not make people think again about a Government policy. Sound advice on the budgeting process would probably carry much more weight with the public than his paranoia about the EU.
  The public want us to develop a European Union that is prepared to give to people. To mock the road building in Spain, as the right hon. Gentleman did, is nonsense. When Spain joined the EU, our one great fear was that people from Spain would flood into our labour market and undermine our wage structures and much else.
  David Taylor: Even the shadow Chancellor.
  Mr. Connarty: I am reminded that the shadow Chancellor came to this country from Spain, but I think that that was for political reasons.
  Despite our fears when Spain came into the EU, people went back there because, through the structural funds, we lifted the Spanish economy so that it became attractive for them to return and use their skills and talents back in Spain, even if that meant that roads were built in Spain that the right hon. Member for Wokingham might think should have been built in his constituency. If we compare the gross national product of the two countries, it is clear where the money should go in a fair and balanced EU.
  Similarly, the idea that we might discuss the taxation systems across the EU has been mocked, even though some of them work against the UK. Tax changes will not necessarily always benefit someone else. The rationalisation and sensible application of tax rules and regulations will benefit the UK. It is not good enough to try to score points by scaring people, particularly at the beginning of a Parliament, when there is no election in sight apart from the Conservative leadership election. Perhaps that is what lies behind the mocking; it certainly has nothing to do with the benefits to the people of the United Kingdom.

  177
  The rural economy was mentioned. After the BSE and foot and mouth debacles, and the extensive changes to the rural economy, the inclusion of the rural economy in the Berlin agenda in 1999 was visionary. We now realise that it is not just about farming and the common agricultural policy, but about the structure of society in rural areas, many of which are not directly reliant on farming but depend on people using the rural economy as an asset, bringing value to it and allowing others to remain in their rural communities. The negotiation team should be commended for the prominence given to the rural economy.
  The Bill is preparatory; it is not the measure that will allow enlargement to proceed. I am keen on the enlargement of the EU, having served on the European Scrutiny Committee and visited the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. The EU would benefit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe described, in defence terms and in other ways not covered by the Bill; and also in terms of growing the market and the valuable common idea of a Europe of democratic nations—not one European state, but all of them giving and taking, balancing and growing the EU together—for example, by examining tax and the way in which that income is disbursed. Nations that have strengths should give to those that have weaknesses, but that should be done sensibly.
  I am not a Minister, so I do not have to worry about acknowledging that I was upset by and a little ashamed of the Irish vote. I come from an Irish background and have many relatives in Ireland. It is clear that that vote was an attempt to keep the benefits of the European Union—which Ireland has received in large measure and used to grow its economy—for those already inside this "better" group of nations, and not to allow those benefits to be dissipated by being given to nations that need them much more. Most of the countries that I mentioned—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland—need the benefits of EU membership more than Ireland currently does. Ireland has reaped tremendous benefits from the EU that could now be available to people in the former Soviet bloc.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The terms of the debate are fairly narrow. We are discussing financial arrangements in the Community budget.
  Mr. Connarty: Thank you for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that the document to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham referred dealt with the basis of enlargement. The negotiations have protected us from having to pay increasing amounts into the budget, as we have retained our abatement, but we must consider preparations for using that budget in different ways throughout the EU. We should see the Bill in those terms. It is not monumental, as it does not deliver what the Nice treaty will achieve when it is debated and—I hope—passed by EU nations. However, it prepares the way for those changes to be made without destroying our finances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, less than 1 per cent. of taxation and expenditure will be going to the EU.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere made much of administrative spending, but it was pointed out that such spending amounts to only 1p a year for UK taxpayers. Administration expenditure is at about 5 or 6 per cent.,
  178
  which is low. That level does not frighten me, as long as we ensure good governance, implement Commissioner Kinnock's recommendations and run the budget efficiently. We should not be concerned only about keeping down the administration budget. If the audit function is removed in order to save money, the ability to run a fair budget is thereby destroyed. We must look underneath the expenditure level, rather than merely play around with the figures. A number of private organisations would like only 5 or 6 per cent. of their budgets to be spent on administration.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman may be making the case that Labour Front Benchers did not make. Does he not accept that it is natural to ask questions about administration, when it seems to be the fastest rising item in the budget?
  Dr. Palmer: It is not.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend may want to give us the figures, which he probably has to hand. I know that he is knowledgeable about these matters.
  On the fraud and financial management recommendations, everyone was worried about fraud and corruption—for instance, with regard to the tobacco regime. When the regime was investigated, it was reckoned that the same tobacco leaf was being counted almost five times in the EU. Tobacco can be moved around the EU as a wet product before it dries out. It was suggested that Mafia connections were involved, but we did not find out about them after the investigation, as the gentleman in charge of the regime jumped, fell or was thrown from his fifth-story window in Brussels and died before his knowledge of the regime could be revealed.
  If administration expenditure is increased because of an anti-fraud and audit drive, the money is being well spent. I am not worried about an increase to 5 or 6 per cent. if the money is being spent correctly. I would be much more worried if the amount were low and not enough officials were available to ensure that things were done correctly. That is why the increase does not bother me.
  This Government believe—as I hope the Conservative Government did—that fraud in EC budgets is unacceptable. Hon. Members may remember that the anti-fraud office was based on an initiative suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Mr. Prodi's first act as EU President was to appoint Mr. Kinnock as the Vice-President with responsibility for reform. When Mr. Kinnock came before the Scrutiny Committee, he gave a very good account of himself and his work. We should have commended our Front-Bench Members on making sure that they were fully behind the work in the negotiating round. It is significant that we now have a code of conduct for Commissioners and Commission officials that did not previously exist. We have a whistleblower's charter. Such matters may be administratively costly, but they are also sensible.
  The Bill is productive. It will not change the world, but it does not allow the past trend of massive increases in the budget to continue. It is not a trivial measure, as the Liberal Democrats would have us believe. It stops the rot and turns the EU around. It achieves much, but much remains to be done. I support the Bill and commend it to the House.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I comply with custom for a few moments and mention my predecessor and my constituency.
  My predecessor, the noble Lord Temple-Morris, is a unique man. He spent 23 years representing the Conservatives and four years representing Labour. He also qualified as a barrister and a solicitor. He was clearly a man who liked to try everything. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—naturally—have told me that he was a diligent constituency Member, and I shall try to continue his constituency work and emulate his long and ennobling career.
  His footsteps are unusually difficult to follow. However, the seat of Leominster has a history of unusual Members. Although, in 1305, the towns of Ledbury and Bromyard decided that a Member of Parliament was far too expensive, at 2 shillings a day, and chose to withdraw their privilege, Weobley and Leominster continued to pay up. John Scott, who went on to be the Earl of Eldon, was elected in Weobley in 1783. Perhaps worrying about voter apathy, he asked about the best way to win Weobley. He was told that it was to drive into the town with a dray laden with cider. I have not tried that method of canvassing. John Scott also avoided it, and instead rode into the town, knocked on the door of the prettiest girl and kissed her. Later, when asked the reason for his popularity, he fought his way into the crowd and kissed the same girl. He went on to be Lord Chancellor.
  Leominster Members have had a variety of fates. One shot himself, one was hanged, another was imprisoned in the Tower during the south sea bubble crisis, and Roland Stephenson, who I am sorry to say was a London banker, was outlawed for fraud in 1829. He escaped by boat to Savannah, where he was arrested and taken to jail in New York. Happily, we also boast two Prime Ministers so far: William Bentinck, later Duke of Portland, and William Lamb, later Lord Melbourne. In Leominster, as well as in history, being christened William is an auspicious start.
  Like all before him, my predecessor but one, Sir Clive Bossom, who made his maiden speech here in 1960, followed in his father's footsteps to the House. It is therefore a great responsibility and a source of enormous pride to follow in the footsteps of my father, Sir Jerry Wiggin, who represented Weston-super-Mare for more than 28 years.
  The constituency of Leominster is great not only in history, but in size. It is at least 2,500 sq miles, and one of the largest constituencies in England. Its borders run from Wales into Worcestershire, and from Shropshire to the Wye valley. Julian Critchley, the late Member for Aldershot, described it as Arcadia. Indeed, it is a truly beautiful part of the country. Hon. Members who wish to holiday there instead of Tuscany will be delighted by the large number of excellent hotels, inns and pubs. That is hardly surprising, given that the fields are full of cider apple orchards, vineyards and hops.
  Attractions range from Eastnor castle to Offa's dyke, as well as many beautiful houses and our unique architecture: the famous black and white trail that runs through Pembridge. The main market towns are Tenbury Wells, Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury and Leominster. All have the some of the friendliest, most charming people.
  180
  It is no surprise that the county that produces the best food is also home to the finest and fittest soldiers. We are proud to host the SAS base at Credenhill. It is the only permanent garrison in the United Kingdom.
  The terrible effects of foot and mouth mean that our tourism industry could do with all the support and visitors possible. It needs, not loan guarantees at 8.75 per cent., but a positive message backed by a properly funded English tourist board.
  Foot and mouth has been a monumental crisis for my constituents. There have been several outbreaks in the constituency, and we have lost not only large numbers of stock but some hope for the future of farming. There has been widespread misery, and I pay tribute to those who have soldiered on resolutely. They have put up with the culling of healthy stock without confirmation of infection, D notices and movement restrictions, the stigma of dirty farms, the uncompensated loss to the value of cattle over 30 months, the bodies of culled stock lying awaiting removal for up to nine days in Winforton, the disinfectant at the gates, and the constant washing of vehicles and reclusive living.
  The sense of helplessness was worst. Sometimes it was caused by Ministry vets culling healthy dairy herds while welfare culls were left waiting. We must not forget the suffering caused to animals that tried to lamb in chest-high mud. Our farmers care for their animals. They rightly feel a sense of rage against incompetence and cruelty when they watch their sheep starving or drowning, and know that they would be prosecuted for neglect under normal circumstances.
  An outbreak was announced in Brecon today. The crisis is therefore far from over. Common-sense steps, such as supporting auctioneers who collect animals in collection centres, must be hurriedly implemented. The Government have created circumstances in which farmers might hope that their animals get foot and mouth because those whose stock is culled are better off than those who battle on against the virus. That contradiction has been created by pointless rules, such as the 20-day rule, which are applied without common sense.
  If we are to prevent the disease from recurring, we must first hold a full and public inquiry. We must ban imported meat from countries where foot and mouth is endemic, and we must take any opportunity to reform the common agricultural policy. We must end the mechanism that pays farmers to drive the length of the country, collecting old ewes for the benefit of the subsidy.
  The Government were quick to blame farmers for the spread of the virus through the movement of sheep, but they passed up the chance in Berlin to change the rules. The Government must grasp the nettle of reforming the CAP, which made the practice widespread. We do not have much time. Farmers in countries such as Poland would also like to enjoy agricultural subsidies. When they join, where is the money to pay for them? Which of our world-class public services will be cut to top up the contribution?
  We have already lost the accident and emergency department of Kidderminster hospital, and the lives of my constituents are at risk from the distances that they are required to travel. We cannot afford to miss the chance to reform the CAP again. We must remember that it costs the average family £15 extra a week, yet we agree that British farming does not have the chance to compete on a level playing field.

  181
  We must seize every opportunity to reform the CAP; we must not miss the chance. We must lead the way, and cut the Gordian knot.
  5 58 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on his first contribution. It was a lucid and at times humorous speech and it clearly showed that he is already well aware of the problems of his constituency. He comes across sincerely, as a man who cares. We wish him well.
  One of the most important debates in the European Union in 1996, 1997 and 1998 centred on the document entitled "Agenda 2000". The debate was conducted in the EU institutions, but it also took place in the various national Parliaments. It examined enlargement and how that would improve existing member states and bring political stability and democracy to countries that aspire to EU membership. It was and is a debate about regional policy, and about how the structural funds and the cohesion funds might be developed to the betterment of the EU. It is a debate about how the common agricultural policy might be reformed, in the context of the changing world in which we live, to meet the new stresses and strains that enlargement will inevitably bring to it. It is also a debate about how the European Union could be funded in the future and how the own resources issue could satisfactorily be resolved.
  Following that continuing debate and the discussions that have been held on those issues, an extremely important European Council summit took place in Berlin in March 1999. The Bill before us today follows on from the decisions taken at that meeting. I honestly believe that that European Council meeting in Berlin came to a conclusion that was good for the European Union. There were also conclusions that were good for the British Government's negotiating position and for Britain's national interest. I say that for three reasons.
  The first reason is that a clear decision was taken at Berlin to bring the common agricultural policy under much tighter control. Decisions were taken to cap the CAP, so to speak. It was agreed that, by 2006, agricultural spending in the EU would be 2 per cent. less than in 2000 Many of us would like to have seen a much greater reduction in expenditure on agriculture. However, that decision was enormously significant, especially if we bear in mind the fact that it was decided at the Edinburgh European Council meeting just a few years earlier to increase agricultural expenditure by 9 per cent. Compared with just a few years ago, therefore, progress has been well and truly made.
  The second notable outcome of the Berlin Council concerned regional policy, particularly with regard to the cohesion fund and the structural funds. Reference was made earlier to the importance of the MacDougall report, which was written some time ago. The Berlin Council still addressed the underlying theme of the MacDougall report, which asked how a single European market could pull together in an integrated social sense. A market, wherever it may be, cannot exist without a sense of economic and social cohesion behind it. Markets will soon fall apart unless they are underpinned by that kind of ethos. That is why I particularly welcome the clear decision that was taken, after Berlin, to establish objective 1 status in many parts of the EU that had not previously had it.
  182
  Objective 1 status is for those parts of the EU whose gross domestic product is less than 75 per cent. of the EU average. Unfortunately, many parts of the United Kingdom fall into that economic category. I say "unfortunately" because it is nothing to be proud of that parts of the United Kingdom are among the poorest parts of the European Union. Areas that have now been categorised as objective 1 areas include Cornwall, south Yorkshire and also Merseyside, which retained its objective 1 status. In this context, Northern Ireland received a special objective 1-related package. West Wales and the south Wales valleys also received objective 1 status for the first time.
  As a Member who comes from south Wales, I welcome the fact that, because of the Government's negotiating success in Berlin, the economy in south and west Wales is receiving an injection of £1.2 billion over the next seven years. That money is desperately needed to rejuvenate the economy of more than two thirds of Wales. It is currently being used to develop training, to provide infrastructure and to ensure a different and much stronger base for the Welsh economy. If we had not achieved that negotiating success in Berlin, that money would not today be providing the tremendous boost that it is to the Welsh economy.
  That money is being spent not according to a diktat from Brussels, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) alleged, but on the basis of partnership. Local authorities, the voluntary sector, the National Assembly and local businesses are coming together in Wales in a true spirit of partnership to determine their own priorities for spending the money that is coming from the European Union. That is the true principle of subsidiarity: that decisions are taken as close to the people as is practicable. That is my vision of what the European Union should be about in future.
  The money coming in to areas such as south and west Wales as a consequence of the Berlin decision has meant that, for the first time, public expenditure in Wales is going beyond the Barnett formula. We are determined never to repeat what happened under previous Administrations, when money was not claimed from Brussels because there was no match funding already in Wales. Now, because extra resources are coming through beyond the Barnett formula, we are confident that that will never happen again. When there is money to be spent, it must be spent.
  In addition to objective 1 status benefiting the United Kingdom, objective 2 status is doing the same. Objective 2 applies to rural areas of the Union that are suffering real difficulty and to those areas suffering industrial decline. Some 14 million people in the United Kingdom are now living in areas benefiting from objective 2 status, which I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will warmly welcome.
  The third important outcome of the Berlin Council was the new formula to he introduced for the revenue side of European Union finances. A key decision, as has already been stated, was that a greater proportion of moneys raised from contributions will be linked to gross national product, while fewer contributions will come from VAT and Customs payments. That is enormously important because it is a far fairer formula than the one that we had before. It is fairer on the United Kingdom and on poorer

  183
  states of the European Union. Moreover, it is a formula that will substantially reduce the likelihood of fraud. That is an important aspect of the new settlement.
  Another important aspect is the fact that we have maintained the rebate that was first negotiated in Fontainebleau in 1984. It is worth underlining how significant an achievement that is. We should not forget that many member states of the European Union fought tooth and nail—that is not putting it too strongly—to try to take away the United Kingdom's abatement. It is to the Government's great credit that we have successfully maintained it. I want to emphasise that that was a huge achievement. Crucially, too, maintaining the ceiling on own resources at 1.27 per cent. of EU national income was something that I would expect Members on the other side of the House to welcome as much as we do. Taken together, the achievements negotiated in Berlin were very notable. For the first time ever, spending in the European Union will be less in real terms at the end of this financial period.
  As hon. Members have noted, this is a short Bill, containing just two clauses. However, it is a Bill of enormous significance. Despite what some people have suggested today, it is not about federalism or about creating some kind of mythical European superstate. It is not about taking power away from the United Kingdom and giving it to strange bureaucracies overseas. This practical Bill is all about creating a fairer and more effective funding mechanism for the European Union in the future. I sincerely hope that it gets the full support of the House.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friends on their maiden speeches. They have a great advantage over me: they have completed this ordeal, which is still ahead of me.
  I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Martin Bell. He was the first Independent Member elected to the House for 50 years. He tells the story of how, shortly after his election, he was invited to tea by Barbara Castle. Over tea and biscuits in the House of Lords, she summed up her advice, drawn from her 60-year career in politics. She said to him, "Young man"—which, he confesses, completely won him over—"whatever else you do, you must never be afraid to stand alone." Of all people, this former war reporter probably needed that advice the least.
  Martin Bell had stood alone courageously in the Balkans when he reported the wars in that region in all their brutality. In the House, too, he stood alone. He stood alone when he forced the Government to find time to ratify the Ottawa convention on land mines. He stood alone when he controversially spoke out against the air strikes against Iraq. He also stood alone when he campaigned to overturn 50 years of Whitehall stonewalling on the question of far east prisoners of war.
  Be it Serbia, NATO or the Ministry of Defence, Martin Bell took on powerful opponents and won. However, two opponents in the end defeated him. The first, I am happy to say, was my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) who defeated him in the general election. The second was the Speaker's Chair, because he
  184
  campaigned long and hard for the Cross Benches below the Bar of the House to be recognised as part of the Chamber, but he failed miserably. That is a good lesson to all new Members on the power of the Speaker's Chair in such matters.
  Many people come to the House as idealists and leave it as cynics. I have got to know Martin Bell quite well in the past couple of years, and it strikes me that he came to the House as a cynic and left as an idealist. The man in the white suit will be as missed in the corridors of the Palace of Westminster as he will be by people on the streets of the Tatton constituency, whose interests he represented so well. I am greatly honoured to take his place in the House.
  The very name of the Cheshire constituency that I now represent is a clue to the fact that it is not a single community, but a collection of communities. Tatton is not a town or a village. In fact, no one lives in Tatton—or not any more. Tatton is a building. I believe that I am one of only two Members whose constituency is named after a building. If hon. Members are trying to remember who the other one is, I shall put them out of their misery—it is the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper).
  Unlike the Brighton Pavilion, Tatton Park is the rather austere, imposing ancestral home of the Lords Egerton, who are now deceased. It is now the National Trust's most visited property, and home to many popular exhibitions and concerts in my constituency. On Tatton Park's doorstep is the beautiful and historic market town of Knutsford. Once a major stop for travellers on the road to Manchester, it has long been replaced in that function by the less historic and frankly less beautiful M6 Knutsford service station. Thankfully, the coaching inns on King street remain, and more leisurely tourists still visit in large numbers.
  Knutsford got its name from the place where the Danish King, King Canute, forded the River Lily—hence Canute's ford. I can report to the House that the majority of the residents in Knutsford, like me, take what could be called a Danish view of the Government's plan to join the single currency. Knutsford may be steeped in history but it has its modern problems, such as the constant pressure of development and traffic and the fear of crime. I shall seek to overturn the recent decision of Home Office Ministers—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a former Home Office Minister—to deny us funding for closed circuit television. There is also the noise and pollution from Manchester airport's second runway. One of my priorities will be to try to change the law to allow airports to fine planes that deviate unnecessarily from agreed flight routes and noise limits.
  Around Knutsford stretches the fertile Cheshire plain, in which lie the beautiful rural villages of Mobberley, Pickmere, Plumley, Allostock, Byley, Whitley, Comberbach and Lower Peover—I have left out half of them. Lower Peover is an idyllic village with a fantastic local pub called "The Bells of Peover", in which General Eisenhower and General Patton once planned the D-day landings. These days drinkers plan who will buy the next round.
  All those villages have suffered from the collapse of rural services, the deep recession in agriculture and the disaster of foot and mouth disease, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) eloquently referred. Farmers in Crowley, who are now

  185
  struggling with a recent outbreak, or employees at the Chelford market who have seen their jobs disappear, do not agree with the Prime Minister that we are on the home stretch in tackling the consequences of this disease. I shall do everything that I can to ensure that Cheshire's rural communities get the support they need.
  On the western edge of the constituency are Barnton, Rudheath and Anderton—three suburbs of the old ICI salt town of Northwich—which have often been neglected in the politics of the constituency. I am determined that that will end. At the other end of the constituency lie the former cotton towns of Wilmslow and Handforth, and the famous village of Alderley Edge, which is known to locals for its infamous traffic problems. Together they make up a wonderful residential area that is also home to many successful companies, including the research laboratories of Astra Zeneca, where world-leading research is carried out into cancer and heart disease.
  Wilmslow is famous across Britain as the home of football players, "Coronation Street" stars and pop singers. However, the town's most famous celebrity is known simply as Pete. He was an unfortunate man who was found garrotted, beaten and stabbed on Lindow common. Wilmslow is not a violent place, so that discovery came as a bit of a shock. The local police launched a murder investigation. Inquiries were made and suspects were interviewed, but even the excellent detective work of the Cheshire police could not solve this murder, for it turned out that Pete had been dead for 2,000 years, preserved in the peat hog that gave him his name He now lives in the much safer surroundings of the British museum.
  Another famous Wilmslow resident was the code breaker and computer pioneer, Alan Turing. It is a sad irony that the man who did more than almost anyone else to defeat the Nazi tyranny by breaking the Enigma code was persecuted in Britain for his homosexuality, and committed suicide. It is a welcome sign of a more understanding age that a statue of Turing has just been unveiled in Manchester.
  Although much of the Tatton constituency is prosperous—not for nothing is it the place where Mr. Rolls met Sir Henry Royce—there are pockets of deprivation on the Longridge, Spath Lane and Colshaw Farm housing estates, and in many of the rural areas. I shall do everything that I can to help those communities.
  I am delighted to have been elected to represent such a tine constituency, but it deeply concerns me that so many fewer of my constituents chose to participate in the election. Our turnout, like that of many constituencies, fell by more than 10 per cent. Some people argue that that is nothing to worry about, as it is a sign of a contented population who are happy with the present state of affairs. I believe that that is a dangerous and mistaken understanding of what is happening out there in the country.
  My constituents are not content with the state of the national health service, the education system or the transport system. They are not happy to go on paying ever more taxes, or that their streets are not safe. Far from it—they are deeply angry about all those things, and they feel that we, their politicians, are not listening to them. The people of Cheshire feel remote from what is going on in Westminster. They see our debates and watch Ministers on television, but they do not hear much that relates to
  186
  their daily lives. They feel even remoter from what is going on in the institutions of the European Union, whose financing we are discussing.
  New directives emerge from the bureaucratic ether, and no one bothers to explain to the people and the companies affected where they came from or why they are needed. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on hugely wasteful EU projects, such as the aid budget or the common agricultural policy. Everyone throws up their hands and says, "We know it's a waste of money, but there's nothing we can do about it."
  The politicians of Europe, including our own British Government, proceed down the path of ever closer European integration, drawing up plans for European armies, European constitutions and European taxes. No one stops to ask the people of Europe whether this is actually the direction in which they want to travel. It is striking that the only two countries that have asked their peoples, in the last year, whether they are happy with the direction that Europe is taking have received a resounding no as an answer. But the reaction of European politicians to the results of the Irish and Danish referendums has been to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they did not happen.
  This Bill and the Bill that we shall debate tomorrow are supposed to pave the way for the enlargement of the European Union. No one is more passionate about enlargement than I am; no one is more anxious than I am to see the countries of central and eastern Europe brought in from the cold, and welcomed fully into the concert of democratic European nations. Let me declare an interest: I am part-Hungarian. My grandmother's family fled to Britain from Budapest just after the war because they had lived through the devastation of the Nazi tyranny, and wanted to escape the tyranny of Soviet rule. In 1956, their house in London became a home for refugees from the Hungarian uprising.
  The lessons that I learn from my family's past are these: one must not impose political systems on peoples who are unwilling to accept them; one should not allow a gap to open up between the governed and the governing; and one cannot afford to stop listening. The situations are of course very different, but the lessons are ones that we in Westminster, and those who are shaping the future of the European Union, would do well to remember.
  I thank the people of Tatton for sending me to this House.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). His maiden speech was elegant, and deserves compliment. He dealt graciously with his predecessor, who, obviously, had proved a substantial embarrassment to his party in many ways, and drew out many of the strong aspects of that Member's participation in the House's affairs. He also made several points drawn from his family's experience, notably that there is something to be learned from this country's willingness to accept people from troubled states, support them and look on them with tolerance rather than suspicion. That is certainly a message that I take from his story, and I am sure that he takes it as well.
  I also welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), partly because, like him, I was preceded here by another member of my family.

  187
  My grandfather was a Member of Parliament, and I appreciate some of the difficulties of following in political footsteps within the family. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will face the same task.
  Before turning to the debate, I should mention two items of personal history. First, shortly after I was elected, a hit list of newly elected Labour Members, along with their supposed weaknesses, appeared in The Observer. I was described as being, among other things, a maverick Euro-sceptic. I do not know with what substance the description had been given—I certainly had not communicated any of my views to anyone who might have been the author of the piece—but my speech may provide at least some basis for an understanding of why it might have appeared.
  Secondly, I have some direct experience of dealing with a tiny part of the budget of the European Commission, which forms the basis of this debate. For about three and a half years, on behalf of the company for which I then worked, I ran a small business in Scotland as part of my activities. Its main marketplace was the European Commission. It sold services comparing databases for the Commission's research and development budget, and also made bids for a variety of research and development projects of its own.
  That experience showed me a number of things. First, although this was the core activity of my business and I therefore pursued it with vigour, as a taxpayer I found it hard to defend the projects in which we were invited to engage. I could not see any obvious value in them; and the careful way in which they were audited by the European Union, which indicated some of the user bases, rather bore out my impression that very few people engaged with the databases that we produced or learned anything from them. That concerned me.
  Secondly, there was the process by which decisions on the budget were made. The individuals involved occasionally let slip their national preferences regarding the way in which decisions ought to be made, and the partners who should be chosen in the putting together of successful projects for bids. That disappointed me. The process was not always objective; certainly, it was important to listen carefully to the language of the person with whom one was dealing, and to messages that might have been communicated about how best to seek a successful bid from the European Commission. I never encountered corruption, but I did encounter practices that I considered to stray from true objectivity, and projects that I found difficult to defend as a taxpayer, while defending them vigorously as chairman and managing director of a company that thrived on winning.
  I have some direct experience, then, that confirms some of what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). He made a surprisingly forceful speech, on behalf of his party, about the need for reform in the European Union and a tighter focus on its processes and objects. I share that view 100 per cent. There are some aspects of what the EU does that it will inevitably do ill—activities that, as far as I can tell from my experience, are largely carried out to foster the aspirations of individual members of the Commission and some of their supporters in individual member states. I do not believe that those activities were part of the core purposes
  188
  of the European Union, to which I certainly subscribed when I voted in favour of joining the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.
  I have described my experience of the research and development budget, but I am sure that there are other cases in which what appeared to me to be peripheral expenditure could have been tightened and sharpened, in a downward direction, towards clearer objectives that had more to do with the propagation of free trade and common-market principles within a single trading area.
  As for the Bill and its mechanisms, the first element is that we are being invited, rightly, to applaud the Government's performance and their success in controlling the European Union's budget. It contrasts sharply with the supposed successes of the Conservatives when, in government, they had the opportunity to act rather than talk. We often observe a striking contrast between the Conservatives' rhetoric on European matters and the delivery of what they promised when they had that opportunity.
  In 1988, when there was negotiation for the setting of the EU budget, a real-terms 17 per cent. increase was agreed by, presumably, the Government led by Lady Thatcher. The handbag wielded in anger apparently did not deliver a defensible outcome, given some of the Conservative speeches that we have heard this afternoon.
  In 1994, under the perhaps less robust leadership of John Major, there was a 22 per cent. increase in the budget agreed in real terms. The contrast is marked, therefore. The success of the recent budget negotiation was to hold the budget in real terms over the period of he agreement, which is to be applauded.
  The second element touches on the foundations of the agreement—common agricultural policy reform. There, it is possible to overstate what was achieved. Some modest and welcome steps were taken, but modest is the word. The gentle progress towards free-market prices was incomplete. Most commodities traded within the CAP area are substantially more expensive than those in world markets. One can argue whether those market prices are entirely relevant, but there is a significant imbalance. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the substantial burden that consumers in this country and the rest of the EU bear to maintain that subsidy for agriculture throughout the EU.
  The agreement will not be a rational basis for defending agricultural policy in the forthcoming World Trade Organisation round. Whenever that gets going, we will find ourselves under immense pressure to make further progress towards liberalisation. Among the more shocking omissions was the failure to progress at all with liberalisation of the sugar regime, which guarantees higher prices in this country, albeit not at a direct cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the ludicrous milk quota system acts as a means of controlling production and impeding free markets. No progress was made with those initiatives, which could have been taken, and that is unwelcome.
  Nevertheless, some progress has been made. There was a welcome delivery of some savings to consumers, some steps towards a truer free market position and greater transparency in agricultural support. Those should all be applauded, but perhaps with one hand and not as vigorously as they might have been.

  189
  The third element is the reform process, which brings me back to my original argument. From my experience—perhaps the position has profoundly changed—there needs to be a thorough reform of the way in which spending decisions are taken, of spending priorities in the EU and of the management of that process. I found it to be inefficient in many respects.
  I welcome the fact that Commissioner Kinnock has been given that brief, which is demanding—I would love to have it myself. It is a challenging task and I am sure that he is relishing it. He is certainly making some progress, which is to be commended. I would be most uncomfortable about agreeing a long-term funding basis without some clear understanding that a reform agenda is being followed through by those who are sent by this country to serve on the European Commission.
  The concern about reform provides a platform for certain doubts, but this is not a debate about the euro and I would not want to make it one. At issue in the decision about whether we should take that further step in European integration are the concern about EIJ institutions and the way in which they work and whether we have a sufficiently flexible and transparent arrangement for managing European policy. I hope at some other stage to expand on some of the arguments that are outside the scope of this debate. One issue that is certainly relevant, however, is whether the institutions and the reform agenda that has been agreed are sufficiently robust for us to feel comfortable about taking that further step of integration.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Without going beyond the bounds of the debate, will the hon. Gentleman give us his reaction to the recent statement of Chancellor Schröder that he would like the European Commission effectively to become the Government of Europe?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I know from the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks that he is aware of what I was about to say. Perhaps, I need not say it.
  Mr. Todd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You need not.
  First, we need a sharper definition of the purpose of the European Union. We need to decide what it is most efficient for the European Commission to deliver, and much tighter administration of the Commission's tasks for which we are deciding the funding today.
  Secondly, we need far better scrutiny in this country and this House of the matters that we are voting on today and the financial implications. I read with interest—I only read it this afternoon because of this debate—some key aspects of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the funding of the European Union in which a Commissioner had been quoted as saying that the subject of today's debate was a very small matter. Indeed, one of my hon. Friends said that the budget under discussion was small in relation to the UK public spending budget and that one could exaggerate the significance that it should be given. That neglects the argument that, in total public spending terms, the UK contribution is probably worth between 2p and 4p on income tax in net terms—our net contribution to the EU. That is of some weight and significance and we should take careful measure of it.
  190
  We debate some matters of much less weight at considerable length in this House, so the matter deserves tighter scrutiny.
  The systems that are in place clearly do not work well enough. Many hon. Members do not engage properly in scrutinising EU legislation. Constituents tell me that such legislation is nodded through and I can hardly dissent. Many provisions that are adopted on our behalf are not properly scrutinised. We should make a better hand of that.
  I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It gives us the chance to applaud what the Government have done; I genuinely do so, as we have taken important steps. I am a committed European and strongly endorse the European Union, but I want Europe to be run more sharply, with a clearer focus on objectives that we can all share, rather than on aims that seem to engage minor interests throughout the continent of Europe. This is also an opportunity to set some more challenging tasks for future negotiations, which I hope that this Government will lead.
  6.38 pm
  Angus Robertson: I rise to make my maiden speech during an important debate on Europe and our political place in this great continent. Without having to resort to convention, as the new Member for Moray, it is a great honour to speak about my fellow Scottish National party parliamentarian, Margaret Ewing. Margaret still represents the constituency in the Scottish Parliament and she will be remembered across the Floor of the House, I hope, as a passionate advocate for Scottish independence and social justice and as a supremely diligent constituency Member.
  Margaret's commitment to her constituents was a hallmark of her 18 years in the House, as was her work, in particular, with the fishing and whisky producing communities. The warm homes group, which she established, is one of her legacies in this House and it goes from strength to strength. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will wish her well in her continuing work in the Scottish Parliament.
  Moray has of course been inextricably linked with the independence struggle of Scotland over the centuries. Robert the Bruce was taken with the loyalty of the men of Moray who fought for liberty. The Bruce family is still linked with the area through the title of the Earl of Elgin.
  More recently, the area and the independence movement have been closely associated with the Ewing family; through my predecessor Margaret, obviously, but also through Winnie Ewing. The current president of the Scottish National party represented the area as Europe's longest-serving Euro-parliamentarian and is known affectionately as Madame Ecosse. Before that, she represented the then seal of Moray and Nairn. As the first non-Ewing to represent Moray for the SNP in the fourth decade of SNP victories in the constituency, I face a daunting task but I shall pursue it with relish.
  Tradition in this place dictates that a new Member should make mention of the geography and nature of his or her constituency in a maiden speech. That is not difficult for me as Moray is, without doubt, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. It stretches from the Moray firth coastline in the north, with its dolphins and porpoises, through the laich of Moray into Speyside and

  191
  to the Cairngorms in the south. It takes in the fishing towns of Buckie, Lossiemouth, Hopeman and Burghead; the cathedral city of Elgin; and ever-blooming Forres, which never seems to stop justifiably winning prizes for its beautifully tended flower displays, gardens and parks.
  Moray is also known internationally for its place on the religious and spiritual map. Apart from active congregations of all major Churches, the area boasts both the world's most northerly Christian monastery at Pluscarden, which is run by the Benedictines, and the Findhorn foundation which attracts visitors from around the world.
  The area is also blessed with its own pleasant micro-climate, so while the roch wind might be blowing elsewhere in Scotland and the rest of the country is dreich, the chances are that it is sunny and warm in Moray.
  Many Members have made great play of the fact that their constituencies or towns are sited on seven hills. However, I am blessed with a happier variation in one of the main whisky producing towns. As locals boast to visiting Italian tourists, "Rome might have been built on seven hills, but Dufftown stands round seven stills." As if seven stills were not already enough, I can make the happy claim to represent more than 50 per cent. of Scotland's distilleries, which is something that I plan to research fully.
  As well as my cautious plan; for whisky tasting, I intend to be a strong advocate for that industry and for those constituents who work in it. I shall also seek an end to the discrimination sanctioned by the House against Scotland's greatest export through penal and discriminatory rates of duty.
  It is a great pleasure to turn to the debate, and I do so as a proud Scot and European. I share with everybody in my country the positive benefits of immigration, which has made Scotland a diverse, multicultural and outward-looking country. Like the rest of Scotland, Moray has benefited from the welcome addition of Scots Chinese and Scots Asian communities. The many service men and women who serve at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss—predominantly from England—have also boosted the area.
  In my case, immigration to Scotland is immediately relevant as my mother and grandmother came from the continent in the wake of the second world war. Perhaps that is one reason that I feel so strongly about the development of Europe, not only as a vehicle for greater social, political and economic progress in this time of globalisation, but as the institutional guarantor of peace.
  The treaty of Nice is the mechanism that will help facilitate the enlargement of the European Union and reunite our continent after the false division maintained since the middle of the previous century. My only regret about the impending, welcome accession of countries from central and eastern Europe is that Scotland still lacks that equality of status in the international community and a direct seat at the top table of the EU. Shortly, both the Czech and Hungarian Governments will join those great sea-going powers, Austria and Luxembourg, with more direct say over the Scottish fishing industry, despite not having a single centimetre of coastline.
  Ironically, the treaty of Nice makes it clear for the first time that, with the planned realigned weighting of votes, the different constituent parts of the UK would have more
  192
  votes jointly were we directly represented within the EU. I look forward to the day when we can support each other's needs on this island not only as good neighbours, but as equals.
  As a first step, I very much welcome the recent political declaration of constitutional regions and nations involving Bavaria, Catalonia, North-Rhine Westphalia, Salzburg and Scotland. The declaration was signed in the spirit of the Nice treaty, which also seeks greater democracy, flexibility and transparency in European institutions. Among other key pledges in the declaration, the Scottish Executive approved the text which considers it "vital" that constitutional regions and nations should be able to refer directly to the European Court of Justice when their prerogatives have been harmed.
  I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House, especially those Labour and Liberal Democrat Members representing English and Welsh constituencies, who have already signed my early-day motion 3 on the subject. It would be a shame if no Members from Scotland, outside the SNP, were prepared to support the Scottish Executive on the subject, but I look forward to some of them signing the early-day motion.
  The Nice treaty also displayed other challenges—as was shown by the recent referendum result in Ireland. I do not mean a challenge in the conventional sense of treaty ratification, but turnout in that plebiscite was little more than 30 per cent. Turnout has been consistently down in almost all European democracies, including the UK. If European co-operation and our domestic democratic processes and political legitimacy continue to be undermined by a growing sense of cynicism and apathy, we face the dangers of extremism, as has been seen in Austria and elsewhere.
  That is why I devote my concluding comments to democratic involvement. I very much welcomed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris)—unfortunately he is not in the Chamber—as he addressed the challenge of encouraging more people back to the ballot booths. However, although I pose the same questions as he did, I do not share his opposition to fairer voting systems.
  Speaking as the youngest Member of the House who represents a Scottish constituency, I am convinced that one change might help to engender an interest in voting among young people: lowering the voting age to 16. That has the support of Members on both sides of the House and I make the suggestion in the non-partisan hope of boosting democracy.
  Does it not strike hon. Members as ludicrous that we can raise and spend tax money levied on 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it not ludicrous that we can pass legislation that affects their working lives and economic well-being? Is it not obscene that we can send young service men and women into hazardous situations where they may give their lives for their country? It is obscene that 16 and 17-year-olds are judged old enough to pay tax, get married or die for their country, but are not granted the equality that enfranchisement brings. As Ministers in this place and in the Scottish Executive consider suggestions for boosting the teaching of civic life and modern studies, would it not help to show 16 and 17-year-olds the relevance of the democratic process if we gave them the vote?

  193
  Finally, 34 years ago, SNP president Winnie Ewing made her maiden speech in this House after her victory in the Hamilton by-election. She took that opportunity to call for the voting age to be lowered from 21 to 18. It gives me great pleasure to progress that debate. It might help to restore interest in and relevance to the democratic process in this country and act as a positive development in the wider European context.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The Berlin summit was a special day for me. It began on 23 March 1999—my 50th birthday—so it sticks with me as I grow older and, perhaps, a little wiser.
  We have heard first-rate speeches from new Members: my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and I might take issue with the hon. Member for Moray about places of beauty—Cheshire can match anything that Scotland has to offer—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) is the Whip I had better not develop that point.
  I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Tatton about one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived. Alan Turing was treated disgracefully by Britain. It is great to hear a Conservative Member express those sentiments so strongly
  I have a great deal of knowledge of the centre of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Knutsford, as my office was there for a considerable time in a previous incarnation. He is absolutely right—it was Canute's ford, Elizabeth Gaskell wrote there, and it is a very interesting place. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman airbrushed out the last-but-one representative for Tatton, but perhaps we can discuss that some time with a pint at "The Bells of Peover". It is a pity that he drifted into the Eurosceptical note at the end of his speech, but never mind; it was an excellent speech, reflecting the very interesting constituency that he now represents.
  When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary opened the debate, he referred to points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire—
  Mr. Todd: South Derbyshire.
  Mr. Miller: I am sorry; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). The 1988 and 1994 agreements allowed for considerable real-terms increases—17 per cent. in 1988 and 22 per cent. in 1994. The contrast with the treaty that we are debating today is that Berlin stabilises EU spending.
  It would be worth while for the House to reflect on the history of such agreements over a number of years, and specifically on what happened in 1980. It is brilliantly set out in Sir Ian Gilmour's book, "Dancing with Dogma". I have heard it said that it should have been called "Dancing with Wolves", but I believe that the book came before the film. The book sets out how, at that time, the contribution for the first two years of the process for that negotiation was reduced, by skilled negotiation, by two thirds. However, when Ian Gilmour and Peter Carrington returned to Northolt, they were harangued.
  194
  To put the matter into perspective, I shall read a short paragraph:
  "We landed at Northolt and drove straight to Chequers where Mrs. Thatcher was holding a seminar on the Middle East. She had been sent a flash telegram telling her what had been provisionally agreed … Had we been the bailiffs arriving to take possession of the furniture, or even Ted Heath paying a social call in company with Jacques Delors, we would have probably been more cordially received. The Prime Minister was like a firework whose fuse had already been lit; we could almost hear the sizzling."
  That was the result of a very skilled negotiation, which the then Prime Minister distanced herself from until the said two gentlemen used a brilliant wheeze by leaking the story to the press, in the context of Mrs. Thatcher's great success in getting her money back. When she saw that, suddenly she saw things from a different end of the telescope. I commend that book to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is extremely well written and it is in the Library.
  There are those in the House who believe that we can avoid our trading relationships with Europe. That is certainly not the case in the context of my constituency, where a very significant part of our manufacturing base depends totally on two-way relationships with the mainland of Europe. Although many of those companies are also global players, they all tell me in no uncertain terms that their relationship with Europe is strengthened by a stable economic framework, and a number of players have given credit to the Government for achieving the success that they have. After all, half the United Kingdom's trade—I believe that it is £132 billion—is with Europe, and at least 3 million jobs are affected by that trade.
  Particularly important in the context of the financial arrangements are the parts of the agreement that impact on waste and fraud. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member far Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Having heard him rant about the processes that apply, I ask, why did the Conservatives, when in government for so long, do nothing about that very serious matter? In any large organisation, let alone an organisation as large as the European Union, there will inevitably be an element of waste and an element of fraud, and it is up to us, as a member state, to take a strong role in combating such activities.
  In the context of the treaty, the Government have had a remarkable success. I hope that not only the Government but every person in the House believes that any level of fraud against the EU budget is unacceptable, and I hope that the root and branch reform that the Prime Minister called for will be accepted by all Members of the House. I hope that we also all support the Commission's reform proposals, which involve a radical reform of financial management. We must continue to put pressure on the Commission to ensure that they are deliverable.
  The new European anti-fraud office was the initiative of our Chancellor. The Commissioners have already introduced a code of conduct for Commissioners and Commission officials, published a whistleblowers' charter, established fairer arrangements for appointments to senior posts, and started a major modernisation of financial management procedures that will establish clear lines of responsibility for preventing waste and fraud. Just compare that with the previous EC finance Bill—the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995, introduced by the Conservative party, which did nothing to tackle

  195
  waste and fraud. This Bill is tougher and takes tough action to tackle fraud. It may be a simple Bill, but its implications are far reaching in that area.
  Of course, the Commission's reform proposals cannot be implemented overnight, and in-depth reform will take some time, but we need to continue to put pressure on the Commission to ensure that these reforms are delivered in full. I hope that, despite the fragmentation of the Conservative party at the moment, there is general support for that principle, because it goes without saying that when our Ministers attend summits, the knowledge that it is not just their party but the whole of the British Parliament that is taking a stance strengthens their position.
  The body that has been set up in this field has the almost Scandinavian-sounding name of OLAF, but of course it comes from the French: Office Lutte Anti-Fraude. Its first annual report, which has just been published, is worth reading. It describes the organisational activities and analyses the types of fraud detected during the period. It says that 241 new files were opened, as were 68 administrative investigations and 181 co-ordination files. The total value of the cases under consideration was 264 million euros. That is not to say that that degree of fraud exists, but examinations are being carried out into these matters.
  There have been a number of high profile cases that hon. Members may have seen in the press. The press in different parts of Europe give a slightly different perspective, and it is worth examining the facts with some care. The body that has been set up as a result of the Chancellor's initiative is clearly having successes, ranging from the illegal importation of bananas from Ecuador, adulterated butter, a series of issues around flax production in Spain and irregular wage payments in the Commission office in Sweden. These are extremely important issues and will have an impact on the economic probity of the Council and the Commission. Together with other member states, we have made it clear that such activities must stop.
  Taking one of the examples that I cited, there was a major fraud involving some 16,000 tonnes of adulterated butter that had been sold for 45 million euros, if I am allowed to use that word in the presence of some Opposition Members. The entire cycle has been traced by the public prosecutors office in Naples and the Italian revenue police, thanks to the co-operation of the European anti-fraud office and the serious financial crime office of the French judicial police. We have created a mechanism that, in co-operation with existing authorities in other nations, has produced some important gains, to the benefit of the European taxpayer. Those who argued that because of the nature and scale of the institutions and the complexity of dealing with them, one could not tackle fraud successfully have been proved wrong.
  In February last year, a protocol was signed with the Italian anti-mafia directorate that establishes, in the light of article 280 of the European Union treaty, regular co-operation between the anti-mafia directorate and OLAF, aimed at more effective action against illegal activities in economic and financial areas. In the context of organised crime, whether in Italy or elsewhere, that body represents an important step forward. It is perhaps not the world's best-known body, but it has a free
  196
  telephone hotline in all member states to encourage members of the public to pass on information about fraud and irregularity, and the question of whistleblowers is dealt with within the treaty. I thought that, at that point, someone might leap up and challenge me to give the telephone number. If hon. Members want to try it, it is 0800 963 595.
  These are incredibly important financial reforms and the Bill helps to build on the foundations for the proposed enlargement. These measures were needed, and some have been horrendously delayed. One wonders what happened with the previous Administration in this regard. Perhaps they were so wrapped up in their anti-European rhetoric that they forgot their way.
  There must be continuing reform and, like the hon. Member for Moray and others, I want expansion to become possible. I can understand his frustration about some of the issues surrounding fishing regulations, but unless we look at the bigger picture, get the structures right and reform the CAP and fisheries policy, it will be difficult to address the details to which he referred.
  I want the process of expansion to continue. I have some great friends In some unlikely places; some might say that they are the only friends I have. But whether they are in Slovenia, Estonia or Malta, I want Europe to expand and the common bonds that have been created strengthened as a result of greater economic co-operation. This Bill is an essential prerequisite to that, and I commend it to the House.
  I ask all hon. Members to put aside their views about Europe. Unless one is a member of one of the Tory camps that wants us to come out of the EU altogether, we should all realise that this Bill is an essential building block for the future of Europe.
  7.7 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I have been reminded tonight of what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). We disagreed often in the Parliament of 1992 to 1997 and we will do so again in the future, but his warmth and courteous approach are always welcome in this House, even if he did try to butter us up tonight.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on his excellent maiden speech, and also my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Tinton (Mr. Osborne). They endeared themselves to the House tonight by speaking in this important debate with such eloquence and command of their subject. Their praise for their predecessors and their constituencies will reflect well upon them all. I am sure that all of them will have excellent careers in this place. It was a pleasure also to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who showed, as always, a uniquely accurate and detailed grasp of European finances.
  The Bill is yet another missed opportunity. The Government should have taken the opportunity today to get to grips with Europe and to tackle the thorny issues of European financing. Instead, they ducked that opportunity. The Government should have used this opportunity to promote wholesale reform of the financing structures and mechanisms, which are costly, wasteful and regressive. The Chief Secretary said that the effect of the

  197
  Bill is neutral. I do not agree, but even if it were that would be no reason for hon Members to roll over and accept it.
  I do not agree that shifting the balance from VAT to GDP will necessarily be less regressive. I see it as a stealth-based way to transfer funds from those member states that work hard and generate wealth to those that are, shall we say, less prosperous. That fact has not yet emerged in this debate. This is a socialist, redistributive measure; it will enable new taxes to be imposed on our citizens, and it deserves closer scrutiny than it seems to have had so far from those on the Government Benches.
  Every hon. Member knows the emotions that flow when one rises to make a maiden speech—the intoxicating blend of honour and humility, of trepidation, yet pleasure. I have now learned that the same emotions flow for those who have been described as quasi-retreads, but perhaps with a little extra added humility, which can be no bad thing—the humility that comes from having lost and then been chosen again by those who knew one before.
  I have not been idle during my enforced sabbatical There are benefits in extending one's experience outside the ivory tower of Westminster in the real world—or as my constituents often used to put it, earning an honest living. I went back to my old activities in British industry—activities similar to those of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I hope that that experience will serve me well in future.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, we are an exclusive group—a group of only two quasi-retreads, who won the election to represent the constituencies that we had previously held.
  It is a tradition that I should heap praise on my predecessors, and I am very happy to do so tonight. My most recent predecessor was Mrs. Butler, who cared deeply for the Labour party and for Castle Point. She fought for key issues, such as Canvey's third road and to save the local radio station. She did an excellent job locally and she was very well thought of in Castle Point.
  Indeed, Mrs. Butler followed in a line of great parliamentarians—in particular Sir Bernard Braine, whom I succeeded and who later became Lord Braine. Serving as Father of the House in his later years, he brought great dignity and a real sense of caring to that office. It is with no exaggeration that I say that Bernard, after 42 years as a Member, was one of the best-loved Members of Parliament of the 20th century. He once held the record for the length of a speech in the House; I think he spoke for about three and a half hours on one occasion.
  I will try to emulate Bernard's indomitable fighting spirit when it comes to the rights of my constituents, to simple justice for individuals and to defending this country, as we should be doing tonight. However, the House will be relieved to hear that I will not copy Bernard in his habit of making three and a half hour speeches—I intend to restrict myself to only two hours tonight. Bernard Braine took the seat from another well known and much loved politician—the Labour Member of Parliament, Ray Gunter, who contributed much to the trade union movement in this country. So my predecessors were indeed illustrious, and one would expect no less of Castle Point given that, in common with most Members, I believe that I represent the very best constituency in the country, and it is a great honour to do so.
  198
  Castle Point lies on the north bank of the Thames estuary, nestled between Basildon and Southend-on-Sea. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) here tonight. On the mainland are Thundersley, Daws Heath, Benfleet and, of course, Hadleigh, within which lies Hadleigh castle. In the Thames, we have Canvey island, to the east of which is Canvey point. The features of Hadleigh castle and Canvey point give us our constituency name. Canvey lies within the port of London to the east of the great Coryton oil refineries.
  In 1605—a date that hon. Members will remember—gunpowder was manufactured on Canvey island and taken up the Thames in boats b y Guy Fawkes and packed below the House, to blow up the historic palace. I guess that it is for that reason that the police always pay particular attention to my car when I arrive here from my constituency. However, there is no gunpowder, treason or plot to be found in Castle Point these days. We are a close-knit, sound community and loyal to Britain and our monarch.
  We have other historic connections with this palace. Many of the timbers that made the hammer beam roof in Westminster Hall were cut from the great oaks of Thundersley wood. That is where I live today and have lived for many years. We have a varied and beautiful environment in Castle Point and the people are very special. Compared with the average British constituency, we have 30 per cent. more self-employed people, the highest number of owner-occupied houses, significantly more cars per household, and our population is younger than the average—and Canvey island football team had a great cup run this year, under the inspired stewardship of Jeff King. So the picture painted by the statistics and, indeed, by my experience in Castle Point is that of a young, self-reliant, enthusiastic and caring community.
  Having heard how discerning my constituents are, the House will not be surprised to learn that the vast majority of them are rather sceptical about Europe. They believe that this country needs defending from the continual erosion of its sovereignty and from economic attack from Europe. I may be skating on thin ice in saying that, but this is only a semi-maiden speech, so I hope that I can semi-observe the conventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, I must honestly represent the views of the people of Castle Point. Bernard Braine said in his maiden speech that we lived in limes of peril. We still do. That demands courage and constancy from politicians of good heart and sound judgment. Our constitution and traditions are being eroded and our economy is threatened by inappropriate European integration. Worst of all, our very sovereignty is dangerously dissolving into the European melting pot. Castle Point people are pragmatic and understand money. They have not been deceived. They know that the Prime Minister has yielded a significant part of the rebate that Maggie Thatcher negotiated for Britain. That abatement should have belonged to Britain as a result of the enlargement programme. It amounted to hundreds of millions of pounds of so-called windfall. That is enough money to pay for 3,000 new teachers, 3,000 new nurses and 3,000 new police officers a year—in all, 9,000 extra dedicated and caring professionals whom the people of Castle Point and Britain dearly need.
  My constituents know that the finances of Europe are riddled with fraud and waste. They know that the common agricultural policy, which may have served a purpose in

  199
  the 1960s, is now expensive nonsense and must be fundamentally reformed. We could and should have used this opportunity to start that long-overdue process, but the Government have ducked it. Will the Minister in her summing-up speech say how and when the Government will fundamentally reform CAP financing?
  Castle Point people are grateful, of course, for the money that may be provided from European funds—for example, for the Thames gateway regeneration project—but they are sharp; they know that for every pound they get, they must first give £6, based on a net contribution of more than £4 billion and only £667 million in regional development fund receipts for this country. Castle Point people bought into Europe as an economically beneficial trading project, but they now see it for what it has become—a dangerous, expensive political experiment.
  Those European financing issues are not the only ones that concern the people of Castle Point. Notwithstanding massive privatisation investment, the railway line still needs to be improved. Our roads need serious investment to reduce the ever-growing congestion in Hadleigh, Tarpots, Sadler's Farm, and especially on Canvey island. The number of police on our streets has been cut, just as our police stations, which I previously fought to keep open to provide 24-hour cover, have been closed or made part-time during the past four years.
  We need to secure benefits from the Thames gateway regeneration and P&O port projects, but we must be aware of and defend ourselves from the potential negative impacts of those developments on our environment.
  There are also real difficulties in our schools, with the lowest-ever morale now recorded in local schools. That has been exacerbated by massive teacher shortages in the south-east and by the over-burdening bureaucracy that flows from the Department for Education and Skills.
  We need to create more employment—but that can, on occasions, conflict with our environmental objectives, so care is needed. The Labour Government have set a massive and, I believe, unsustainable target of building an additional 2,400 houses in Castle Point. I will fight to ensure that the estates of new houses and the necessary industrial development, which must occur, will take place only on brownfield land.
  I shall address all those points with Ministers and on the Floor of the House as the weeks and months go by. The 30 or so questions that I have already tabled stand witness to that fact. A Member of Parliament cannot represent the interests of his or her constituency or country without speaking out in this place. The House needs statesmen—politicians who will hold the Executive to account in this Chamber and who can make the public aware that something needs to be done and then persuade them to do it.
  I will seek all-party action where possible to resolve our problems. We need more courtesy and co-operation in politics today; but these times also call for strong opposition. Only the Conservative party truly represents the interests of the British people, and never more so than on European financing.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I wish to make a short contribution to the debate, but before I do so I apologise for my late arrival. I was detained in my constituency.
  200
  Since I have been here, I have heard several interesting maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) made a well-informed, persuasive and detailed speech, bringing to the Chamber his enormous experience as a former Member of the European Parliament. Indeed, he was the leader of the Labour group there. I particularly welcome him as a former fellow graduate of Cardiff university; there should be a few more of us in the Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made an eloquent speech and clearly showed that he is easily making the transition from scribe in one or other of the disreputable newspapers to politician. I welcome him to this place.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) gave a speech of clear conviction and demonstrated much affection for his constituency. I was interested in his remarks about introducing voting at the age of 16. I am not convinced of the need for that, but there is a case to be made and he made it well.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), as a fellow Essex Member, to the Chamber. He made an impassioned anti-European speech. Although I was not convinced by its substance, its style was excellent. He spoke eloquently and movingly about his predecessors.
  A debate on Britain's relationship with the European Union and on our membership of the EU is welcome so soon after the general election in which—let us not forget it—Britain's membership of the EU featured prominently. It must be underlined that there was a strong belief in the Conservative party in the weeks and months in the run-up to the general election that opposition to the single currency and vitriolic hostility to the EU and all its works would move opinion massively and significantly towards that party.
  For days and weeks, we heard that the final seven days of the campaign were going to be devoted to the single currency and that that would be the issue that would lead people to switch their votes to the Conservative party. At the very least, we should note that that simply did not happen. The more that the Conservative party focused on Europe, the EU and the single currency, the more people began to question why it was not talking about other important issues, such as schools, hospitals, railways and much else.
  The campaign and the way in which the result came about convinced me more than ever that the British people are not intrinsically anti-European. I believe that they are Euro-sceptic or sceptical about Europe, but not in the way that the Conservative party has taken over the notion of scepticism. They are sceptical in the true sense of the word. They are questioning, concerned and anxious about Me future, and they desire more information, but that does not amount to hostility.
  The detailed polling evidence that appeared during the election campaign showed clearly—this was borne out by my experience of talking to thousands of people on the doorstep in my constituency—that there is not a majority for British withdrawal from the EU. Depending on how the question is put and the opinion poll that one consults, there may be a majority for joining the single currency at some stage in the future if and when the criteria are met. That is very different from the prospectus on which the Conservative party campaigned.

  201
  Another factor that I found on the doorstep in the election campaign—it relates specifically to the debate—is that, whatever view people take on the EU, its budget and the single currency, they overwhelmingly wanted the issues to be debated and to receive more information They want the type of honest argument that, all too often, we do not have. Our job as politicians of all parties and of all views is to provide that information. We do not receive it from the national newspapers. On the issues of Europe and particularly the single currency and the budget, their approach is one of crude caricature and prejudice. We need information, facts and details as well as a broad philosophical debate on the kind of Europe we want and what Britain's position in it should be.
  If we have such a debate, I am confident that, when the criteria for entry into the single currency are met, we will be able to take the case to the British people in a referendum and win the argument. Whatever views individuals take, we should have a referendum when the criteria are met. I never understood the Conservative party's position of opposing that, because it is the single most important economic issue in a generation. It must be decided.
  In the debate, I have heard repeated references to the experience of referendums elsewhere in the EU. In particular, the referendums In Denmark and the Irish Republic have been used to provide justification for the Conservative party's view that the EU is heading for the rocks. I would not go too far down that road, because there were specific reasons that explain why those referendums were lost. Those issues do not resonate in this country.
  In Denmark, the overwhelming reason why people rejected the single currency in a referendum was that they thought that joining it would lead to the Danish welfare state being undermined.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate on the Bill's Second Reading is tightly drawn and the hon. Gentleman is now ranging rather wide of the mark.
  Mr. Rammell: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I take note of the time. I shall move on.
  I wish to comment on the interesting remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd)—and they must have been in order because he made them. He referred to the fact that some people have doubts about the single currency because of their doubts about European institutions. That argument is worth considering, and he made some positive points.
  My hon. Friend also strongly made a point that relates specifically to the EU budget. He stressed the need for better scrutiny by this Chamber of the EU's budget and affairs. I strongly support him in that view. I served for four years in the previous Parliament as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and it does very good work, but all Members have a responsibility to scrutinise the EU's work and budget. All too often, we do not take that responsibility and too few Members take a real interest in these issues.
  A significant proportion of the laws that affect the lives of people in this country emanate from the EU, but they receive nothing like the scrutiny that we devote to legislation that originates from Westminister, which is a cause for concern. We have to consider providing the
  202
  European Scrutiny Committee with a procedural device so that it is more able to get its concerns debated on the Floor of the House.
  There is often a case for the European Scrutiny Committee to take on the role of a more traditional Select Committee. It is instructive to compare its work on budgets with the role of the European Union Committee in the other place, which carries out more detailed and wide-ranging investigations. We can learn from that.
  Dr. Palmer: Is there merit in moving towards the Danish approach of having a committee that needs to give its consent before the Government decide on European Union issues?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing other structures, as I have explained.
  Mr. Rammell: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially in light of the look on the face of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. However, it is an interesting point.
  The Bill is positive. It cements the outcome of the successful 1999 European Council negotiations in Berlin, which produced constructive proposals. The Bill is a prerequisite to enlargement. That is also true of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to ratify the Nice treaty, which we will discuss tomorrow. That fact needs to be underlined. I am concerned when politicians say that they are in favour of enlargement progressing quickly, but when it comes to the means and decisions to achieve that there is not so much enthusiasm. That is especially the case with Conservative Members.
  Without the changes, we will not have enlargement, which would be a cause for concern. Not only is it in Britain's economic self-interest to enlarge the EU from a single market of 370 million people to 500 million consumers, but we have an ethical and moral responsibility to former eastern bloc countries, which for decades we encouraged to reject totalitarianism and change their societies fundamentally. They did that and are keen to join the EU. The longer the debate about enlargement drags on without—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is not about enlargement.
  Mr. Rammell: It is about the financial means to achieve enlargement, and we should introduce the measures to do that as soon as possible.
  I welcome the move from own resources to GNP as a result of the deal that was struck in Berlin, which will provide a fairer and more affordable mechanism to fund EU activities in the long term. Despite the claims about the outcome of European Council deliberations on EU budgets when the previous Conservative Government were in power, the two earlier negotiations resulted in significant increases in expenditure. After this round of negotiations, there will be no rise in real terms at the end of the period in question.
  It is also noteworthy to explain, as others have done, that we have safeguarded the British abatement. Many other EU Governments were keen to end that, which we avoided by successful negotiation. Indeed, many

  203
  Conservatives consistently claimed in the run-up to the Berlin Council that we would be forced to give way and lose the abatement, but that did riot materialise.
  It is worth recognising that the UK's net contribution after enlargement will be of the same order as that paid by France or Italy. That was not the case in the 1980s and early 1990s when the Conservatives were in power and our contribution to the EU was disproportionate to our national wealth. The Bill and the deal reached in Berlin move us firmly in the right direction.
  Progress on the common agricultural policy is also welcome. I agree with what my lion. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said about the need to go much further on CAP reform. However, Berlin represented the most radical reform of the CAP since it was established. There will be significant price cuts for cereals, beef and milk, and the annual contribution will fall by about £70 a year for the average family.
  Since 1988, the proportion of the EU' s budget spent on farming has fallen from 67 per cent. to 46 per cent. today. That figure is still too high, but it shows that we are making progress. However, although the achievement at Berlin was important and historic, we must consider why we did not go further. Germany is often prepared to support an unjustifiable defence of the CAP by the French Government because of the historic Franco-German alliance. The British Government and British people can learn from that. We have an opportunity to work with that arrangement and provide a tripartite leadership instead of relying on the Franco-German alliance to be the motor of the EU.
  The Bill provides us with the opportunity to tackle fraud and financial mismanagement. The new European anti-fraud office was the initiative of the Chancellor and the Government and it has already conducted major investigations. The European Commission's decision to appoint Neil Kinnock with special responsibility for reform is especially significant. Achievements include the code of conduct for Commissioners, the whistleblowers' charter and, in particular, the new and fair arrangements for appointments to senior posts so that we do not continue with Buggins' turn, which happened too often in the Commission. When we talk about fraud and financial mismanagement as the responsibility of the EU, we should note that 85 per cent. of its spending is delivered by individual national Governments. The responsibility to tackle fraud lies not only at the centre, but with national Governments.
  The Bill is an achievement. It takes us forward and provides for sound and well-established EU funding. If we pass the Bill and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill tomorrow, we will lead the way to EU enlargement, which will be one of the most significant and historic developments on our continent in the next decade. I hope that all hon. Members will support it.
  7.38 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: One of the joys of being a final speaker is that it is possible to hear many interesting speeches, and today I have had the pleasure of hearing four splendid maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made a re-maiden speech, because he made excellent
  204
  contributions when he previously served in this place. There is no doubt that he will once again be a great champion of Castle Point. He showed great understanding of, and concern for, its people and all that they stand for. I am sure that we wish him well in returning to that area, which has always had splendid representatives. I was interested, as always, in his speech and look forward to hearing more from him.
  The other maiden speakers set themselves serious objectives. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is a Scottish nationalist, made a fascinating speech in which he said that he was going to fight for the interests of the fishing industry. The Chief Secretary will be well aware from his experience of Europe that, whereas we used to have 80 per cent. of the waters and fish of Europe, we now, sadly, have only 20 per cent. Clearly, the hon. Member for Moray will have a major job on his hands if he is to do something about that. I am not sure that Parliament has any powers at all in that respect, but I am sure that we all wish him well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) also made a splendid speech, in which he said that his objective was the reform of the common agricultural policy. I have had the pleasure of waiting for that reform for about 20 years. We have heard three speeches proclaiming the merits of the reform that has happened so far; we all know that it is a load of codswallop, because all that we have had is a small reduction in some prices and a transfer of subsidy to what are called "area payments", which are being paid for by member Governments. To that extent, it is possible to say that the real cost of the CAP is no greater than before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made an inspiring speech, in which he said that he was in favour of extending the membership of the European Economic Community. Despite all the talk, Ministers well know that that cannot and will not happen.
  As someone who has had to listen, time and again, to discussion of European regulations and treaties, I know that the same thing always happens: views are expressed about the merits and joys that will ensue, but later, when one looks back, one finds that they simply never emerged.
  Remarkable comments have been made today. A Member who represents a Welsh constituency said how wonderful it was that we are to have more objective 1 and objective 2 grants, which will bring pleasure to Wales. We should be well aware that if those grants are linked to EEC enlargement, that will wind up Britain's receipt of them. If, by chance, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania become members of the EEC, the money available to the United Kingdom for grants will be very restricted. We should ask ourselves what the blazes the benefit of those grants is, bearing in mind the fact that if we controlled that expenditure, we could spend twice as much.
  Probably because I do not like the EEC, I take pleasure in the fact that my constituency is the only place in Essex that has objective 2 grants. We applied for only three wards, and the EEC insisted on awarding grants for five. It turned down places such as Basildon and Tilbury, and said that my constituency, including the place where I live, was an area of deprivation that needed lots of money, so we got all the money for Essex. There will no doubt he big posters around the constituency saying, "Given by the kindness of the EEC", and I feel like putting a Teddy Taylor poster underneath each one, simply pointing out that every pound costs us two pounds.

  205
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made the wonderful statement that the Bill will improve our trade which has been an astonishing success. If we look at the facts we see that, far from being an astonishing success, our trade has been an abysmal failure, because our trade deficit with Europe since we joined is £166 billion. That means that for every £10 of goods we have sold to Europe, it has sent us back £11 of goods. We have also been told that by changing the basis for the collection of the money from VAT to GDP, the Bill will reduce fiddling and fraud. That is typical of the comments that we always hear about the joys that will flow from the new powers that we are giving Europe. Experience shows that those benefits will not emerge.
  In a splendid speech, the Chief Secretary gave us two new assurances. He said that he accepted that the Governments of Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands were thrilled and delighted that, under this proposal, they will pay less in contributions, but he explained that, far from Britain making up the difference, it will be made up by other member states. He said also that Britain's position would be stable and settled because we have the advantage of the rebate. My experience of other Bills on Europe tells me that I will have the pleasure of reminding him of what he said when we get the figures for the contributions that we have made.
  The Chief Secretary did not explain what the effect on Britain's payments of the windfall payments not being taken into account will be. We know that there are windfall payments that should come to the United Kingdom. I understood the figure to be about £200 million, but one Member was talking about pennies, so I ask the Economic Secretary, in her wind-up speech, to tell us what will be the consequence of abolishing windfall payments.
  What worries me most is that although we are told that the Bill will not result in more cash going to Europe, hon Members will find, if they look back at previous debates, that we have had the same assurances every time. What are the facts? In 1973, the year in which we joined, out net payment was £88 million. Ten years later, it was £796 million. In 1993, the figure was £2,154 million, and in 2000, it was £4,048 million. There has been a massive increase, and that will inevitably continue.
  Those are net figures; let us talk about gross figures. I have not had the pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of visiting your constituency more than twice, but I know, as we all do, that everyone there loves having you as their representative. If I were to hand you a cheque for £5.5 million and tell you that you could do whatever you liked with it for your constituency, I am sure that being the kind, caring and conscientious MP you are, you could think of many things to spend it on. It is a lot of money I am sure that if I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point a cheque for £5.5 million and told him to spend it as he wished, he would think of many causes in his constituency that needed help. I mention that figure because it is the amount that we have sent to Brussels since we started this debate at 3.30 pm. Some £1.2 million goes to Brussels every hour. Daily, the amount is £29 million, and weekly, it is £210 million, and that rate of contribution will increase.
  When the Government discussed the financing of the EEC and how the money should be spent, did they wonder what possible good was coming from it? Did they, for example, think about the fishermen to whom the hon. Member for Moray referred? Our fishermen have been
  206
  ruined by our arrangement with the EEC; instead of 80 per cent. of the fish and the fishermen, we have 20 per cent., and the figure is falling. What about the businesses that we have been talking about, and the trade that we were told was so wonderful? We all know that trade with Europe has been disastrous, and that the problem will get worse. What about the CAP?
  Dr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that trade is valuable only if it involves exports, and that he is not interested in consumers having the opportunity to import at reasonable prices?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am saying that it is not good for a country that has a positive balance of trade with an area to make a change in its trading arrangements which results in a massive deficit. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the deficit is due to the extra costs that, unfortunately, stem from the EEC. He will know that we used to have a positive balance of trade, but we now have a net deficit of, depending on how one looks at it, £166 billion or £300 billion.
  Why do we want to spend more money on the CAP? We should look at the figures for the destruction of food. I hope that enthusiasts for the EEC will ask themselves what the point is of spending so much money on destroying food, which is essentially what CAP funds are spent on. We should consider grants, and ask ourselves what is the point of some of the crazy items that we are spending public money on. I suggest that in discussions of grants, the Government should ask themselves whether it would not be better if the EEC had no money at all, instead of simply trying to make changes to give it a little more. I suspect that if we looked at the various schemes that have been implemented, we would find that they do not help Europe or assist its people. Their only outcome is a massive waste of public money, which should worry us all. If we want to help people and countries, we can do it by dropping money from aeroplanes, or sending a cheque through the post, without becoming involved in the ludicrous schemes of the EC.
  I hope that the Government will consider the consequences for this country's expenditure of items that are not direct amounts that we have to pay because of the Bill, but—disregarding the Bill—stem instead from our other arrangements with Europe. In connection with one such item, I wish that the Minister would give a straight answer to this question: how much money have Britain, its taxpayers and people lost by the sales of gold and the purchase of euros?
  Roger Casale: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that Britain should not be a net contributor to the EU budget? If so, which countries does he believe should be net contributors? Obviously, some countries must be net contributors and others net gainers from the budget.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Had I been in charge of the negotiations, I would have said that there should be no budget at all. In the context of Europe, if we ask what benefit comes from the expenditure on gold, the answer is none at all. What advantage does anyone derive from the CAP? It is the biggest protection racket ever devised by man. The farmers had a wonderful time for the first five years, but now farmers in all constituencies are suffering. How has Europe helped the fishing industry?

  207
  How has it helped anyone? Instead of trying to renegotiate the amounts of money involved, we should ask whether there is any point at all. The hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast for the EEC, but does he really think that Europe would be worse off if there were no expenditure at all? I think that it would be much better for Europe, its industry and its people if there were none.
  Roger Casale: In one respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: the EU is in need of reform. The CAP in particular is in need of drastic reforms. However, what arguments and tactics would he adopt to bring about such reforms?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To be honest, if the hon. Gentleman is talking about reforming the CAP, he should forget about it—it is not possible, it will never happen. The sort of mini-changes that are being made simply enable us to kid ourselves, because when decisions are made by majority vote, it is not possible to get the sort of structural changes that are needed—majority agreement will never be reached. Governments of both parties have tried to mislead themselves into believing that reforms can be achieved and that renegotiation is on its way, but they are kidding themselves. We have power only when money is being requested—that is the time at which we should promote change.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman and the current Government, as I asked the previous Government, to think about the point of European expenditure and to consider whether Europe would be better off if we had no expenditure at all. I mentioned the regional grants that will pour into my constituency and cost this country twice as much as the grants themselves. We ask whether the money will be wisely spent, but when we look around Britain for silly things on which money has been spent, we find that grants have formed the basis for many of them. We must think about carefully about those questions.
  Because of our relationship with Europe as set out in the Bill, we have to do some silly things, one of which is to promote or pump up the euro. Everyone knows that all previous single currencies have collapsed: unless we are like America, with one Government, one Treasury and a feeling of nationhood, the single currency will collapse. We all know that that will happen to the euro, but we have been propping it up in various ways, one of which—apart from direct intervention—has been to tell the Bank of England to sell its gold and put 40 per cent. of the money into euros.
  The Bank has sold more than 200 tonnes of gold. All I want to know is how much money we have lost. The price of gold has, unfortunately, risen since we sold. We know that the price of the euro today is about the lowest it has ever been and that it has gone down some way since we bought euros. I simply want to know how much we have lost. I think that that is a reasonable question. When I asked Ministers that question, they told me that it would be misleading to give me that information, so I wrote to that terribly nice man, Sir Edward George, Governor of the Bank of England, asking him to tell me. He replied that he was sorry, but that he believed
  "that any such calculation would be misleading. I do not see any reason for the Bank to undertake it."
  208
  Ours is meant to be a democratic assembly and I think that the taxpayer is entitled to know how much money has been lost by selling the gold, how much has been lost by buying all those euros, how many euros we have, and what is going to happen.
  If we look back into history, we will see that it always happens the same way. Say a country—for example, Ireland or Germany—is doing too well and is too prosperous—
  Roger Casale: Given that the hon. Gentleman clearly believes that the EU costs too much and that reform is impossible, is it his view that Britain should withdraw altogether from the EU?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: That is not possible. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of Parliament long, but he must wake up to reality: Britain does not Lave the power to withdraw from the EU. I cannot be drawn into wider issues, because this is a Second Reading debate, but be should know that we cannot withdraw. Even if everyone wanted to leave the EC and if every Member of Parliament including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition voted for it, it would not work: we would be taken to the courts for breaching the treaties. We do not have the power to do it. That is why the hon. Gentleman should adopt an extremely cautious approach to all new developments—all the new money spent and all the new powers given away.
  The sad fact is that we cannot withdraw—Britain does not have the power. If we passed a Bill stating our intention to withdraw from the EEC, it would not work. The European treaties are not like a treaty with, say, Belgium or France, which can be torn up and that is that. We have handed over the power; it has gone. I voted against every one of those treaties, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he cares to look up my record; I am sorry that we ever agreed to them. Now, because Europe is heading for the horrible problems that always accompany a single currency, we have to be extremely careful about giving away additional power. Most important of all, we must avoid being over-optimistic.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic—I am sure it is in there somewhere, but I am not with it at the moment. If he accepts that withdrawal is impossible and he opposes the Bill—I presume that he will vote against Second Reading—he should argue for something else in its place, but no amendment to the Second Reading motion has been tabled. What is the logic of his position? Would we simply be left—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a speech, not making an intervention, and I suspect that he is going to lead the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) astray if he is not careful.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be drawn into those broader issues.
  I would argue for the following simple course of action. We should say that we will not agree to any new treaty until an escape clause is written in, so that countries that

  209
  want to leave can legally do so if their Governments and their people want that. We do not have that power now, but it would be great if we had. However, that is a wider issue.
  I have spoken for far too long, so I shall forget about the rest of my speech and conclude by making one simple and sincere point to the Government. Please stop being over-confident and thinking that everything will be better. Many people have said that they will reform the CAP, but look at the facts—it is not happened. We have only made a tiny change in prices and transferred the responsibility for paying grants called area payments to our national Governments.
  The Government should stop kidding themselves—in particular, they should stop kidding themselves that the Bill will not cost more money. Provisions for European taxes have been written in. Such taxes have not been levied yet, but the fact is that everything in previous treaties has happened, because the Europeans say that we have agreed to some proposition and we have to agree to something that emerges from it. We are getting in deeper and deeper. I hope that the Government will stop being over-optimistic and that they will stop trying to pretend that things are happening that are not happening.
  I regard the Bill as perhaps the best deal that the Government could negotiate in the circumstances, but it will do us no good. It will open the way to our losing additional power and I am convinced that, in two years' time, our net contribution will be far greater than the £4 billion it was this year.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to speak about the Bill on Second Reading. Although I missed some of the proceedings, including most of the maiden speeches, I picked up the flavour, or tenor, of the debate from the introductory speeches.
  I heard part of the very good maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and what I suppose can be described as the re-maiden speech of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). I am not sure what a retread is—I thought it was something that one put on one's car when one could not afford a new wheel—but I am sure that we could use a far more complimentary word to describe his speech. I share some common ground with the hon. Gentleman, who referred to the success of his football team, Canvey Island; their success was achieved at the expense of my football team, Forest Green Rovers, who lost in the final of the Football Association trophy. Perhaps we can turn that around in future.
  Before turning to the Bill, I welcome my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Front Bench. I hope that she has an enjoyable time as a Treasury Minister and that I do not make her job too difficult this evening.
  I wish to concentrate on reform of the common agricultural policy. Most Members will know that in the previous Parliament my interest was mainly in agriculture, which is not unimportant. If the Berlin Council and the legislation that has consequently been introduced are to succeed, it is through the reform of agriculture that moneys will be allowed to square the circle. I make no apology for concentrating on that part of the package but, in doing so, I am sure that I can comment on the wider package.
  210
  I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) that the Bill is rather opaque and that it is therefore difficult to know exactly how it will work in practice. In particular, I am still struggling with the mechanism by which we move from a VAT contributory regime to one based on the GNP of the nations of the EU. I am sure that that will make sense in due course but, for the moment, it leaves me mystified. I am certain that we will get further clarification as debate proceeds in this place.
  In concentrating on the way in which the CAP reform is a crucial part of the whole package, I should like to highlight two possible dilemmas that have to be overcome for change to be handled properly. The first dilemma, as has already been said, is that overall reform is dependent on agricultural reform—one supposes that that involves the reduction of the support mechanism payments through the production mechanism. If the EU is to continue, that system will need radical reform; if it is not reformed, the EU will he bankrupted when the new countries join. I know that there is a strength of purpose and a desire to do good things, and although I do not go along entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I feel that there have been many missed opportunities in reform of the CAP. If we are to get it right this time, reform must be radical and complete; it must recognise that the new countries coming in will want a say in the regime that will come into play even before they sign on the dotted line to join the EU.
  The second dilemma relates to the first and concerns the subject that I raised when I intervened on the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. The changes are predicated on the fact that reform of the CAP regime will mean, effectively, moving towards a free market system, which will further enhance the globalisation of agriculture. I am pointing out that dilemma because the producers and consumers whom I talk to are rather sceptical about the benefits of globalisation. We have only to look at the recent protests which, in some ways, littered the streets of the major European capitals—I do not excuse the protesters' behaviour—to realise that certain aspects of globalisation are, at the very least, questionable.
  We are talking not just about the necessary reform of agriculture per se, but about what will come with that. Such reform is linked to the World Trade Organisation and the gradual liberalisation of our trade. There was a dispute about the multilateral agreement on investment and, more recently, an argument about the possible globalisation of services, both of which have led to a great reaction, most of it negative. Agriculture involves a further aspect: in many ways, the markets already trade on it, but it falls between the extreme of the free market and the protected ways in which different parts of the world control the supply and purchase of agricultural products.
  We are experiencing a dilemma concerning our handling of that problem. Unless we can resolve that, finance will not be avail able to allow the EU to continue, expand and take care of existing problems. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to explain how we can push forward agricultural changes and guarantee that that will take place before there is any further expansion; we must not threaten certain things, as some of us believe that they could have a deleterious effect on the future of agriculture.

  211
  I know that the easy answer is that we should look at a different way of funding agriculture and encourage different agricultural systems. I certainly welcome what will come with the change in legislation: the encouragement of more rural development and the expectation that the second pillar—which has been referred to as a stump—will grow a limb that can stand up on its own, rather than being supported by other mechanisms. If we are to change agriculture for the better, that cannot happen a day too soon. Certainly, producers, who are currently facing difficulties, want assurance that change will not be achieved at the cost of any further difficulties in their production.
  Also, consumers need to be satisfied that the way that they can obtain food is by paying a fair price. I have never been one to argue, in this place or outside, that that should be the lowest price. I worry when people speak of agricultural benefits for the consumer in the form of lower prices alone. Have we not learned enough from recent crises to know that food cannot be produced at a cheaper price without impairing quality or choice? We must make sure that a balance is struck, and I am not sure that free market solutions through the globalisation of agricultural production are the best way to achieve that.
  Several other speakers mentioned the fact that, as a result of the Berlin Council, the British rebate will be guaranteed and other countries will not be asked to contribute more. Wearing my agricultural hat, I must say that I have always had reservations about the true benefits of the Fontainebleau opt-out and the fact that we received a rebate of our contribution. Some of the problems visited upon the agricultural industry of late are due to the fact that when we call, as many of us do, for agrimonetary compensation, most of it comes from the British Exchequer, because we are locked into the price and currency mechanisms. It was always said that 78p in the pound would be paid back in that way.
  We may find that acceptable, given the wider benefits that have accrued from Fontainebleau, but I do not believe that that is as good a deal as some people would have us believe. We are building upon it, as it is difficult to go backwards and consider a new mechanism. If the UK renegotiates its rebate, other countries will expect to be able to do the same. It is interesting to note that four countries have been able to reduce the amount that they contribute towards our rebate. I wonder how they achieved that; perhaps we can learn from them. If lower contributions are paid and higher rebates are demanded, somebody has to pay for that. Like the insurance principle, if one pays less in, there is less available when one needs to draw the money out. That has cost us dear in recent times.
  Those are the two fundamental dilemmas facing us. I would be far happier if we got on with agricultural reform, so that the CAP could meet the needs of both producers and consumers. There are, of course, many other pressures on the system, not the least of which are those that will result from the expansion of the EU in due course.
  I do not know whether either or both of the two main Opposition parties intend to vote against Second Reading tonight. In the main Opposition party, there seems to be a split between those who want a plague on all European houses, and who will see the Bill as a further ratcheting
  212
  up of integration and will therefore vote against it on principle, and those who will take a more pragmatic stance on the Bill. Among some of those bidding for the Leadership, there seems to be the view that the party misjudged what the British people would stand for with regard to further European progression. They are therefore seeking a compromise position. When they present their tax and spend proposals, it will be interesting to see whether they aim to draw back money from Europe or take a more pragmatic line.
  The Liberal Democrats remain the most enthusiastic Europeans in this place, notwithstanding the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends. The Liberal Democrat view seems to be that an opportunity was missed, and that the changes proposed in Berlin could have progressed further and faster. I am not sure whether that is realpolitik and therefore possible, or just a typically optimistic stance.
  Some positive measures have come out of Berlin. If we can get the budget under control—a feature that some of u s thought was lacking from previous negotiations—that would be widely welcomed. Only time will tell whether that will be possible and whether it will yield further dividends through more reform in the future. I see the merits of the proposals, but if change is to occur, the process must be speeded up and must carry the people along with it. That will not be easy, because of the scepticism being expressed about globalisation. Perhaps other hon. Members can help me out of that dilemma. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary how the changes are to be made real.
  8.17 pm
  Roger Casale: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in welcoming the Economic Secretary to the Front Bench. I wish her every success in her new position, and I am convinced that she will be off to a good start today and continue in that fashion.
  I challenge the view advanced by Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, Last (Sir T. Taylor), that although it is acceptable for Britain to be a member of the European Union, it is not acceptable for Britain to make a net financial contribution to the European Community. In other words, I challenge the view that the price of Britain's membership of the EU is not a price worth paying.
  I do not argue that Britain should be a member at any price, or that we should not continue to fight for the best possible deal for Britain and for further reform of the EU. However, we should place any assessment of Britain's financial contribution to the EU in the context of the overall economic benefits that accrue to Britain from our continued membership. In debating EU finances, it is as well to remember what those economic gains to Britain and the people of Britain are. They are important to investment and jobs in the UK and provide a substantial boost to Britain's external trade.
  More than 3 million jobs depend on Britain's participation in, and continued active membership of, the EU and the single market. More than 750,000 companies in the UK are involved in the single market and more than £132 billion—more than half the UK's total external trade—is linked to our membership of it. It is important

  213
  to remind the Opposition Members who seem to be implacably opposed to Britain's continued membership of the EU that we must put our membership in that context. They continually speak about the price of membership without seeing its overall economic value. They do not seem to want to acknowledge the huge economic benefits of being part of the European market.
  I say to Opposition Members who hold such views that their vision of Britain and its future is narrow and timid. At its heart is the fear that Britain can no longer stand up for its interests or pay its way in the world. It is not a vision of Britain that I recognise or that could inspire anyone with confidence in the future, and I believe that it leads to the conclusion that we should withdraw from the EU. If some Opposition Members are not arguing that we should consider withdrawal, they should think about whether it is right to flirt with views that lead to such a conclusion. That narrow, sceptical and even hostile view of the European Union and of Britain's relationship with it was put forward at the general election but soundly rejected by the British electorate. I ask hon. Members to imagine how it would have gone down with our European partners and other European peoples if such a vision had had the opportunity to prevail.
  I want Britain, like other European nations and out partners in the EU, to be confident and engaged in European affairs. I want it not only to advance a positive vision for the future of Europe, but to make the case for changing the way in which the EU operates and build the necessary alliances to deliver that change. It should also be putting forward the case for reform. I say to Opposition Members that to accept and value Britain's membership of the European Union is not to accept the EU as it is of to deny that it is in need of reform. It is exactly those reforms that the British Government have been working to negotiate. Indeed, they negotiated them successfully in the talks and summits that led to the Berlin conclusions that we are debating.
  Reform is needed first and foremost in how the common agricultural policy operates. Despite Opposition Members' sceptical comments, major reform in the operation of the CAP is occurring and was achieved at the Berlin summit. That includes substantial agreement on price cuts for cereals, beef and milk. Spending on the CAP will decline from 2002, which should bring a cost reduction of £70 a year to the average household in Britain.
  Mr. Wiggin: How was the common agricultural policy reformed? I did not think that it had been reformed at all.
  Roger Casale: I am tempted to give a long exposition about how the CAP has developed over the years. The hon. Gentleman must not think that if the CAP did not exist, other EU countries would not have their own mechanisms and instruments for protecting their agricultural sectors. Not only in the agricultural sector, but in other sectors, including industry, we want trade barriers to be removed through negotiation.
  That is exactly what the EU and international co-operation are about. It is no good merely wishing that it was not there. We must deal with the world in which we live and face up to the reality of the historical development of the EU and the CAP, and work with other European nations for a negotiated settlement to bring
  214
  those barriers down. One of the common features of the CAP is the price support mechanism. It is by reducing the level at which prices will be supported for beef, cereals and milk, bringing them closer to world prices, that we are delivering benefits to consumers in this country as a result of reform.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the common agricultural policy has now been cut from about two thirds of the EU budget to less than half? The dalliances of the Opposition put this country at great risk. If they had been elected, decades of treaties and agreements would have been ripped up, which would have done no good whatever for the British people. Does he agree that it is outrageous for them to threaten our relationship with the other 14 member states so irresponsibly?
  Roger Casale: I listened closely to my hon. Friend's comments. It is all very well for Opposition Members to shake their heads and say that they would not have torn up the treaties or jeopardised many of Britain's important international relations, not least with our partner countries, but they put forward exactly such views and policies in the election campaign. They went down very badly and would have made a miserable impression on any partner countries that we were seeking positively to influence.
  In today's world, we must recognise that many of the problems that we face as a country and many of the concerns of the people whom we represent can be resolved only by working together in the European arena or in an international context. That involves building alliances for the sort of changes that we want to deliver. We must have majority agreement to deliver many changes in the EU, because of the way in which it operates. We must de the groundwork of building alliances with our European partners and engaging positively and constructively with the EU if we are to succeed.
  It is all very well for Opposition Members to shake their heads, but we have heard nothing from them about an alternative strategy that could succeed without recognising the need to build up those alliances and build confidence in Britain's contribution to the European debate, so that we can lead in Europe on the reforms that we all want, including CAP reforms. One can sit in the corner and say, "What a big, bad world we live in", or go out into the world and try to change it. The way to make those changes is to work together with other European countries to deliver them.
  Reform will not be completed overnight. We are engaged in an historical process and this country has a tremendous contribution to make. We cannot make that contribution if we are always seen as negative and as carping from the sidelines. Unfortunately, for many years when the Conservative party was in government, that is how Britain was seen.
  The Berlin Council did several other things apart from introducing important reforms to the CAP. It put paid to the notion that the European Union's finances were spiralling out of control. Let us consider for example the amount that the EU spends on administration. No one can say that the 5.1 per cent. of the budget that is spent on the Commission and the institutions means that the EU is a superstate spiralling out of control. A European Union

  215
  that cannot raise taxes directly, except from its employees, or borrow to finance investment, is hardly a fiscal system that is out of control.
  Opposition Members raise the spectre of the EU as a Frankenstein's monster that is all powerful and outside our control. That is nonsense. The EU budget has a fixed ceiling of 1.27 per cent. If we consider EU spending for the next five years—the set of consecutive financial budgets that are agreed for a five to six-year period and described as the financial perspective—total expenditure is projected to be less than our expenditure when we entered that period last year.
  Our debate this evening should reassure those who support, as we do, a ceiling on EU resources. At Berlin, it was decided to bring spending within tightly defined limits. European Union spending has been stabilised for the first time in its history. That was our Government's objective when we entered the negotiations. We also managed to maintain the United Kingdom abatement in full. Those two achievements would not have been possible if we had started out from the negative, tactically and psychologically flawed, politically misguided position of many Conservative Members. That position would not have delivered any benefits for Britain, let alone reforms of the EU.
  Whatever the politics of our debate on the future of Europe and the EU, the technical and financial measures agreed at the Berlin Council are significant. I hope that hon. Members from all parties can perceive some good in them for Britain. They set a good course for the future of the EU, based on sustainable financial foundations as we prepare for enlargement.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House should consider that the Berlin settlement will benefit Britain and set the EU on a sound course for the future. I urge them to support the Bill.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Linoleum was invented by a Dundonian. Although I do not find inspiration in the granite architecture of Dundee, linoleum has always assumed a symbolic significance for me as a Member of Parliament. The inventor of linoleum got the idea from watching paint dry. He saw the thick skin form on the top of the paint and realised that it could be put to a useful purpose. I trust that lion. Members from all parties who are following the debate will take heart from that bijou of Scottish industrial history.
  How can a measure that enables the United Kingdom to effect revised technical procedures for financial contributions to the European Community budget and leaves the contribution unchanged be greeted with the hyperbole that we have heard from Opposition Members? The Bill was everything from codswallop in the speech of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to a profound disappointment in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
  The Bill has 12 lines. They enable us to change the notional rate of VAT that is levied on our proportionate assessment contribution to the Community budget from 1 per cent. today to 0.75 per cent. in 2002–03 and to 0.50 per cent. in the following years. That means that we
  216
  will reduce our VAT-based contributions. However—I accept that no silver lining is without its cloud—there will be a corresponding rise in the contributions based on our share of gross national product. However, that rate is simply a balancing figure. The net contribution will, as we have said, be unchanged because it will have been balanced by the GNP-based contribution.
  What is it in the Bill that has prompted the vitriol that we have heard from Opposition Members? Although they expressed such vitriol, they could not even be bothered to table an amendment to the blinking thing. If we are going to debate the Bill for this many hours, we should enter the realms of reality.
  What did the Berlin summit achieve? Will it make a difference to this country and to the European Community? I recall sitting in the House three weeks before the summit took place, when Opposition Members jibed consistently about what was going to happen: Britain was going to be sold down the river; the abatement was going to be relinquished; and the Government were going to come back with at least croissant crumbs, if not egg, all over their chin.
  The most notable thing about the week following the Berlin summit was that the Prime Minister came back and was not challenged at Prime Minister's Question Time. None of the disastrous things predicted by the Opposition happened, and they maintained a stony silence on the subject thereafter. However, that does not mean that nothing happened at the Berlin summit. What happened was that we managed to secure an agreement whereby the spending of the European Union would be brought under control.
  Let me contrast that with previous agreements on EU spending negotiated by the Governments of 1988 and 1994. Those agreements allowed increases in the European Union budget of 17 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively—yet here we are today, debating a technical measure that will put into effect the agreement reached at Berlin that European Union spending will not increase at all. Our spending in Europe is not going to increase. Why, therefore, have Opposition Members attacked this extremely small and modest Bill?
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that the Conservatives' opposition to the Bill has nothing to do with its content, but is caused by the use of the word 'European" on the front page?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has got it in one. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East admitted in his speech, following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), that he believes that we should withdraw altogether from the European Union. Somewhat confusingly, he also said that he thought that it was impossible to do so. I am not sure how he can propose our withdrawal while thinking it impossible to achieve. There is a gut antipathy to all things European among Conservative Members, although not in any great numbers—there are two Conservative Members present, and earlier there was only a sole person on the Opposition Front Bench. I suspect that other Opposition Members do not want to devote time to this matter, because they do not see the importance of putting the Bill through Parliament.

  217
  This is an important Bill, as are all Bills in one way of another. It is a modest Bill that will enable a technical amendment relating to our financial contributions to the European Union to take effect. We should put the legislation into perspective.
  The Berlin deal maintained the United Kingdom's abatement. We can be proud of that achievement, because we were told that it would not happen. The Bill looks forward to the enlargement of the European Union. We have heard eloquent speeches from my hon. Friends about the need for that. I do not want to go over the arguments that they have adduced. Enlargement is politically important, and we must be clear about that. It is politically important for a generation who saw the events of 1989. Before that, Europe was divided, and we want to move to a Europe that has an inclusivity that has eluded us for 50 years.
  I vividly remember in a previous life, before entering the House, working in Germany with colleagues and clients. A German colleague spoke to me passionately about how his grandfather had lost everything in world war one, how his father had lost everything in world war two, and how he had built up his company. He did not want ever again to see Europe divided.
  We should be under no illusion. Of course there is a political element to Europe and to the enlargement process—it is not just about markets and finance; it is, importantly, about unification. We should see ourselves as part of Europe, united and working with colleagues on the continent.
  I welcome the provisions in the Bill and what they will do to change the way in which contributions are made. I welcome the fact that enlargement will break down the barriers to trade and business that our companies continue to face. I welcome the fact that our generation will see a transformation in the business environment across eastern Europe, and that the world's largest single market will expand to include countries that, not 20 years ago, could never have dreamed that they would be able to do business with us and be part of that single market.
  I cannot claim to have an agriculturally based constituency in Brent, North. Were I to stand here this evening and talk of the reforms of the common agricultural policy that took place at Berlin, some of my constituents might wonder whether I was moonlighting in other constituencies at weekends. I assure the House that I do not intend to go into the details as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who revealed his comprehensive knowledge of the treaties and the way in which they affected agriculture in this country. What I know is that the reforms—of which the Bill is a small part—of the way in which contributions will be made will enable the average family to pay £70 a year less in food bills.
  That is what affects my constituents. I cannot talk about milk quotas or set-aside schemes; what I can say is that I know that my constituents will welcome the lower food prices in our local supermarkets that will result from the process on which we are embarked. I support the Bill.
  8.46 pm
  John Mann: It is with some trepidation that I, a new Member, follow such experts as my hon Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—and, albeit from a different
  218
  perspective, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). They have had an opportunity to discuss these issues and study them in detail for the past four years. I would like to say that the good people of Bassetlaw have also been discussing European Union finance in great detail, but if they have it has failed to catch my attention sufficiently on the doorsteps.
  I feel, however, that I am able and qualified to comment on the issue of good negotiation—for this, after all, was a negotiation. In my previous incarnation, I taught industrial relations and negotiating skills—in this country and across Europe—to trade unions, but also at Cranfield school of management. The accepted wisdom of those in that rather small profession is that to negotiation one should set an objective and a bargaining range—and, within the bargaining range, a bargaining point beyond which one should not expect one's fellow negotiators to move. The skill of the negotiator, who may have been given the objective, lies in identifying accurately the bargaining range and the bargaining point.
  According to my analysis of this negotiation, the bargaining range has been identified and, unusually, the bargaining point is at the extremity of the bargaining range. I note that, following the negotiation, there is no increase in United Kingdom contributions. I also note significant moves to bring European Union spending under control, and I note that issues of fraud and financial management have been properly addressed. I congratulate those involved on achieving what we in my former profession would describe as a win-win negotiation: we win, and Europe wins.
  I mentioned the speeches of my hon. Friends and I also commend that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). I would juxtapose his position with that of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, who sadly is not in the Chamber at present, but who made an excellent speech. They are at opposite ends of a pole—one is at one end of the see-saw and one at the other.
  In 1971, at the age of 11, I made my first political speech. In those days, I would have placed my much lesser bulk on the side of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. That speech was on reform of the common agricultural policy and what I saw as the scandal of the European Community and the way in which it was bleeding this country dry because of that policy. I note that the parliamentary choir has been active. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not attempt a solo or a duet, but at that time there was a song called, "The Beef and Butter Mountains." Perhaps in the future, in more convivial circumstances, I will exchange the words of that song for another with the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East as I think that he would welcome them. However, those words and that song are dated.
  I changed my views on the European Community and then the European Union. I was adamantly and vehemently opposed to having anything to do with it. I used to express the same sentiments that I heard expressed from the Conservative Benches earlier. I changed my view because of the growth of multinational companies. The question that I could never answer was how this small island alone could in arty way affect the behaviour of multinational companies that were ever greater in size and influence.

  219
  I suspect that I am now one of the strongest advocates of enlargement of the EU in the House. Over the years, I traded with Europe. Although I claim no expertise, anyone who has had to handle value added tax returns on a cross-border transaction will understand the complexities that must be involved in any financial system. A layman would say, however, that the changes that have been made are coherent.
  Last year, our business sent a lorry to Hungary. One can drive there, albeit that one starts with high diesel prices here—I have mentioned those in a previous speech in the House and I shall no doubt return to that theme—and one has to pay extravagant tells to take a lorry across western Europe and, in Austria, one faces Sunday driving regulations that are different from ours. One can overcome those obstacles and cope with the costs to reach the border of Hungary, where one has to spend 24 hours on the way in and another 24 hours on the way out waiting for the bureaucracy of a non-EU country to allow us to trade with it. The case for enlargement becomes absolute in the face of those difficulties.
  I was astonished by the sentiments and words of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East when he said that there should be no EU budget. No budget? In my constituency! I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that my constituency is a rural one. Farmers in my constituency are no great lovers of this or the previous Labour Government or of the Conservative Governments before them, but in their criticisms of the EU there is one thing about which they are adamant—do not get rid of all the subsidies.
  As an example, I use sugar levies, which were relevant to the negotiations as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. The sugar beet industry is, and has long been, probably the most important in the agriculture sector in my constituency. Sufficient attention has perhaps not been paid to it during the current foot and mouth problems. Restrictions on the movement of livestock have damaged the sugar beet industry.
  I am pleased about CAP reform. As that reform slowly takes place, we are seeing a roll-over of the present quota systems for five years. That will allow the financial moves towards enlargement to occur so as to give greater stability for the whole sugar beet industry. It will do far better from the negotiations than it could have anticipated a year or two ago.
  The European Commission study into the impact of sugar levies on the sugar beet industry is crucial—not least in preparations for enlargement. Who knows whether the applicant countries can create sufficient development in their sugar beet industries to compete with us? I suspect that they will do so. People from the UK and other advanced economies will invest in those countries to make a profit—rightly so, in their view. The study is crucial to the sugar beet industry.
  As we move forward when—as I hope—we pass the Bill, it is important that we carefully monitor the role of the large sugar cane barons so that they do not get hold of the industry worldwide and destroy British sugar production. In my constituency, that would be a disaster.
  Many of my constituents fled eastern Europe to escape not only Nazi but communist persecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned 1989. I was in
  220
  Poland in 1980, in the month when Solidarity was formed. In 1983 I was thrown out of Czechoslovakia, which is DOW the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I was in Hungary, meeting autonomous trade union organisations and what were then described as dissident groups. They were fighting for freedom against the oppression of communism. If there were more time in this debate, I should continue to talk about that. Given the opportunity, I shall certainly come back to the subject in future debates.
  After the horrors inflicted on those people, especially young people, battling for freedom from communism, for us to reject moves that would allow the finances of the EU to assist their countries—now freer, now democratic—to join us in reuniting Europe is something of an insult. It is an insult to those of my constituents who fled both Nazi and communist persecution.
  I was a Yorkshire lad and spent my holidays in Filey on the Yorkshire coast. My first experience of Europe was in May 1968 when a young lad from Rhodesia, a mining village in my constituency, scored the winning goal against Ferencvaros in the European fairs cup final. That was my first experience of things European. Would that the players of Ferencvaros in Hungary were part of the European Union.
  My second experience was more politically telling. That was to see tanks rolling through Prague and wonder, as a boy of eight, what kind of society we lived in. I say, let us make those preparations for enlargement. Let us negotiate our position, and the UK's position, from a position of strength. Let us he hard but fair. That is what I would expect of any of our leaders, and I commend them for what they have done. I hope, in the same spirit, that they will continue to negotiate for British and for European interests in future years.
  9 pm
  Mr. Colin Challen: It has been a revelation for me tonight to learn that just 12 lines of a Bill could provide such riveting and thought-provoking debate. Listening to the previous two speakers in particular put me in mind of the scenes that filled the Chamber 63 years ago, when a piece of paper was passed along the Front Bench, announcing that Mr. Chamberlain would be invited to Munich to consider another form of treaty. We should compare that with the type of debate that we are having now, which some people may find boring, and which may be obscure and arcane: but the subjects that we are discussing—enlargement and the maintenance of peace in Europe after all these years—are significant and not boring in the least.
  There is a danger that people will be alert to the possibility that a Member who contributes to this debate, especially a new Member, is either a Europhobe or a Europhile—because what other kind of person would possibly want to take part in a debate on such an arcane-sounding subject? But I am very pleased to speak from the centre. I want to take a balanced view about the future of the European Union.
  It is from the centre that I was earlier forced to ponder on the speech from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), which

  221
  seemed to suggest that there were no grounds for crediting the present Government with the successful outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. The House was asked to consider who negotiated the United Kingdom's rebate in the first place, and credit was given where credit was due.
  However, I also want to give credit to Opposition Members who were around at the time for their consistent support, over 18 years of Conservative government, for this country's net contributions to the European Union during that time, which I calculate, from Library figures, amounted to £30.946 billion. Each year under Conservative Governments, the net contribution increased. I find it odd that now the Opposition seem to have such great concern about the net contribution. As hon. Members have pointed out, one cannot have something for nothing; the idea that it is possible is absurd.
  I welcome the changes contained in the Bill, as they are a genuine attempt to make the funding of the European Union fairer and, perhaps more important, to be seen to be fair. A move away from VAT-based contributions to a gross national product base will provide a basis for financing the European Union that more accurately reflects the relative wealth of the member states.
  The proportion of income that the European Union will take from each of the own resources may become fairer, but that is not the end of the story. We must also ask, how will this money be distributed and spent? I note that the agriculture and sugar levies account for a mere 2.1 per cent. of the own resources, yet agriculture subsidies still take nearly 50 per cent. of the European Union's budget. We need to ask whether the most important financial aspect of the EU's work—efficient agriculture—is, after all these years, still subsidising inefficient agriculture.
  I want to highlight regional disparities. I became aware of this problem when I lived in Hull and served on the city council's economic development committee, where I learned about the hot banana. It was a phenomenon 10 years ago in certain parts of Europe, stretching from the south-east of England down to northern Italy, where there was a disproportionate amount of economic development. We have yet to see other regions in Europe catch up with the so-called hot banana.
  I have just read a report published recently by Yorkshire Forward, the regional development association, which reviewed Yorkshire and the Humber region's information technology needs. It makes salutary reading, pointing to the lower skills base, the lower take-up of IT in regional businesses and the lower usage of the internet at home and in business. We need to develop our information and communication skills and improve access to European structural funds.
  We need a healthy relationship with our European partners to ensure that Yorkshire and Humber businesses in the single market—they are inextricably involved in European markets—are not disadvantaged by a little Englander attitude that opposes all things European and seems to be based on a slogan that is something like, "Part of Europe, but not in it."
  Agenda 2000 means that more money will be invested in regional development and that spending on the CAP will be reduced. I believe that EU spending will be brought under control by the Bill, so far as this country is concerned.
  Speaking from the centre, I want to be alert to what lies ahead. For example, if European gross national product decreases, what will be the impact on the structural
  222
  spending in those regions to which I have referred that are lagging behind? Surely those areas, in those circumstances, might need more structural assistance. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary talking about the investment of £10 billion in regional and structural funds. What guarantees come with that £10 billion?
  Speaking from the centre, I would like to ask whether the Bill will lead to greater accountability. Will the money that is being spent be easier to draw down? I am familiar with the problems that businesses, voluntary organisations and a wide range of bodies have in accessing European funds. The system seems to be burdened with a great deal of bureaucracy and, very often, bodies in the regions need a great deal of bureaucracy themselves to draw down the funds that are available. Those funds are subject to the vagaries of the exchange rate of sterling and the euro; that may be borne in mind in future debates.
  I welcome the Bill, and the fact that it has the vague endorsement of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). That is welcome, although he did not seem to put forward any alternative. Indeed, I have heard no alternative suggested by Conservative Front Benchers. Perhaps in the 50 minutes that remain, we will hear their alternative.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: May I welcome the new Economic Secretary, congratulate her on her appointment and comment with some envy on the splendid supply of talented ladies that the Labour party seems to have on the Treasury Bench?
  I had to agree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) on at least one thing: his criticism of the rather deliberate obscurity and lack of transparency, in language and documents, that all too often make finding out what is going on in EU matters rather difficult.
  Hon. Members have asked whether we have an alternative suggestion. The job of the Opposition is to provide a critique, not necessarily to oppose when the balance of proposals may be reasonable. We welcome European enlargement, and the Berlin agreement, in itself, is arguably not an unreasonable deal. However, it is important to remember that, in an obscure way, this little Bill will effectively give our approval to all last September's Council decisions, including those important proposals contained in paragraph 16 of the EU document, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned. Those provisions would go much further and would empower proposals for EU taxes and further changes to the United Kingdom abatement.
  The Government have said that the Berlin changes represent relatively modest, sensible and reasonably fair proposals on EU funding, sensibly reducing the VAT element and increasing the GNP-based element, but they have said absolutely nothing about what they estimate the cost of our giving up the windfalls will be, as and when enlargement occurs.
  We all know that Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden made reasonable requests to reduce their contributions, especially reflecting the fact that the German economy has been somewhat stalled in recent years. However, some people cannot pay less without others paying more, and the net financial deal is that

  223
  although our abatement is set in stone—indeed, we have the power of veto over it—we are likely to pay a little more, proportionately, as things advance.
  The Library notes on the matter openly pointed out—whereas the Treasury notes did not—the need to consider all the items in last September's Council decision, not just the highlights of the Berlin agreement. All those issues are relevant to the Bill.
  Before turning to Members' comments, I want to ask the Economic Secretary three specific questions, the first of which is somewhat technical. There is a greater use of GNP figures, but which GNP are we talking about? Are we talking about the official figures; or, as in complying with the Maastricht treaty, are we talking about GNP figures in which an allowance is made for undisclosed economies, which differ fairly significantly among member states? The figures used will make a material difference.
  Secondly, what is the position on GNP-based contributions in relation to changing exchange rates? At present, we happen to have a weak euro, but sterling is relatively strong, so will we move up and down with the exchange rate, or will a mechanism exist to provide some stability? Thirdly, will the Government comment on what they expect the windfall cost to be? The figure of £200 million has been quoted, but learned papers have suggested that the figure could be as much as £1 billion in due course.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: If I may, I shall first make some progress.
  The unfairness story has been mentioned, but I am surprised that no one has said that the real villain of the piece seems to be France. France's gross contributions have been £9.2 billion, versus our contribution of £7.3 billion, but refunds to France amount to £8.5 billion, versus £3.8 billion to us. The net effect is that France pays £750 million, compared with the United Kingdom's £3.2 billion and Germany's £7.5 billion, but the French economy is broadly comparable in size to Britain's. That seems to be where the main unfairness lies.
  I was surprised by the enthusiasm for the agreement, because surely the disappointment of Berlin was the failure adequately to reform the common agricultural policy. I do not understand how central and eastern European countries can join in a hurry until there have been considerably more reforms. We have heard comments about the Polish milk situation, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that enough has yet been done. The iron curtain came down 12 years ago, and it is a disgrace that we are still fiddling away and delaying membership for those states.
  I wish to make the fundamental point that the United States, which is relatively homogeneous and has a common currency, has transfer payments of 11 per cent. of GNP. Implicit in the arithmetic before us is that 1.27 per cent. is economically, sufficient for the less homogeneous economies of Europe that also now have a common currency. Detailed research does not appear to have been carried out on the fundamental issue of the amount of transfer payments that Europe is likely to need in the future.
  224
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made the serious point that administrative costs are rising fast. After the major expenditure on the common agricultural policy and the structural moneys, there is £12 billion of other EU expenses in the budget of which precious little is seen. If £12 billion were spent on education or the health service in this country, it would make a colossal difference. It may be a small sum in terms of pence per citizen of the EU, but that large sum has manifestly not been well spent.
  The Chief Secretary failed to refer to that fact that it was not just the Berlin agreement but, as I pointed out, the Council decisions of last September relating to contributions, and he failed to explain his understanding of what paragraph 16 is all about. It does not empower the levying of new European taxes; it invites proposals to do so and to review the British abatement yet again. Its existence, however, puts down a pretty important marker for the future.
  The Chief Secretary said that he thought that Berlin had met the key objectives, but does he really think that that is true of CAP reforms? He also said that the effects on the United Kingdom were neutral, but I repeat my question on the significance of the windfall costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere regretted the inadequate reforms to the EU budget generally and made a convincing case that the relative position of Britain will deteriorate a little as the result of Berlin. He explained the costs of giving up the windfall and pointed out a small inaccuracy in the Labour manifesto, which had claimed that the UK contribution would fall to a level similar to Italy's. That is manifestly not the case.
  Despite all the hullabaloo about the CAP and the fact that agricultural spending has stabilised at 45 per cent. and is down from the proportionately higher levels of the past, my hon. Friend pointed out that, in absolute terms, expenditure is not down much and will rise slightly over the next year or two. In essence, Conservative Members understand the fairness and approve the shift to GNP, but we believe that there has not been enough reform of the CAP and that there could have been a slightly better deal for the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford surprisingly expressed surprise that the stealth and lack of transparency concerning many EU matters leads people to be cautious and to wonder what is going on. That is not surprising, and it would be better if communication were much more transparent. However, it is the objective of EMU to create a European state, although not in the traditional sense of the word. As all one's continental friends are clear, the objectives are not just economic, but political.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a gentle, conservative speech that left me unclear about where the Liberal Democrats stand on Europe. I thought that they were much more enthusiastic than the Labour party for full European integration. He said that the Bill is modest and could be expensive for the UK. In addition, he regretted the fact that there were so few reforms to the CAP. Constructively, he wanted to repatriate to nation states expenditure that was not core expenditure. He also challenged the Chief Secretary's assertion that the CAP reform was radical and adequate. We, too, made that point.

  225
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) criticised us for arguing that administrative expenses were rising by too much. He made the silly point that just because it was only a penny or so per person, it did not matter. The absolute sums are substantial and hon. Members on both sides of the House are most critical of the waste in the £12 billion. That cannot be overlooked.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham plagiarised the Prime Minister. His contribution can be described as vintage Redwood. He made the robust assertion that camouflage is being used, because the Bill is supported by an underlying document which, at paragraph 16, invites the introduction of direct taxation by the EU and a further reduction in the UK's abatement. Even if the net financial deal is collectively reasonable, we should not deceive ourselves that the Berlin agreement is to our explicit financial advantage. It opens up the unknown, which could produce the fifth resource.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was keen on central and eastern European membership and enlargement, which we support. He made the fundamental point that it would strengthen a Europe of democratic nations and make them more outward looking. He also made an interesting contribution on tobacco fraud.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on his excellent maiden speech. Having lived in that part of the world, I did not know that there had been two Prime Ministers from Leominster. What he said about foot and mouth and rural industries was moving and important. I hope that the Government will take note of it. He also made a significant point about how the CAP contributed towards some of the problems that spread foot and mouth, as well as commenting constructively on how it was mishandled.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) argued that Berlin was good for Europe. In particular, he argued that it was sensible to have more GNP-based finance than VAT-based finance. However, question his assertion that the CAP has been brought under adequate control.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his equally good maiden speech. He made an excellent and elegant contribution, which demonstrated a gracious handling of his predecessor. [Interruption.] I mean, of course, his immediate predecessor.
  The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made an interesting contribution arising from his business dealings with the European Commission. As a taxpayer, he was critical of the waste of money on what he implied were crackpot projects, and o excessive nepotism in the awarding of contracts—I hope that his comments did not apply to him personally. He echoed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that it is bad news when administrative costs rise at a rate much higher than inflation with no justification.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on his maiden speech. For those of us who come from south of Watford, it was an interesting education on the family background of Scottish nationalism. He made the interesting point that if Britain were broken up into separate components, we would have more votes in Europe than we do as one country. That is not a justification for Scottish independence that particularly appeals to me.
  226
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) gave an interesting history of the original abatement negotiations, from Ian Gilmour's book. He also focused on the EU's ability to tackle fraud, but it seemed to me that he, too, was over-optimistic about the likely effects of the reforms to the CAP so far.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his splendid retread maiden speech—I think that that is the correct phrase—and welcome him back to the House. He pointed out that the Berlin summit missed several opportunities, and he gave a vivid vignette of his constituents' sound, down-to-earth views, which rang extraordinarily true to me, being, as many will know, someone who grew up in the splendid county of Essex.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) welcomed an early debate on Europe following the general election, but he almost admitted that he knew that his views were not entirely in accordance with those of the majority of his constituents, even though he has, of course, been re-elected. He said that he understood why a majority of the British people tend to be Euro-sceptic, in the correct sense of the word.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a splendid, bluntly persuasive speech, during which I observed Labour Members listening intently and, I think, secretly agreeing with much of what he said. He rightly pointed out that there has been no genuine reform of the CAP. He has been waiting more than 20 years for that and expects to wait at least another 30 years, if not for ever. He was healthily sceptical of all the usual optimistic arguments about the wonderful outcomes that never materialise. I remember that it was argued that the introduction of the euro would add 3 per cent. to GNP, but GNP shrank.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that enlargement means that objective 1 and 2 grants to the UK are likely to come to an end. That is the Irish point—that enlargement may be morally right, but we must be clear about what effects it must have that are in our interests. He also seemed to be saying that the EU had attempted to buy his support by making not one but five grants to his constituency, but I feel that there is little prospect of that attempt being successful.
  Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman's support for the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) imply that he agrees with him to the extent that he regrets that we joined the EU in the first place?
  Mr. Flight: No. I said that he made an excellent, entertaining speech, and I think that many hon. Members saw a great deal of hard truth in it. It is good that none of us has falsely glossy views. Whether we should have joined is a different subject from what will happen in future. My hon. Friend's main point was that there is nothing that anyone can do about that at present—a powerful point that was aimed at all of us.
  My hon. Friend also asked what the cost of giving up our windfall payments would be. Specifically, albeit on a matter not directly related to Berlin, he asked the Government how much the sale of our gold holdings and the conversion of the proceeds into euros has cost. Many hon. Members, including me, have asked Ministers that question and there is no justification for their not having

  227
  replied. They could give a conditional reply—that the figure is such and such at such a such a rate of exchange—but it is poor not to have replied at all.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's splendid speech, but is he aware that today I received a reply to a written question that I put to the Treasury, in which I asked how many euros we had bought and what we had paid for them? All I received was a load of codswallop that does not state how many we have bought or the price paid for them. Why will the Government not tell the people how many they bought and what they cost, so that the people can know how much money they have lost? Is Parliament not meant to be a place in which we hold the Executive to account and get information?
  Dr. Spink: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Flight: My hon. Friend expresses my views entirely. I hope that we have the support of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in fighting the European habit of being obscure rather than transparent that appears to be creeping into British Government.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) overstated the extent of reforms to the CAP, especially in relation to what is needed. We heard a lively and most enjoyable speech from the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), but I put it to him that linoleum is as out-of-date a floor covering as the CAP is a way of managing agriculture. He would be extremely lucky if the average family in his constituency were £70 a week better off as a result of the modest reforms that have so far been made.
  I welcome the new hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who came across as a decent and down-to-earth Englishman. He made some useful comments about the reality of bargaining power and he is, rightly, a keen supporter of enlargement. I also welcome the new hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), who made a balanced contribution to the debate in which he emphasised the importance of greater accountability.
  The Berlin deal was not unreasonable, although we think that it could have been better. We would have liked more reforms to the CAP and we fear that the lack thereof will further delay enlargement to eastern and central Europe. None the less, we understand that bargaining had to be done and that the deal struck was probably not a bad one. We are concerned about what else has been opened up by the agreements made at last September's Council, and I should be interested to learn about the Government's attitude to paragraph 16—an issue to which the Chief Secretary did not respond.
  We shall not oppose the Bill, but we look forward to scrutinising it in a great deal more detail in Committee in about 12 days' time on the Floor of the House.
  9.33 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The debate has been very interesting. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) called the Berlin
  228
  summit a profound disappointment and a missed opportunity. In fact, it was not only an opportunity grasped but a negotiating triumph.
  Before the Berlin summit, the Opposition set the Government three key tests: first, to limit the own resources ceiling; secondly, to secure the United Kingdom abatement; and, thirdly, to increase or improve our level of structural funds. Not only did we deliver on all three tests, but we achieved the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since its inception and a real-terms reduction in European Union spending.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has advised his own party to listen and engage constructively with Europe. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo advised his party to turn down the volume on Europe.
  Mr. Forth: No chance.
  Ruth Kelly: I can already hear that Opposition Members are unwilling to listen to that advice. In fact, the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) shows clearly that if, by some chance, the Opposition were in government, there would be a rerun of the situation that existed the last time that the subject was debated, in 1994. There would have to be a motion of confidence in the Government, and the Conservative party would be torn apart by factionalism and rivalry.
  I exempt from my remarks, partially at least, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I was extremely pleased that he acknowledged that the outcome of the Berlin Council was not a bad deal; that is praise indeed. Respite from the comments and bickering of the Opposition came from several excellent maiden speeches. I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber to hear all of them all the way through. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on his contribution and his warm tribute to his predecessor, Peter Temple-Morris, and his diligent work in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the damaging impact of foot and mouth disease and the need to reform the common agricultural policy; he also made a passionate defence of farming interests, a sentiment that can unite both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) paid fulsome tribute to his predecessor, Martin Bell—at times the scourge of both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to the beauty and historical nature of his constituency in an eloquent speech. He is clearly a representative of the new, inclusive Conservative party, but it was a shame that he was caught up in the false rhetoric and claptrap of the anti-Europeanism that dominated contributions from the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made a passionate defence of his constituents; I welcome him to the House. He too paid tribute to his predecessor, Margaret Ewing, and made a passionate defence of fishing interests, a subject on which, no doubt, he will make many further contributions in the House.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) described himself as a semi or partial retread. He clearly enjoyed making his second maiden speech to the House; I enjoyed listening to him, and I am sure that he will play a full part in the proceedings of the House in future.

  229
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere, who opened for the Opposition, made several points and called the Berlin summit a missed opportunity. He pointed out that the United Kingdom's net contribution will be about £4 billion this year and that the position of other member states has improved. However, he fails to appreciate that although Germany, Austria, Sweden and Denmark pay reduced contributions, because their share of the UK rebate has decreased, in fact the money has been reallocated among the other 14 member states, and our contribution has remained unchanged.
  I shall set the matter of windfall gains straight once and for all. Opposition Members asked repeatedly how much we forwent. The answer is 220 million euros. The precedent for forgoing windfall gains was set by the previous Administration—first by Margaret Thatcher, then by John Major. Before negotiations on the new own resources decision, two windfall gains associated with changes to the financing system were given up. In 1988, the Conservative Government gave up a windfall gain when the GNP resource was first introduced; then, in 1994, when the VAT contribution was reduced—which increased member states' GNP contributions—the Conservatives agreed to forgo that windfall gain as well. The effect of these has been cumulative.
  The only new windfall gains given up at Berlin were an amount of expenditure equivalent to pre-accession aid upon enlargement, and the increasing collection costs against the traditional own resources. The UK gave up those windfall gains to achieve a position that can be described unequivocally as not a euro more, not a euro less.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for giving way, and I take this opportunity to welcome her to her position. Is the windfall gain a genuine windfall—in other words, is it a one-off gain that Britain would have got, or would it have continued over the period to which she is referring?
  Ruth Kelly: The main windfall gain is the windfall gain that we would incur as a result of enlargement. It our spending on pre-accession aid was subject to the rebate upon enlargement, we would have a one-off gain. That clearly would not be fair. We have therefore sacrificed a one-off gain.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere questioned whether the UK's net contribution would be equivalent to that of France and Italy. I can tell him that it certainly will be. By 2006—assuming that six new member states join the EU, as is the common assumption—that will be the case. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who called France the villain of the piece, will no doubt be pleased that, as a result of the agreement, France will be paying relatively more towards the UK rebate.
  Several hon. Members spoke about fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) spelled out some of the measures that the Government are taking. Any fraud against the European Union budget is, of course, unacceptable, and the UK has been at the forefront of measures to combat the problem. Member states must work with the Commission to ensure that the part of the budget for which they are responsible is administered in accordance with the principles of sound financial management. The UK has supported measures
  230
  to make member states accept their responsibility for administering Community funds—for example, through the introduction of fines for errors in the structural funds caused by inadequate member state controls.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said earlier, the newly established European anti-fraud office was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has independent powers to seek out and investigate fraud against the EC budget. It is doing a good job already and has carried out a number of major investigations.
  Alongside the establishment of the anti-fraud office, the Commission is revising its internal procedures to reduce further the scope for fraud to take place. Neil Kinnock has been appointed Vice-President of the Commission with special responsibility for reform, and we fully support his programme, which will modernise the administration of the Commission.
  The radical reform strategy that Neil Kinnock proposed must be delivered by the end of 2002, but already it has introduced a code of conduct for Commissioners and Commission officials. It has published a whistleblowers' charter, established new and fairer arrangements for appointments to senior posts, and begun the major process of modernising the Commission's financial management procedures to establish clear lines of responsibility for preventing fraud and waste.
  The reforms proposed by Neil Kinnock are far reaching, and we cannot expect them to be implemented overnight. It is important to their success that the reforms are subject to proper consultation and that they proceed by agreement. We are confident, however, that the programme of reform will be completed on time and that it will prove a strong safeguard against fraud.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) called for wider budgetary reform and CAP reform. He argued that the Government should focus on outcomes. He noted that the 2001 EC budget is subdivided into policy areas. I assure him that that is an element of Commission reform that the Government strongly support. We have pressed and will continue to press for clear objectives and performance indicators for all EC expenditure programmes, and timely evaluations as part of the Commission's proposed move to activity-based management.
  I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman on reform of the common agricultural policy. At Berlin, we achieved significant price cuts for cereals, beef and milk. The intervention price for cereals was reduced by 15 per cent., and for beef it was reduced by 20 per cent. over three years. Dairy support prices were reduced by 15 per cent. over the three years beginning in July 2005. Those changes do not go as far or take effect as quickly as we would have liked, but they are nevertheless a significant achievement. They ensure that European beef and cereal prices will be brought closer to world levels.
  The Agenda 2000 package will mean lower prices for consumers. It will be worth about £70 a year for an average family of four. As a result of the reforms, overall spending on the CAP will decline in real terms from 2002. As well as price reductions, the discussions in Berlin of the common agricultural policy also led to the introduction of the CAP second pillar. That will ensure that the CAP moves away from production-based subsidies and towards a greater focus on rural

  231
  development. We have so far introduced schemes to improve and conserve the environment, including support for countryside stewardship, woodlands and organic farming.
  We are also providing support to develop diverse and sustainable rural businesses. For example, such support is provided through the rural enterprise scheme and through processing and marketing grants. The reform package includes provision for member states to target up to 20 per cent. of direct aid funds on rural development measures. The UK has already introduced that change. Agenda 2000 in Berlin delivered a significant and welcome reform in the common agricultural policy, and we are keen to build on that reform in future rounds of discussion.
  When I heard the contribution of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I thought that he was about to launch his own leadership bid, but he seems to have missed the boat on that issue, as on so many others. Throughout his speech, he referred to paragraph 16, by which he meant article 9. If he had scrutinised his previous actions, he would have seen that he endorsed a similar decision in 1994. The European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 states:
  "The Commission shall submit, by the end of 1999, a report on the operation of the system, including a re-examination of the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom, established by this Decision. It shall also … submit a report on the findings of a study on the feasibility of creating a new own resource".
  That position did not lead to a new EU tax then, and it will not do so now.
  The right hon. Gentleman also questioned the validity of spending structural funds. I emphasise that such funds play a key role in the development and regeneration of areas. For example, they are worth almost £300 million to Cornwall over the seven-year planning period of the EU document. Other areas—south Yorkshire, west Wales and the valleys, as well as Merseyside—will also receive substantial funds.
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) about his personal experience of the common agricultural policy, and also about the application to south Wales of objective 1 status and its benefits for his area. We have seen subsidiarity at its best.
  Several hon. Members spoke about increases for administrative expenditure in the EU budget, but they failed to note what that expenditure is for. Part of the increase is needed to fund the necessary costs of Commission reform. I wonder whether Opposition Members would question whether that is money well spent. Of course, the United Kingdom wants the same discipline applied to the EU budget as is applied to the national Budget. We shall continue to press for budget discipline.
  Mr. Flight: Is there any logic whereby reform should result in rising costs? In most organisations, reform leads to falling costs. Reform and rising costs do not go hand in hand.
  Ruth Kelly: The total EU budget will decrease by the end of the planning period in 2006. That will happen
  232
  precisely because we are reforming the operation of the EU and the Commission in combating fraud and cracking down on financial irregularities. Labour Members would like that to continue.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) spelled out the benefits of EU membership. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) spoke with knowledge and interest about the scrutiny of EU legislation. The contribution of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was interesting. As has been said, he was at one extreme of the debate. He said that five wards in his constituency now benefit from objective 2 funding. He questioned whether the money should be spent there. Does that form part of the Opposition's spending cut agenda? Do they want to cut back on objective 1 and objective 2 spending in this country?
  Reform of structural funds is clearly required for the long-term affordability of enlargement. We shall push hard for reform that is fair and in the British national interest and that will deliver value for money for UK taxpayers
  My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke about the move from VAT resources and Customs payments towards the GNP resource. That is an important move, which is more progressive and will help in the fight against fraud.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that further progress in that direction would be welcome in future?
  Ruth Kelly: The move was an important step in reforming the EU budget. It is clearly desirable to move towards a system of GNP financing. I note my hon. Friend's comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) yoke about his negotiating skills. His strong speech displayed evidence that he is well equipped for negotiating. I do not know how he managed to argue at the age of 11 that the CAP was bleeding the country dry. However, I am grateful that he has moderated his opinions and become an ardent supporter of the EU. He pointed out the importance of building alliances and enlarging the EU.
  Mr. Heath: I welcome the Economic Secretary to her new post. I want to revert to the answer that she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about forgoing the windfall gain from enlargement. Is she convinced that it is not a recurrent gain? Has the Treasury carried out any analysis of whether forgoing it is more advantageous to the UK than, for example, amending or forgoing the Fontainebleau agreement?
  Ruth Kelly: The new agreement puts the matter right once and for all. Any new expenditure that is incurred in the member states will qualify for the rebate.
  The Bill is short but important for Britain and the EU. It will enact the own resources decisions that were made at the Berlin Council in 1999. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer won a significant victory for the UK and demonstrated how

  233
  much both sides had to gain from Britain's constructive engagement with Europe. Passing the Bill will show our continued commitment to reform in Europe.
  United Kingdom gains from the Berlin Council are significant. We retained our abatement in full; we maintained the overall ceiling for Community own resources at 1.27 per cent. of European Union gross national product; we secured structural and cohesion funds that will be worth £10 billion to the UK's regions between 2000 and 2006; and we negotiated reforms to the common agricultural policy that will mean lower food prices worth an estimated £1 billion a year to UK consumers. The own resources decision that we negotiated at Berlin means that the UK will continue to make a fair contribution to the European Union budget: not a euro more, not a euro less.
  The Berlin Council was an important step forward for the European Union and all its member states. The EU budget was brought under control, stabilising spending following decades of expansion. The introduction of the second pillar of the common agricultural policy will move support from production subsidies to rural development and environmental stewardship.
  Of course, the decisions enacted by the Bill are only part of the process of reform in Europe. We still need to push further. Economic reforms are needed to raise the productivity of the European Union as a whole, to increase the effectiveness of the single market and to extend its benefits into new areas such as energy, telecommunications and financial services. There is also an on-going process of reform to the institutions and administration of the European Union.
  Roger Casale: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will she add to the long list of important gains and benefits that come from the agreement in Berlin the fact that the reforms to the common agricultural policy, the measures introduced to tackle fraud and the ceiling put in place on the EU's resources will lead to greater public confidence in European Union institutions?
  Ruth Kelly: I certainly believe that that will be the case.
  The Bill also paves the way for future European Union enlargement. There is an on-going process of reform to the institutions and administration of the European Union to prepare us to meet the challenges and realise the great benefits of EU enlargement.
  The Bill shows how much everyone can gain from Britain's constructive engagement with the European Union. It shows that by taking a leading role in reform and working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes that are good for the UK and that strengthen all member states. I am proud that the UK is playing a leading role in taking this process further. The single market in financial services is a good example of the benefits that constructive engagement can bring. A dynamic single market in financial services is key to achieving fundamental economic reform and prosperity across Europe.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. She has kindly accepted a number of interventions. Does she agree that one of the most important aspects of the impact that the measures
  234
  will have on our constituents —and on their appreciation of the value of engagement in Europe and the achievements of the Berlin summit —is that most average families will see a reduction of £70 a year in their food bill? That is the bottom line.
  Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention. The Bill shows the substantial gains to be made by UK consumers and by everyone else when Britain plays a constructive role and engages with the European Union. The deal achieved in Berlin reduces EU spending by 2006, improves our position on structural funds, reforms the common agricultural policy and paves the way for enlargement. It compares with substantial increases agreed under previous Governments in 1988 and 1994. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Communities (Finance) Bill:

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE) BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    Programming of proceedings
    2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill shall be programmed.

    Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
    3. — (1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days.
    (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day. —[Mr. Caplin.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Communities (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums which, by virtue of the amendment of the European Communities Act 1972 made by that Act, fall to he charged on or paid out of either of those Funds. — [Mr. Caplin.]
  Question agreed to.

  HOMELESSNESS BILL
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Homelessness Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question— [28 June].
  Question again proposed,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January. 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 20th July, do adjourn till Monday 15th October.— [Mr. Caplin.]
  Question agreed to.

  Colchester Sixth Form College
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr.Caplin.]
  10.1 pm
  Bob Russell: For a Government who claim that their priorities are "Education, education, education", Labour has been a huge disappointment for sixth form colleges. Although my debate this evening centres on the Colchester sixth form college, which is one of the top such colleges, the financial discrimination to which it is subject is experienced by every sixth form college in the country, of which there are just over 100.
  Indeed, the situation confronting our sixth form colleges is worse now than it was even under the Conservative Government. The gap between the funding given to sixth forms in schools and that provided to our sixth form colleges has widened over the past four years. The variation has grown to 30 per cent. or more, and the projection for the next few years is that the gap will widen still further. Sixth form colleges have been told that they must make further so-called efficiency gains, whereas school sixth forms have been promised increased funding. Where is the fairness? The playing field is not level, and now the Government are planning to make it more uneven. Life will become more of an uphill struggle for sixth form colleges.
  Labour's promises to give equality to our young people have been broken. Pledges from Ministers have not been honoured. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments over the funding of our sixth form colleges. The Department for Education and Skills is well aware of them, yet Ministers have failed to tackle the unfairness.
  In April this year, the chair of governors of Colchester sixth form college, Mr. Syd Kent—a former Labour county councillor and former chair of Colchester constituency Labour party—wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to express concerns about funding. In a detailed letter, Mr. Kent said:
  "We have had eight years of funding cuts expressed as 'efficiency gains' which has led to a dramatic decline in levels of real funding."
  I invite the Minister to visit Colchester sixth form college to discuss with the principal and others the consequences of the Government's unfair funding policy towards sixth form colleges. No Minister has ever visited the college, which has 2,150 students.
  In the first year of the last Parliament, the Select Committee on Education and Employment looked into further education, including funding for sixth form colleges. At the outset, the chairman was the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who was followed by the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), both of whom were subsequently promoted to ministerial office in the Department for Education and Employment.
  Sadly, hopes that fairer funding for sixth form colleges would be forthcoming as a result of a new Government promising more investment in education proved to be unfounded, even given the Select Committee's recommendations and the ministerial influence of two people with personal knowledge of the unfairness.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), deliver where others have failed? He is newly installed,

  237
  and thus free to distance himself from those who have gone before. This is his chance to bring justice and fairness to the nation's sixth form colleges. Will he announce to the House that the Government will at long last put right the wrongs of the funding formula, which currently cheats students and staff of the Colchester sixth form college, or will he merely provide warm words, like others before him, and leave the sixth form colleges with a funding formula that results in considerably less funding per student in real terms than that provided for a student at a school sixth form?
  According to the Association of Colleges, a student undertaking a three A-level package at a school sixth form is funded on average to the tune of £3,530 per annum. A student at a sixth form college, however, is funded to the tune of £2,520. The difference of £1,010, according to the association, represents underfunding of 29 per cent. for a student at a sixth form college. Others believe that the real difference is more than 30 per cent.
  If students at Colchester sixth form college were funded at the same level as sixth form students attending the town's selective Colchester Royal grammar school and Colchester County high school for girls, and Philip Morant school, it would receive a minimum of an extra £1.25 million a year. Why is there a different funding formula? What logical reason can there be for students in the same town and the same age group, taking broadly the same range of subjects, to be funded at different levels? Yet sixth form students at those three schools are funded at a higher level than those attending Colchester sixth form college. There can be no justification for that two-tier disparity.
  Given the same level of funding, the college could enrol more students, in line with the Prime Minister's target that more young people should enter further and higher education—currently, it has to turn many applicants away—and recruit more staff to provide a better student-staff ratio to match those enjoyed by sixth forms in three of the town's schools. Pupils from all the 11-to-16 comprehensive schools in Colchester, and from further afield, go on to the sixth form college. Teaching staff at the sixth form college are on lower pay scales than their school-teaching counterparts. That unfairness, which stems from the unfairness of the funding levels, also needs to be corrected.
  The root cause of the two-tier sixth form funding provision lies with a Conservative Government who, in 1992—in an act of typical Tory stupidity, rather than one of common sense—removed sixth form colleges from the democratic framework of local education authorities, and established them as quango institutions.
  Norman Lamb: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the discrimination suffered by Colchester sixth form college. Does he accept, however, that the same discrimination is suffered by sixth form colleges across the country, including Paston sixth form college in North Walsham? Many small sixth form colleges suffer the additional burden imposed by extra financial auditing requirements, which constitute further discrimination in comparison with the arrangements for sixth formers in schools.
  Bob Russell: I agree. This is a nationwide problem affecting all sixth form colleges.
  238
  One of the less widely known side effects of this education apartheid is that sixth form colleges have to pay value added tax, while school sixth forms do not. Perhaps the Minister can explain the logic of that. If he cannot, will he pledge this evening to arrange with Government colleagues for the status of such colleges to be amended so that, as with school sixth forms, VAT is not levied?
  As I have said, this is not the first time that the unfair funding of sixth form colleges has been brought to parliamentary attention. The last time was 15 months ago, on 15 March last year, when the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. The Minister who replied was the present Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I also spoke briefly.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: As the hon. Gentleman says, I spoke about this 15 months ago. I am very concerned about Luton sixth form college, where I am vice-chair of the governors, and particularly concerned about the continuing pressure on sixth form colleges to increase so-called efficiency by 1 per cent. per year. The requirement is not imposed on schools, and I consider it an additional burden on sixth form colleges. I hope that he will address that problem as well.
  Bob Russell: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman kindly allowed me to speak in his Adjournment debate and I thought that I should repay the compliment.
  In his contribution to the debate, the Minister said:
  "I recognise that the previous Administration's disastrous approach to further education funding means that sixth form colleges are now funded well below school sixth forms."
  He went on to admit that the disparity in funding between sixth form colleges and school sixth forms was 20 per cent., a figure somewhat lower than in reality exists, but nevertheless an admission by the Government that there is serious unfairness.
  In response to my intervention, the Minister said:
  "The Government agree that upward convergence for further education colleges, including sixth form colleges, is the way forward."
  I have to ask this evening why then, 15 months later, have the Government done nothing to move the funding of sixth form colleges upwards so that they converge with the funding given to school sixth forms?
  As for upward convergence for further education colleges, that never happened, with the result that a range of academic courses at the Colchester Institute—on which I had an Adjournment debate on 9 April—will not be provided from this September, with the loss of around 50 academic and support staff. Had the Government acted in the way that they said that they would, the courses and jobs could have been saved. Local people have been deprived of educational opportunity and choice. Who do we blame? The Labour Government or the new learning and skills councils—another tier of quango?

  239
  Back to sixth form colleges, however, and, in March last year, the Minister told the hon. Member for Luton, North:
  "Clearly we need to move towards a position in which every young person doing A-level or vocational courses at that level—regardless of whether they are in a sixth form, sixth form college or an FE institution—is being treated properly and fairly. That is our objective, but it will take some time to achieve."
  It may have been an objective in March 2000, but nothing has been done to make it a reality. Indeed, as I have pointed out, the situation has deteriorated and it is set to get worse.
  The Minister also stated:
  "We want to bridge the gap positively, with sixth form colleges moving upwards." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 94–95WH.]
  So why have the Government failed to deliver what was promised?
  Recommendation 13 of the report of the Education and Employment Committee, published on 4 June 1998, under the heading "A level playing field for post-16 funding", stated:
  "The one area in which genuine harmonisation of funding would appear to be both possible and desirable is in full-time 16–19 provision."
  Select Committee recommendation 14 stated:
  "We agree with the Minister of State that this kind of harmonisation should be achieved by additional funding for the FE sector rather than a process of 'levelling down'. It should be possible to establish a 'common entitlement' for 16 to 19-year-old students on similar courses in schools and colleges and to fund it accordingly.
  We believe that such a 'common entitlement' should include the kind of enrichment activities which have long been regarded as a key part of traditional school sixth form education.
  This would ensure all institutions—whether colleges or schools—serving 16 to 19-year-olds would receive comparable funding for providing the same qualifications."
  Almost three years later, the Government's response in 1998 makes interesting reading:
  "We are attracted to the idea of an 'entitlement curriculum' common to all 16 to 19-year-olds."
  The section concluded with a promise of action
  "in deciding how it might be achieved in practice."
  Nothing has been done to deliver what it was believed was the Government's promise of action based on recommendations made by the Select Committee in a report published on 4 June 1998. The Government have badly let down Colchester sixth form college and the 100 or so other sixth form colleges throughout the country. All that they ask is that the Government keep their promises and fund sixth form colleges at the same level as they fund sixth forms in schools. For a Government who said that their priorities were, "Education, education, education", it should not be too difficult to deliver.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this Adjournment debate. The issue is important and it is one that the House will want to address.
  240
  When I prepared for my response, I inevitably looked at a brief about the hon. Gentleman. As a Manchester City fan, I thought that I had difficulties, but when I discovered that he has been a supporter of Colchester United for the past 43 years, I felt that that was worthy of some sort of honour, medal—or even a cheap tie, similar to the one that he is brandishing.
  The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the announcement today that Colchester zoo has the first artificially inseminated elephant to give birth in captivity. I do not know whether he is the father, but it is a remarkable, historic moment for the people of Colchester, so I am sure that he will find a way of attaching his name to that great achievement—as Liberal Democrats tend to do.
  In my response to the debate, I shall address the general points of concern raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), as well as dealing with matters specific to Colchester. It is important that my response traces the history of sixth form funding and that it is put in the wider context of education funding. As the hon. Member for Colchester said, the approach of the previous Conservative Administration to further education over many years resulted in sixth form colleges being funded well below school sixth forms. As he is fully aware—and has stated—the Labour Government have long expressed the view that we want to address that historical inequality. Indeed, during the election campaign we reiterated our pledge to boost the share of national income spent on education generally.
  In our manifesto, we promised that there would be more money for schools, universities and colleges. We also promised to guarantee the real-terms funding of pupils in school sixth forms, if student numbers were maintained in those sixth forms, and to increase the funding for sixth form colleges and further education colleges.
  In our second term, we intend to build on the investment in further education of the past four years and to narrow the gap between funding for sixth form colleges and school sixth forms. We shall do that by levelling up the funding of further education colleges. We realise that that can happen only over time—it cannot happen overnight—and that it will inevitably be subject to the availability of resources. Ministers have to make that point from time to time, although of course it is not a point that Liberal Democrats tend to make.
  Any policy change that involves additional resources has to be fully costed and subject to the prevailing economic circumstances. However, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I am confident that our substantial investment in post-16 education will allow significant progress to be made during the course of this Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have had to deal not only with inequitable funding levels between sixth form colleges and school sixth forms, but with the major disparities in funding between individual school sixth forms due to the discretion currently available to local education authorities. The best-funded sixth forms currently receive about one and a half times more funding per student than the worst. We also intend to tackle that inequality.
  As stated previously, we will protect real-terms funding levels for all school sixth forms that maintain their student numbers, while increasing the level of funding for the

  241
  lowest funded school sixth forms. As with colleges, that will take some time and the pace of change will depend on affordability. However, that guarantee means that convergence will be upward.
  The new Learning and Skills Council to which the hon. Gentleman referred, with its overview of all post-16 provision outside higher education, will help us to achieve our vision of a coherent and collaborative post-16 sector. The council will take over the funding of school sixth forms in April next year. The further education sector will move from transitional funding arrangements to the Learning and Skills Council regime from the beginning of the 2002 academic year. That means that by August next year, school sixth forms and sixth form colleges will be funded by the same funding body and through the same funding system. The funding system has national rates for similar types of provision. Although most school sixth forms will continue to receive a higher level of funding to start with—due to the real-terms guarantee—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the system will be a major step forward in achieving a level playing field between the sectors.
  I shall address the hon. Gentleman's point about VAT. At the moment, education taught in all schools and colleges is free of VAT. Local authorities are funded through the VAT system for any VAT incurred on purchases for schools, but because sixth form colleges are directly funded by the Government as a result of the changes that were introduced in 1993 they are expected to include VAT in bids for funding. That explains the inequality regarding VAT.
  In the meantime, we should not forget that the Labour Government have been responsible for a substantial injection of extra funds into further education and sixth form colleges. We have demonstrated our commitment to the biggest ever investment in post-16 education—almost £13 billion over the next three years. That includes substantial extra resources for the introduction of the new FE pay arrangements, which will help colleges to recruit, retain and reward excellent teachers.
  We have introduced a step change in capital investment to develop centres of vocational excellence, and we are promoting higher standards of teaching and learning through the standards fund. This year alone, £527 million extra is being spent on further education—a 12 per cent.
  242
  real-terms increase. The planned increase in student numbers over the same period is only 7 per cent. That means that funding per full-time equivalent student is increasing this year by 4 per cent. in real terms. We plan a further 3 per cent. real-terms increase next year, and we are confident that our planned investment will provide significant support to those offering 16 to 18 provision in the further education sector.
  That is the general situation. I shall now discuss Colchester sixth form college, which was, I believe, opened in the year that the hon. Gentleman was the mayor of Colchester. I do not know whether his name is on a plaque at the college; he may be able to share that with me later. The college has seen its funds increase from £5.2 million in 1996–97 to almost £7.3 million for the coming academic year, and this year the college asked for, and received, more than £500,000 in additional funding for Curriculum 2000. The college has also been allocated its share of the £65 million extra that we are investing in the sector to help with further education teachers' pay. I did not hear him refer to any of those figures.
  Of course I understand the calls for even greater investment to reverse the effects of the Conservative Administration's squeeze on colleges. However, we have made a start and, as I have shown, the increased funding levels for Colchester are clearly substantial. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to discuss that information with the governors of the college; I should be interested to hear their views.
  As for the future, the new post-16 arrangements mark a step change in the funding and organisation of education and training in this country for young people. The arrangements are designed to drive up standards, to increase participation, to achieve parity between providers and to encourage collaboration. These arrangements will ensure that all young people have a broad range of high quality options from which to choose. From Colchester to Carlisle, the Government will ensure that every young person has access to educational opportunities that help them to pursue their dreams and fulfil their potential.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Housing (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to debate housing needs in London. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her appointment as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I look forward to her reply. I realise that she does not represent a London constituency, but she is a former leader of a London borough and must be acutely aware of the housing problems and other issues that Londoners face. Her background knowledge will be invaluable in persuading her Department, and perhaps reluctant colleagues, of the need for housing investment in London. I am sure that she will bring her skills to the problem.
Housing in London is a huge problem. During the election campaign, Londoners raised individual problems on the doorstep with candidates from all parties. Tragically, however, those problems did not surface in the reporting of the election. Indeed, most of the media reported the reporting of the election rather than the issues raised by the electorate, which was regrettable. It was also regrettable that London's media, with some honourable exceptions, seemed to deal almost exclusively with the private sector market and house prices. They continually wrote about the gains that people could make by selling their property rather than the desperate housing situation that many people face.
One does not have to travel far on the London underground to realise that there is an enormous and growing gap between the haves in London—those who are on the property boom ladder—and the have-nots. That problem is compounded by a new practice among building societies: they are offering huge mortgages for houses for private rent, which drives up the private rented market and house prices, and leads to an even greater gap between the haves and the have-nots in London.
Matters are not much different outside London. Much of the south-east suffers the same problem, with booming house prices and a shortage of affordable rented housing. However, the midlands and the north of England, and to some extent Scotland and Wales, suffer another problem: under-occupation of estates and the related question of housing management. That was brought home to me when I visited the May day rally at Burnley. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who spoke extremely well, said that the Government needed to sort out Burnley's housing problem: there are 5,000 empty properties in Burnley. That enormous problem leads to massive deprivation, vandalism and social exclusion. Clearly, it must be
2WH
addressed. London, however, does not have that problem. London's problem is one of huge shortages. That is what I want to draw to hon. Members' attention this morning.
My borough of Islington has the same problems as most inner-London boroughs. My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) both represent London areas with acute housing stress. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate has areas of enormous wealth and of enormous poverty. Less than half a mile—in some cases, only a few hundred yards—separate them.
My borough suffers from much the same problem. There is an image problem. Parts of the borough are extremely wealthy. Everyone there eats in expensive restaurants every night and their only concern is whether to eat Indian, Chinese or French food; nothing else bothers them. In reality, my borough is the eighth most deprived in London. Unemployment is as high or higher than in many northern towns. The borough has massive housing problems, most of which I am told about at my advice surgery every week.
Over the years, Islington, like other London boroughs, has developed comprehensive housing strategies. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a great building programme, but I am glad to say that few tower blocks were constructed in my borough—it was mostly houses set on a traditional street pattern with gardens. In the 1970s, when my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities was the chair of its housing committee, the council adopted a policy of purchasing within the private sector. She expertly developed the policy, which meant that many families were moved out of the few high-rise blocks in the area and given houses with gardens—something to which we should all aspire, especially for families with young children.
Following the Thatcherite counter-revolution in the 1980s, for a while, London boroughs managed to borrow their way out of the Government's policies and continued expanding their affordable rented housing stock. Eventually, however, the policy became impossible to continue. The supply of new affordable accommodation dried up. The constant cuts in local authority expenditure meant that borough after borough tried to save money each year by not investing in housing repairs or capital improvements; they did not have the money to do it. My borough was no different. By 1997, when the Labour Government came to office, there was a £500 million repair backlog. Massive repairs had to be carried out. The Government had inherited a difficult problem.
At the start of this Parliament, I tabled several questions about the construction of dwellings in each London borough. I shall not weary hon. Members with all the details that I received, but just quote a few figures. In my borough in 1996–97, private enterprise constructed 49 new properties; registered social landlords constructed 17 and the local authority constructed none. In 2000–01, private enterprise constructed 213; registered social landlords constructed 44 and the local authority constructed none. The list that was provided in response to my question shows that the number of properties built for affordable rent is low.

3WH
The London borough of Waltham Forest seems to have one of the best records. Almost uniquely among London boroughs last year, private enterprise constructed 216 dwellings, registered social landlords constructed 257 and the local authority constructed 260. I have not checked all the details yet, but I believe that Waltham Forest was the only borough that constructed more properties—they were aimed at people in need of affordable rented housing—than the private sector. Other boroughs had similar or worse results than Islington.
The consequences of either councils or housing associations not building sufficient properties for affordable rent are enormous. It is expensive, in both financial and social terms. People who visit my advice surgery live in grossly over-crowded accommodation, as do my friends. Let us imagine the social tensions of bringing up six children in a two-bedroomed flat, with one child wanting to play music, one child wanting to do homework and another child wanting to sleep. It is difficult to match those three activities in one room. We must bear in mind those tensions, as we must family break-ups, the lack of achievement by children at school, and youth vandalism and disinterest in society. Young teenagers often want to go out, but they also want to be able to return home when they want. If they can go home only to a flat that has one child sleeping in a corner, or to a bedroom that they must share with other siblings, they will prefer to hang about the streets at night instead.
I invite hon. Members to visit hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, some of which is appalling. London's children are living in abominable conditions: 40,000 families are living in temporary or bed-and-breakfast accommodation without proper washing or cooking facilities. That is disgraceful. Such accommodation is also expensive—local authorities pay hundreds of pounds per week through the housing benefit system straight into the pockets of bed-and-breakfast landlords. In addition to the financial cost of such accommodation, there is the high cost in social terms—the under-achievement of school children and ill health.
The local authority could decide that the only solution to the problem of family X living in overcrowded accommodation is to move them out of the borough, which sounds good. There are empty properties in Lincoln, Coventry and Newcastle, to which they could be sent. However, life is not so simple and I do not believe that we live in a centralised state in which local authorities or the Government can order people to move to designated areas.
One family showed me their offer of accommodation 150 miles away from London, which, at one level, was attractive—it was a reasonable property with a bedroom for each child. However, what would happen to the grandmother living down the road, the family's jobs and the children's education? Why should a family be uprooted from the area in which they have grown up and that they love, merely because we as a society are not prepared to recognise the housing needs of such families? I hope that the Government understand those concerns.
4WH
The alternative to renting affordable accommodation—buying housing in the private sector—is not realistic in London because of the high cost involved. We must consider the consequences for all of us of the housing shortage in London. Towards the end of the previous Parliament, the Government proposed a scheme to provide specialist housing, initially for teachers, police officers and nurses. I understand the Government's reasons for doing that. We are all acutely aware of the shortage of teachers, especially in inner-London schools, the difficulty of retaining such teachers and the consequences of high teacher turnover. Similar problems affect the recruitment of police officers and nurses—at high cost to the national health service, which is forced to employ agency nurses because of the impossibility of employing permanent staff, who cannot find affordable local housing.
The offer of specialist housing may be an attractive proposition for a teacher, but, in some parts of London, there is a shortage of postal workers and, in other parts, a shortage of hospital cleaners, road sweepers, plumbers or carpenters. There will be shortages of all sorts of people if we allow such a massive imbalance in housing provision to continue. I urge that we look rationally at the matter and ensure that a greater proportion of new dwellings in London is in the affordable rented sector. I hope that the Minister will offer some hope that that will happen.
Research has been conducted into the problem. There is a mass of books and glossy and not so glossy reports, of which I have a few, including the Government's Green Paper and the excellent report from the Mayor's Housing Commission, chaired by Chris Holmes of Shelter, entitled "Homes for a World City". Many people who are actively involved in housing were members of the commission. Another good document is the Association of London Government's "A housing strategy for London" which is a good summary. In the preface to that document, Tony Newman, chair of housing on the ALG, talks of the challenges in improving the quality of housing stock in London:
"These challenges are a consequence of under-investment in London's housing over the last twenty years. We must respond to those in the most acute housing need as well as helping a much wider group of Londoners who cannot afford to rent or buy property in the capital including key workers who are essential to keep London running and to serve as a basis for…long-term sustainability"
of the city.
We have inherited problems in London such as the poor quality of housing stock and management, and the huge level of repairs required. There are 48,000 households in temporary accommodation in London, of which 6,000 live in B and Bs. One hundred thousand households need permanent housing in London. There is clearly a need to deal with that. Additionally, 31,000 new households come to London every year, of which a proportion—perhaps a third—will be in need of affordable rented housing.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the problem of the sale of existing council properties and the demolition of some parts of estates to create a better quality of life. I support the latter policy because it is possible to make a deeply unattractive housing estate much better by selective demolition of parts of it to create more open

5WH
and communal space and to develop community facilities. That can turn a community around. However, there is a cost: the loss of some housing stock that must be replaced elsewhere.
On the sale of council houses, I realise that the Conservatives' campaign in 1979 was largely based on offering £10 notes for a fiver to tenants on housing estates—buy the property and all will be well. Sadly, some people bought property in very poor condition and, as a result, are paying high repair bills, service charges and all that goes with that. Other people bought street properties that were later sold. It is sometimes galling to go to an area where the council formerly owned many street properties for people in housing need. Those houses were sold to tenants who later sold them in the private market. They are now inhabited by extremely wealthy people, or rented to people on housing benefit, which means that we the public pay housing benefit of £200 or £300 a week, rather than £70 or £80 a week on exactly the same property. The only difference is that the money is paid to a private landlord rather than to the local authority.
Again, that is a hidden cost to the public. The strategy of the sale of council properties has led to a huge reduction in affordable rented stock, which seldom, if ever, comes back to the public sector. Perhaps initially, we could give local authorities the opportunity to buy back properties that have been sold. Homelessness costs are rising because of that problem, but we must examine the way out. We must build and purchase more properties in London.
The land supply issue in London is huge. It is not possible to build our way completely out of the housing crisis, although by planning and examining every vacant site it is possible to do a lot. Indeed, "A housing strategy for London" suggests that in the next 15 years it will be possible to construct a further 381,000 properties in Greater London. I do not know what proportion of those houses will end up as affordably rented, but it is clearly possible to make a big dent in the problem.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he support the proposal in the Mayor's spatial development plan that, in all private developments of more than 15 houses, 35 per cent. must be social housing and a further 15 per cent. must be intermediate housing? Does he think that that will increase housing in those categories?
Jeremy Corbyn: I support the principle behind the Mayor's spatial development strategy, although I feel that he has set the figure rather too low; I suggest that such housing should make up half of the development site and that the threshold should be lower than 15. In my borough, few sites are large enough to come under the spatial development strategy because most sites are very small.
When intervening on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday, I made the point that I would like the opportunity to intervene on planning decisions to force half of developments to go to affordable rented housing and that the threshold should be lower than
6WH
15 houses—seven or eight even. Most of the developments in inner London are very small and we miss out as a result. Indeed, the figures that I cited earlier show that last year only 8 per cent. of new property in Islington was for affordable rent. The council could do little about that because of the law. I support the principle behind the Mayor's proposal, but the figure should be lower.
The other stark issue that we must consider is house prices in the private sector. As I said, the opportunity for people to buy their way out of the housing crisis in London is extremely limited. People in my borough and, I suspect, in Camden and neighbouring boroughs who are on quite good incomes find it impossible to buy anywhere to live. The cheapest property available in my borough costs about £100,000: that would, with luck, buy a one-bedroomed flat above a shop on a main road. A two or three-bedroomed property or a house with a garden in inner London would cost about £300,000 or £400,000, and in some parts even more. Unless they have inherited income or lottery winnings, for example, a couple buying such a home—an ordinary property in London—must have a joint income of more than £100,000 a year. Average incomes in London are slightly higher than in the rest of the country, but not that much higher. The housing opportunity gap is much greater in London than in other parts of the country.
Before I conclude with a few policy thoughts, I bring to hon. Members' attention a grim statistic relating to the supply of housing for affordable rent, whether council or housing association. As a result of council house sales and the demolition of parts of badly designed estates, in the next 20 years, there will be a net loss of about 130,000 properties in Greater London. The issue is not, therefore, that current building is insufficient, but that current building does not even begin to meet the gap created by demolitions and loss. A radical agenda is necessary to make a genuine dent in London's housing needs, which I hope the new Government will be able to do.
I should like the Minister to consider three policy issues. I hope that this is not the only time that we debate housing in London. I suspect that we shall return to it time and again. I intend to keep returning to it, because I can no longer stand being in advice surgeries week after week with families coming to me with sick, under-achieving and badly behaved children because they simply can no longer cope. They and the community as a whole deserve better.
The post-war Labour Government managed, despite shortages and financial turmoil, to build much good-quality housing for rent that radically improved the lives of many Londoners, such as the wonderful London county council cottage-type estates that were built after the war. I realise that times have moved on, that supply of land is not what it was and that we cannot necessarily achieve that. However, local authorities developed imaginative solutions in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for good-quality housing—high density but on a street pattern—and changed the lives of a lot of people. I look to this Labour Government to achieve similar results, so that we may reverse what happened in the 18 years when the previous Government missed those opportunities.

7WH
I should like the Minister to comment on three policy issues. The first is estate transfers in London—an issue that is deeply controversial and about which many tenants are extremely worried. It is hardly a level playing field when tenants are offered a ballot that essentially states that they can transfer their estate if they want to do so, and that if they go to a housing company or association they will receive money for improvements and development and if they stay with the local authority they will not. That is hardly fair. The documents that were presented to the Labour party conference and the national policy forum made it clear that an awful lot of people felt that we should offer a level playing field in decision making. A level playing field means that all the options are open and that public investment is the same, whether the transfer takes place or responsibility remains with the local authority.
My second point relates to the growth of housing companies and registered social landlords. Last week, I asked a parliamentary question, which the Minister answered, concerning the structure, democracy and running of housing associations—or registered social landlords, as they are now more commonly known. Although I accept that there is tenant representation on their boards and that, usually, there is local authority representation and some independent representation, we need to look again at the issue of democracy with regard to the running of housing associations. Although they often started out as small enterprises, many of them are now major landlords that are involved in massive financial dealings, and they have a huge impact on people's lives. They also eat up large sums of public money through various forms of subsidy, and they use that as an accelerator to borrow even larger sums from the private sector. Democracy and accountability with regard to housing associations must be addressed: we must ensure that they are well run and properly account for their money, and that tenants have a far greater influence over what happens within them.
My third point concerns housing benefit and its administration. In Camden, which is ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, it has been demonstrated that it is possible for housing benefit to be well run in-house by public employees in the public sector, so that the people who deserve benefit, receive it—and those who do not, do not. It is not rocket science; it is about getting money in, and then giving it to the right people. Unfortunately, the boroughs that have gone down the road of outsourcing to a private contractor—my borough has outsourced to a company called ITNET and there are many other such companies in the area—face unbelievable chaos, which causes terrible stress to the tenants concerned. If contractors fall down on the job, we should say bluntly to the local authorities concerned that they should terminate the contracts, bring them back in-house and ensure that they are run properly. It is appalling that people should be subjected to such high levels of stress as a result of the bad administration of what is, after all, not a local benefit, but a national benefit—although for some bizarre reason, in 1981, the then Prime Minister decided that it should be handled by local authorities. I thought that her decision to make them responsible
8WH
for a new benefit that they did not want to administrate was her perverse way of saying that she disliked local government.
Mr. Edward Davey: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to get rid of a private sector administrator of housing benefit. Unfortunately, in Kingston, a company called EDS—Electronic Data Systems—administered our housing benefit. After two years of chaos, the council eventually acceded to my demand and that of a local Labour councillor to get rid of EDS. Now the service is back in-house and is working very well.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am relieved to hear that, and I am sure that the people of Kingston are even more pleased about it. After the debate, would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to make a telephone call to the Liberal Democrat leader of Islington council to tell him that, on 19 July, he has an opportunity to end, rather than extend, the contract with ITNET? If the hon. Gentleman is free on that evening, perhaps he will join me on a demonstration outside Islington town hall calling for the end of the ITNET contract. I will accompany him on the train to Islington, if he thinks that he might have difficulty in finding his way there.
With regard to the wider issue of housing benefit, figures from the past 10 years or so demonstrate that public investment in bricks and mortar as a proportion of total housing expenditure has more or less halved, and public investment in housing benefit has roughly doubled. I am, of course, not asking that we abandon the principle of supporting people in housing need by assisting them with their rent, but we should take a hard look at a strategy that creates millionaires by putting so much housing benefit into the pockets of private and bed-and-breakfast landlords. It seems that we are moving in the wrong direction. We should perhaps be investing in bricks and mortar to provide affordable rented properties in our society.
This is the first debate on London's housing in the new Parliament, and we will frequently return to the issue, but I want to repeat the points that I have made—and that many others will, I am sure, keep on making—over the coming years. London's children deserve something better than the quality of accommodation that so many of them live in. If we invest in good-quality housing, we will give them a good start in life, which in turn solves other problems. If we continue down the expensive road we have taken so far and do not provide good-quality accommodation, we will reap a social whirlwind as a result. I hope that the Minister, with all her experience of London government, will recognise that these problems, difficult as they are, are not intractable or impossible. However, central Government need to take a determined approach to bring about the solution to London's housing problems that London Members so desperately want.
10 am
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He is a determined and expert advocate on behalf of those in housing need. I also congratulate the Minister on her promotion, which brings with it her new responsibilities

9WH
for housing. I am especially delighted to welcome her as a former London council leader. Members of Parliament and the general public often complain that Ministers do not understand what it is like on the ground. I know for a fact that this Minister does. The downside for her of that understanding is that even greater expectations will be placed on her to deliver. She has had to deal with the frustration, devastation and sheer hopelessness of so many who wait on housing lists throughout London, hoping for the chance to have a decent roof over their heads. I know that she will do her best to move housing up the agenda.
It is no coincidence that my first speech following the general election should be on housing. No other single issue affects my constituents more than poor-quality housing. During the election campaign, I was accosted—although that word may not exactly convey what I mean—by hundreds of people in Tower Hamlets, who said, "Please do something about housing. Come into our houses and see how we're living." I never want to sound rude to any of my constituents, because I am horrified by the conditions in which so many live, but such invitations happen so often that I have to say, "No, I'm sorry, I can't come to see the 12 members of your family living in two bedrooms. I know that there are six of you to a bedroom, that you have a mattress in the bath and that some of you are sleeping on the floor. I know that your children are sick, that they have asthma, that their education is suffering and that your life is being ruined by the lack of proper housing." Even when I say that, my constituents still want me to visit. They cannot believe that in this day and age such things can be happening to them and that no ambulance is arriving, siren blaring, and that no one is coming with a solution to their problems.
The problems go back a long way. Council housing began in the east end before anywhere else in Britain, because historically the area has the worst housing in Britain. The Boundary estate was built exactly 100 years ago on the edge of the City of London, on a site that was a notorious slum in the 19th century. It was known as the "Old Nichol" and immortalised by Arthur Morrison in his book, "Child of the Jago" and reflected in James Thomson's "City of Dreadful Night". Unfortunately, London remains a city of dreadful night for many people who do not get a decent night's sleep in their houses. The Prince of Wales opened the Boundary estate in 1901. The design was groundbreaking and an architectural vision of the future, but if a week is a long time in politics, a century is virtually a millennium in terms of social housing. Residents would not call the Boundary estate an architectural vision of the future—they regularly tell me that it is a vision of hell.
Will the Minister examine what makes life on the Boundary and so many other estates in Tower Hamlets such hell? There are two aspects to the problem. One, as we all know, is the lack of repairs. When the Labour party took office after the Tories, there was a £19 billion repair backlog. The other aspect is overcrowding. Families often have to wait on the housing register for five, 10 and 15 years. Someone even came to me who had been on the waiting list for 19 years. While waiting, families often live in situations of terrible overcrowding, such as those that I described.
Will the Minister be good enough to undertake to visit Tower Hamlets to see the worst overcrowding in the United Kingdom? Tower Hamlets has the highest
10WH
density of poverty in the country, which is obviously reflected in the housing. Will she also consider the rules that govern statutory overcrowding to see whether there is any way of reducing levels of overcrowding?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North dealt very well with another issue that causes my constituents great distress. Their children do not have a hope in hell of being able to afford a house in east London or to stay in the area in which they were brought up unless they earn more than £50,000 a year. That is the figure for a couple. The average house price in London is £150,000. To get a mortgage for a very small house, a single person would have to earn a Member of Parliament's salary. That is truly disgraceful. The need for more affordable housing runs through this entire debate. If we cannot create a greater stock of affordable housing, we shall be unable to solve the problem.
Another part of the problem is the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which I know that the Minister discussed yesterday. I am pleased that, in response to concerns about the growing use of such accommodation and to the Adjournment debate that I secured in the previous Parliament, Ministers have set up a bed-and-breakfast taskforce. I am especially glad that it is to consider setting targets for local authorities to reduce the use of such accommodation. However, I hope that Ministers will give it a strong steer by acknowledging today, or when the Homelessness Bill is in Committee in the near future, that the use of bed and breakfast for anything other than a reduced four-week initial assessment period is simply unacceptable.
I know that the Minister is well aware of the recent papers by Shelter and the National Housing Federation, which set out clear methods for reducing the use of bed and breakfast. The problem is that that will always involve additional investment, but I trust that she recognises that it is a much more sensible approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North outlined in some detail how much money we are wasting. Nowhere is that more evident than in the extortionate rents charged by many owners of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is no wonder that landlords are amenable to the rich pickings that can be made at the taxpayer's expense.
The problems would be eased if we could guarantee the level of investment required to tackle housing need in London. I am pleased that the Government started by concentrating their efforts on tackling street homelessness and people with priority need, but we must tackle the even deeper problem of hidden homelessness, which accounts for so much of the overcrowding that I described. We must do much more to help those trying to raise young families in single rooms, and we need to build more family-sized accommodation for those who live in overcrowded one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed flats.
I was encouraged that extra funding was identified in last summer's comprehensive spending review. Although that Government money far outstrips anything that the Conservatives ever invested in social housing, it is not enough. We need more. Only in the final year of the comprehensive spending review will we even begin to approach the levels of funding needed.
We are not yet planning to build new homes in the numbers needed to reduce the waiting lists in London, which in itself forces more and more families to

11WH
approach the local homeless persons unit. The London Housing Commission estimates that 43,000 homes will be needed in London in addition to the 57,000 planned in each of the next 10 years. The majority of those homes must have an affordable rent. I hope that the Government will consider again the number of new homes that are planned, and increase further the advance development programme funding available to the Housing Corporation. In turn, I naturally have to say that I hope that the Housing Corporation will ensure that the area currently ranked in greatest need in terms of housing—Tower Hamlets—is given more money, so that it can add to its stock of affordable housing.
The other issues that I would like to raise centre on the fact that the way in which the system deals with the homeless and housing problem in London wastes money. I want to see the Government's commitment to improving public sector services broadened to cover housing. The country is debating the need to improve public sector services, and the Prime Minister is specifically considering health, education, crime and transport. The first three of those problems are directly affected by poor housing.
Without decent housing, the costs on the national health service increase incredibly. Think of the cost alone of nebulisers to treat children with asthma. Nebulisers are handed out by doctors who have told me that they want to prescribe a decent home for their patients, rather than a short-term measure that does not deal with the root of the problem. Similarly, how can people attain what they ought to in education without anywhere to study, without any peace and quiet and without things that middle-class children take for granted?
Ms Diane Abbott: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of health, I should like to say that I have been an inner-city Member of Parliament for 14 years, and I am sure that she will have seen, as I have, many women come into advice sessions and burst into tears. Those women are suffering from acute depression because of having to put up with overcrowded and damp housing conditions and the family problems that ensue. Depression among working-class women on our estates is an important issue.
Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for raising mental health issues, which are critical. One cannot escape such issues when one holds a surgery. It seems that 90 per cent. of the people who come for help have their prescriptions in tow and are desperately depressed. The problem is especially acute in ethnic minority communities.
Housing should be at the top of the agenda. For that reason, I ask the Minister to arrange a meeting with Lord Macdonald, who will be heading the delivery unit, or with the other organisations that have been set up by the Prime Minister to help the Government deliver on public services, such as the Office of Public Service Reform.
The other issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, such as stock transfer, are very important and should be examined in the same way
12WH
that the Institute for Public Policy Research has been examining the relative costs and benefits of public and private sector involvement in our public services. I would like a similar amount of thought and energy to be given to housing.
I hope that the Minister will be able to find the time to come to see the reality on the ground in Tower Hamlets.
10.16 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome the Minister to her position and congratulate her. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) that the Minister has experience of London's housing problems. That is welcome news, and I hope that when she replies to the debate she can give hon. Members good news about her approach to the problems.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). He has a strong record of raising housing issues in the House. He has been a persistent challenger of all Governments on the issue and has raised it in his usual forceful manner today.
The hon. Gentleman was right to stress the extent and nature of the problem in London, and how it has changed over the years. Clearly, it was very different just after the second world war, when hundreds of thousands of houses had been destroyed and many damaged. The housing challenge for Government during the post-war period was different. The population was lower and land was less scarce.
The environment now is different even from that 10 years ago. The population of London is growing relentlessly; in the recent past, it has grown faster than it did 10 or 20 years ago. Those population growth trends look as though they will continue, so the pressure on London housing stock and on land for the building of affordable housing will be ever greater.
The challenge that we face today in London is completely different from the challenge that we have faced in the past, so we need a different response. Unless we tackle the housing problem, it will put a brake on the London economy. Private sector employers are already experiencing shortages of labour for key undertakings across the diverse economy of Greater London. Wage inflation is picking up in London because of the shortage of housing. Children are affected because many now have to travel much further to school than they used to, and so is the public sector. The Greater London Assembly report, the Mayor's report and the Assembly reports on the problem of housing for key public sector workers are important contributions to the debate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was right to link the debate on public service reform to housing: they are inextricably linked. In my constituency and, I am sure, in other London constituencies, housing problems are at the root of difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality staff for schools, hospitals, the police force and the wider public services. Until we tackle that problem, we shall not be able to improve our public services. In London. probably more than anywhere else in the country, housing is fundamental to the Government's agenda. If they do not tackle housing, they will not solve the problem.

13WH
I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that the Minister should talk to the new Office of Public Service Reform. I also recommend that she speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is undertaking the latest comprehensive spending review, which is to report in June 2002. A recent written answer from the Treasury set out the remits of that review, and of the cross-departmental reviews that it will encompass. One—I think that it was the second listed—included a look at the overall labour market in the public sector and its recruitment and retention requirements. We as London Members and the Minister with that responsibility need to feed into the cross-departmental review to ensure that the housing needs of public sector workers in the capital are reflected in the cash and policy innovations that result from that review.
I should like to highlight a Liberal Democrat recommendation that was picked up in the Assembly's report on key public sector workers and housing needs in London. It concerned the need for a London weighting—an independent index of how much it costs people to work in London, identifying extra housing costs. There used to be one under the Labour Government in the early 1970s. Not surprisingly, it was one of the things that Baroness Thatcher got rid of when she was Prime Minister. She did not like it because it told her that she might need to spend more money in the capital. It needs to be resurrected; it will strengthen our argument with colleagues in other parts of the country and with the Treasury. If we want a higher level of public service, we must ensure that the London weightings for key public sector workers are larger than they are now, so that such workers can afford to live in Greater London.
It is important to arm ourselves with statistics about the grants to London councils to tackle some of their problems. Let us be honest: we have heard rumours that such grants are under threat. We need to ensure that the Government recognise the greater cost of providing services in London. An index should be published—it may be available somewhere, but if it is, it has been given no prominence—to show the post-tax, post-housing cost incomes of Londoners. If we compared the incomes of Londoners, after deducting tax and housing costs, with those of people living in other parts of the country, I bet that our incomes would be substantially lower at almost all levels, even before adjusting for quality of housing. Until we have such figures and indices in our armoury, we shall not be able to win the argument.
Ms Abbott: That is a very important point, and I shall take it further. The take-up of the working families tax credit, one of the flagship poverty alleviation measures of the Labour Administration, is lower in London because the inflated housing costs there result in its having become not worth claiming.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady makes a good point. The reform of housing benefit was part of the unfinished business of the previous Parliament. Some of her colleagues have told me that they are worried that housing benefit is too complicated. That is a worry because it is most relevant to the needs of Londoners. People on low incomes need help with their housing costs, and housing benefit is not meeting that need.
14WH
I shall be slightly parochial for a moment and return to my constituency of Kingston and Surbiton. I am the first Member for an outer-London constituency to speak in this debate. It would be dishonest of me to say that the housing problems in my constituency are as severe as those in the constituencies of the hon. Members who have already spoken; of course, they are not. However, housing problems in some parts of my constituency are nearly as bad.
Kingston is sometimes thought to be a leafy borough. It was given that label by the Deputy Prime Minister in his first local government grant settlement speech in the previous Parliament. That did not go down well in the housing estates of Kingston. The borough is not homogenously wealthy and prosperous. It has pockets of severe deprivation. On the Jarman index, the Norbiton ward is the most severely deprived ward in outer London. My constituency has pockets of severe poverty. When I visit those estates—I recently delivered quite a few leaflets there—and when I hold advice sessions, it is obvious that Kingston has some severe housing problems. I recognise some of the descriptions that have been given, and I strongly support some of the solutions.
Some of Kingston's problems are parochial. The cash that Kingston council receives for dealing with its housing problems has been restricted in recent years. The cap on housing benefit has made life particularly difficult for those of my constituents trying to rent in the private sector, because the rents are sky high and housing benefit covers only a portion of those rents. They have been priced out of the private rented sector as a result. Although the local government grant settlement made some changes to the way in which the housing benefit regulations operate, it did not go far enough.
I refer again to my exchange with the hon. Member for Islington, North about the administration of housing benefit. I shall pass on to the leader of the Liberal Democrat administration in Islington our experiences in Kingston, although they may be different from Islington's. To meet its internal financial targets, EDS, the private sector firm that managed that contract, slashed the number of people dealing with administration. It claimed that, by introducing net technology, it would be able to overcome that reduction in labour.
The reality is that housing benefit claimants often need help to fill in forms and to follow up their claims; they need a high level of customer service, which the computer is not able to give. Unfortunately, EDS and possibly other private sector suppliers did not realise that. That is an example that the Government should take on board: an example of private sector involvement not providing a better service. It helped to reduce costs in the short term, but in the longer term it massively increased them. In an outstanding court case, Kingston is trying to extract compensation from EDS, so I shall not say more about that. However, it shows that messing up the administration of housing benefit can have knock-on effects on the provision of social housing.
Even though EDS has been long gone, the problem that the people of Kingston are still living with is that private sector landlords will no longer rent to housing benefit claimants. They did before EDS came on the

15WH
scene, but because they were fed up with the bungling, the delays, the incompetence and the downright rudeness of EDS, they decided not to rent to housing benefit claimants. Winning back their confidence and trust will be a long job. Unfortunately, in some cases, it will be impossible.
The landlords became so fed up that they took the capital gains that were available to them and sold up. That was much less hassle than obtaining the rent by way of housing benefit from the council. Our problems in Kingston were exacerbated because of that experience. From the looks and nods that I have been receiving from hon. Members, it seems that they are aware of the problem.
Glenda Jackson: I was one of the hon. Members who nodded vehemently at the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I was nodding on behalf of my borough, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) defined as excellent in delivering housing benefit in-house. Putting housing benefit services into the private sector has had a knock-on effect throughout London. That is increasingly so because private sector landlords have heard the horror stories and will not consider taking on a tenant who pays his rent via housing benefit, even in a borough such as mine where the administration of that benefit is extremely good.
Mr. Davey: I am disturbed by the hon. Lady's remark. It shows the extent of the problem. When the Government are digesting the recommendations of the Institute for Public Policy Research and some of their other advisers, they should be careful how they introduce the private sector to such matters. I am not saying that it does not have a major role to play in solving such difficulties. In terms of public-private partnerships for capital spending and investment, the private sector is the key to London's housing problems. The challenge for the Government is to know how to use and to work with the private sector. If they get that right, such a partnership can be fruitful.
Planning is the answer to some of London's housing problems and several of the Mayor's recommendations are heading in the right direction. A much greater proportion of affordable housing needs to be set down in planning agreements. The under-15 rule needs to be scrapped. We must consider allowing section 106 conditions to apply to smaller developments. We also need greater flexibility. We must not examine only one application, but a whole group. Councils must have the powers to examine applications more widely—to examine what is happening in their boroughs as a whole.
I look forward to the Minister's remarks about how to change planning powers in London. Some private sector builders are worried at the prospect of a higher proportion of affordable housing being attached to planning applications. They are saying that they would not build if such a rule were introduced. I do not believe them. Many private sector builders would still be keen to build. There are still many opportunities for profit. It is in the community's interest to demand a share from those developers. Let us remember that, without the key workers—those who clean the roads, teach the children
16WH
and police the streets—private sector properties will be devalued. I hope that the Minister will bring her experience to bear on the issue and regard it not only as an isolated matter, but as one that impacts on all the lives of those who live in London.
10.34 am
Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on relieving me of the burden of having to detail some of the housing realities of many of my constituents. I shall not go over that ground again—my hon. Friends have given graphic accounts of stories that could have come from any inner-London borough. They also detailed reasons why so many people in this great capital city live in the most appalling housing conditions. The question is not why the situation is as it is, but how we can ensure a better future for our constituents.
It is interesting that the debate is entitled "Housing (London)". The London boroughs, the Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and, perhaps more importantly, the Government, should examine London's housing problems with a pan-London vision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow urged the Minister to meet her, her constituents and members of the Government who have been given the clear responsibility to improve public services. She made the extremely strong point that there is no more important public service in London than affordable social housing.
If the Government are not moved by the human tragedies that the appalling lack of affordable social housing lays on too many people in London, I make a side point. This city has always been presented—as indeed it is—as one of the greatest, most powerful, richest and interesting cities in the world. What is detailed less often is that within London we have the largest number of deprived wards in the United Kingdom. Unemployment rates are higher than in the north-east of the country and. regrettably, London lost out during the first comprehensive spending review due to the lack of money that the Government are affording London's budgets. Labour Members know and applaud the Government's reason for making that shift, which was that they were putting much-needed money into coalfield communities. The Government argue for equality of opportunity, tackling child poverty and eradicating poor health, which I strongly endorse. However, there is little point in that if they do not take on board the fact that a contributory factor to all those demerits in our constituencies can be laid clearly and succinctly at the door of poor housing.
Equally, I ask the Minister to endorse other of my hon. Friend's comments. When the meeting between the great and good of the Government is arranged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present, as should the Mayor and other representatives of the Greater London Authority. London needs more money—it is as simple as that. The better delivery of public services will rightly place greater burdens on local authorities. However, it is not enough to get agreement from leaders, chief executives, and directors of various departments. There must be money to retrain, co-

17WH
ordinate and modernise many local authority services to ensure that we, the public on the ground, see the benefit of such public services. There is no sector in which that is more important than housing.
The point that I initially attempted to make before I was carried away by my own eloquence was that, if the Government are not prepared to accept what we as London Members see as the overwhelming human case for more money to be pumped into London, will they acknowledge the economic case? The Chancellor has rightly said that the London is the dynamo for the national economy. For every job that is created in London, two jobs are created in the greater hinterland of the United Kingdom. However, we will not be able to maintain London's primacy, attract inward investment and be the great financial centre, in or out of the euro—however the country decides on that matter—if London's infrastructure does not function, and it will not function if key public workers cannot afford to live in this city.
All accept that the headline key public workers are teachers, nurses and policemen. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North rightly made the case for another group of key public workers in this great city, and they are the people who clean the streets. Without them, will we be able to attract people to the city? The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned leafy streets. If leaves are not swept up in the autumn, elderly people may, as has happened in the past, slip on compacted wet leaves and injure themselves. We are a great nation of dog lovers. If dog faeces are not cleaned up and pavements and roads are not properly maintained, will we be able to attract people? The houses might be nice, but if the surrounding environment is lousy, people will not want to live in London.
The same applies to transport. The Government are pouring more into public transport than ever before, but doing so will do no good if, because they simply cannot afford to live in their city, there are no drivers for the buses and tubes or wardens to give tickets to people who are parked illegally.
Many of those involved were born in this city, as were their parents and grandparents. If we cannot tackle the issue quickly, we shall, as my hon. Friends said, create even greater resentment that will cost us more as a nation because it will create social imbalances and possibly, in some instances, disaffection that will express itself physically or verbally on the ground. As constituency Members of Parliament, we want no more constituents with unbelievable stories about the harassment that they are experiencing as a result of a neighbour-from-hell scenario.
We are running short of time, and I shall conclude my remarks. I strongly urge the Minister to take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow of a high-level meeting between the Chancellor, members of the Government who are responsible for the improvement of public services, and representatives of the tier of London government that the Government—much to our credit—introduced to ensure a pan-London approach to some of the most essential and complicated difficulties that beset this great city. Housing should certainly be at the top of the agenda, and the issues can be thrashed out.
18WH
In the interim—or, rather, as an addendum—will the Minister ensure that the bed-and-breakfast taskforce imposes what we would consider acceptable standards for the facilities provided in bed-and-breakfast establishments? I also urge her to speak to our right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the benefit system. We have spent a great deal of time this morning discussing the inequities of the housing benefit system, which often result from the privatisation of benefits. Equally, the Government have imposed on the system enormous complexities that have a serious impact, especially on the voluntary sector that delivers services to homeless people and rough sleepers in London. I urge the Minister to argue with our right hon. and hon. Friends that, rather than housing benefit taking a decade to improve, it too can be improved in an infinitely shorter period.
I welcome the Government's commitment that they, like all Labour Members, believe in the benefits of affordable social housing. The Homelessness Bill, which received its Second Reading on the Floor of the House last night, is a step in the right direction. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of tackling quickly the issue of socially affordable housing in London.
I welcome many of the measures that the Government have introduced, in particular starter packs. However, that was simply throwing good money after bad, as all that it did was further inflate rents. We shall tackle the issue only by building. People are available to effect the plans, and the ideas and creativity are there, as London has experienced the problem for many years, but we shall not achieve anything in the time scale that is essential without more money from the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will make that point when she arranges a meeting with those who are responsible for improving public services and our right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
10.45 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. We have covered a lot of useful ground and I cannot possibly say all that I want to in the six minutes remaining to me. I shall give the Minister, whom I also congratulate, her full 10 minutes—because that is only right with a new Minister.
I congratulate, too, the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). Although there are great ideological differences between us, I found myself agreeing with much of what they said.
I hope that we can move on from the point often made in debates that we have had in the past, that everything the private sector does is bad and everything the public sector does is good. In fact, there is good and bad in both. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, we should harness what is best in the private sector to solve the dreadful housing problems, not only in London but in all our constituencies, although London's problems are probably worse than those in most of the rest of the country.

19WH
I accept that bad housing causes personal misery, as graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. It leads to family breakdown, mental health problems, crime, antisocial neighbours and all the other problems that we desperately want to solve.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North about voluntary large-scale transfers to housing associations. There has been such a transfer in my constituency. Housing association tenants do not have enough say in how associations are run; that is something that the Government should be able to tackle. We should also engender greater competition between housing associations because, in my experience, there are good and bad associations and the difference between the worst and the best is enormous. By better auditing techniques, initiatives and targets, we could encourage the worst housing associations to rise to the standards of the best.
I should put one or two statistics on the record. At a housing conference on 5 March 1996, the Prime Minister promised that Labour would do everything in its power
"to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."
We would all say "Amen" to that, but we must judge the Prime Minister on his record, which tells us that homelessness has risen by 8,000 in the past three years, from 102,410 to 110,790. The gap between the rich and poor has risen since 1997. The Government's statistics show that 700,000 more people live in poverty now than in 1997. The number of empty houses has risen since 1997 by 7 per cent., from 81,200 to 87,186. Many of the key indicators from the past three years suggest that things are going the wrong way.
I make those points in a genuine spirit of wanting to improve the lot of Londoners—and it is a genuine spirit, because the task of all of us in politics should be to improve the lot of all our constituents, especially those in the country's capital. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that London is the country's economic driver and that we must ensure that London operates better than anywhere else.
One or two common misconceptions arose in the debate, especially in the points made about housing benefit. I was on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which considered housing benefit many times. The essence of benefits is to keep them simple. We have had 85 changes of regulation in housing benefit—one for every fortnight that the Labour party has been in power, and such tinkering makes it difficult for the council or a contracted-out service to deliver a housing benefit service with efficiency. We must shrink things to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to alter regulations to cover every possible eventuality.
In the little time available, I wish to be constructive about what a Conservative Government would do. We would allow local authorities greater discretion over where houses are built instead of dictating everything from the centre, which has led to many disadvantages. We would create new regeneration companies. It is especially important that we see more money being
20WH
levered in by the private sector. The sort of development that I was thinking about when I intervened on the hon. Member for Islington, North is the monolithic diktat from the Mayor that all housing developments over 15 houses must contain 50 per cent. social and intermediate housing, which will lead to less development by the private sector. If the hon. Member for Islington, North and his friends really want to increase development in London, they should stop that sort of monolithic approach and examine each proposal on a case-by-case basis. We should determine how much a private developer can afford in a particular development and make him meet set targets and raise or lower them depending on the case. It is not sensible to adopt a monolithic approach.
I promised to leave the Minister 10 minutes, but she has only nine. Suffice it to say that I sympathise with the problems in London, but I have the same problems in my constituency, albeit to a far lesser degree. Nevertheless, the Government need to tackle those problems and I look forward to the Government doing better in this second term than they did in the first.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate on this important issue. From the contributions that have been made, it is clear that the debate will continue and that people have extremely strong and clear feelings about the matter.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was council leader in one of the most deprived areas of inner London. I was probably responsible for some of the worst housing in the country.
Jeremy Corbyn: I think that my hon. Friend should rephrase that.
Ms Keeble: No, because that was the way in which I saw the problem. Whatever party is in government, one cannot duck local responsibilities. I still believe that to solve London's housing problems we need a partnership between local and national Government and the various housing agencies. There is no way to escape that.
A Conservative Government were in power throughout the time that I was council leader. We should expect nothing from the Conservatives, just as people in London could not. I will take no lectures from Conservative Members on the subject.
Two issues were raised: first, the quantity of housing and the amount of money that goes in; and, secondly, the quality of housing and what is delivered on the ground. In terms of quantity, the problems in London are well recognised by the Government and substantial extra funding has been put in. Between 1997–98 and 2001–02, allocations of housing investment for local authorities and registered social landlords in London amounted to some £31.8 billion, £1.3 billion of which was extra resources made available by the Government. That represented almost 30 per cent. of total national extra resources and reflected the Government's concern at the high level of deprivation and need that exists in the capital.

21WH
We have put in extra money through the new major repairs allowance. We expect authorities in areas of high demand such as London to use some of that extra money to fund new affordable housing where it is a high priority. Clearly, if we are to solve some of the quantity issues, we must look at extra funding streams—hence the emphasis on stock transfers and on partnership arrangements to ensure that we get the maximum return in terms of quantity for the amount of money that the public sector can put in. However, there are profound issues concerning quality.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked whether analysis would be conducted of how stock transfers have worked. Hackney has undertaken more stock transfers than any other London borough, and our experience has been unsatisfactory. We want some analysis before the policy is further promoted.
Ms Keeble: I am sure that everyone will look at the lessons of stock transfers. However, there are many ways to attract different funding streams to provide social housing in London and throughout the country. If we are serious about increasing the amount of housing, we must look at all those options, and deal with issues concerning quality.
The particular issue that I want to deal with is overcrowding, which has been raised repeatedly. One of my first impressions of housing in London was how overcrowded it was; it formed part of my case load as a councillor. The overcrowding regulations are very outdated, and I share the concerns that were expressed about them by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I undertake to review them, although I do not undertake to prejudge the outcome of that review. However, they need to be reviewed. It is unacceptable that families in overcrowded conditions have to resort to, for example, converting airing cupboards into bedrooms. Some parents have to sleep in their cars. The general curse of an overcrowded household must be addressed: not only its health implications, but the difficulties that face children doing normal things such as homework.
22WH
Issues about the extension of rights, particularly the extension of housing rights to young people, have been raised. They were debated at length last night. As we set about recognising the housing needs of a wider range of people—including, in particular, 16 and 17-year-olds—it is quite likely that extra pressure will be put on the housing stock, at least for a time. We must be clear that, if we are going to recognise housing need and to deal with equality issues, we must look carefully at the consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised issues about the problems of reducing stock, and what then happens to housing densities. He rightly said that, if property should be demolished because of its inadequate condition, that must be done. However, we must bear in mind that that reduces the overall stock. If we are going to increase the densities and the stock, we must be more careful about where we build the new housing. There are some innovative ideas about increasing it around, for example, shopping areas and transport nodes. I am sure that we can take such matters forward, while bearing in mind that the composition of households differs greatly.
Several hon. Members raised issues about bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government are conscious of the increasing use by some London authorities of bed-and-breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless families with children. We believe that people have a right to decent accommodation, and Government policy is clear that such accommodation should be used only as a last resort. In May 2001, a new taskforce was established to work with the worst affected authorities. The unit will help to develop solutions and disseminate good practice to assist authorities to avoid or reduce their use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Several hon. Members asked for assurances about that. In taking an interest and following through the work of that taskforce, I shall certainly try to ensure that we reduce its use as far as possible, especially for families with children, as for them it is clearly undesirable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked whether I would visit her area and consider some of its problems. We are not supposed to give such assurances, but I would be happy to pay such a visit.

Foot and Mouth
11 am
Mr. David Curry: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter of pressing—indeed searing—importance to my constituency. I welcome the Minister, who is making his debut for DEFRA, which I am told is Welsh for "wake up", or something like that. I am not sure how good his Welsh is, but perhaps he will clarify that in due course.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Let me clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, as my Welsh is perfectly adequate to the task, that the spelling is different but that "deffra" means "awake!". The Department for Environment, Food and Regional Affairs is certainly wide awake.
Mr. Curry: In the next quarter of an hour we may find out just how wide awake the Department is, as that is the purpose of the debate.
Since the election was called, in Craven, which is within the area of North Yorkshire that I represent, and in the neighbouring parts of Lancashire—notably but not exclusively the Ribble Valley—there have been 86 confirmed cases of foot and mouth, nine cases of slaughter on suspicion and 345 premises culled out as part of a contiguous cull. About 39,000 cattle and 219,000 sheep and lambs have been slaughtered since the election was called.
First, I want to praise Dr. Steve Hunter, who is the director of operations in Yorkshire, for his handling of the matter. However, in doing so, I also give thanks to all those who have worked to tackle the disease and who have not been thanked enough, including the secretaries in what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the administrators, the Army, the vets and those in local authorities who worked hard to contain the outbreak and find a way through it.
The key fact is that businesses in my constituency, including farming, were closed down long before the first outbreak of foot and mouth there. The outbreaks in Hawes, in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire, in Lancashire, to some extent in Cumbria and in Bradford had frozen all normal activity in my constituency for weeks before an outbreak occurred within its boundaries. The shutdown had enormously wide ramifications even before the disease affected the constituency itself. Because foot and mouth arrived there relatively late and intensely—in Craven, the intensity of the disease rivals that in Cumbria—for many businesses, especially in the tourist trade, the summer has been shot through already. Businesses in Malham Dale, Grassington and Three Peaks—indeed, all those in north Craven and the Pennine dales—live largely off tourism, especially but not exclusively during the summer months. For many of them, the real crisis will be winter survival. Even when the last case of foot and mouth is dealt with and the last farm premises have been cleansed and can look forward to restocking, the business crisis will be only beginning for some businesses and will be in full torrent for many of them.
The problem is that the Government's assistance for areas affected by foot and mouth was allocated before the outbreak hit my area and the neighbouring
24WH
constituencies. The Government announced business rate relief for three months, with Government participation of 95 per cent. for businesses below £12,000 rateable value and 75 per cent. in an on-going programme for those above £12,000. However, that scheme ended two days ago. Craven district council sent out 579 applications for relief. Of the 198 applications that have come back, 24 had a rateable value of more than £12,000. There have been 87 awards, but the scheme has ended.
The Government made allocations under the rural recovery programme via the rural development agencies. In Yorkshire and the Humberside area, the money—£2.5 million—was allocated when foot and mouth was confined largely to the Wensleydale outbreak. Cumbria received £11.8 million. I am sure that my colleagues from Lancashire will point out the similar discrepancy between the sums that Lancashire constituencies will get and the sum for the whole northwest. Both allocations pre-date the incidents in Craven and most Lancashire constituencies.
We must also consider the Government's scheme to match funds raised by charity. In Craven on Wednesday, the Craven Trust was launched with a target of raising £1 million. People are generous, have lived near the crisis and have seen its searing effects closely, so I think that that money will be forthcoming. The Government promised to match such money, but the scheme ended two days ago.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that the same problem has arisen in the west country? The Western Morning News launched an excellent "green wellie appeal", but it seems that the Government are again backsliding on their original promise to match funding.
Mr. Curry: I merely wish to point out what is happening in my constituency and its neighbouring areas, because the epidemic started much later there. That does not mean that the problem does not exist in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
On aid for tourism, I am in favour of trying to encourage overseas visitors back to the United Kingdom. I merely point out that in the Yorkshire dales, for example, 90 per cent. of our visitors are national rather than international, and that of that 90 per cent., 80 per cent. are regional. We want to attract people back from Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Sheffield.
I have raised the subject on four previous occasions. I have seen the Minister, and was one of the first Members of Parliament to meet the new Secretary of State, to whom I am grateful for responding so rapidly to my request to meet her. I raised it in the Queen's Speech debate and following the foot and mouth statement. Each time, Ministers told me that I had an excellent point and that they were reviewing matters and taking them seriously. I thank them for the sympathy, but that will not put any people back in business and keep them there. I do not want sympathy; I want Ministers to do something about the problem now.
My next theme is agriculture and the recovery programme. The people worst affected in my constituency are farmers in heavily infected areas whose

25WH
farms are not themselves infected. One could argue that it would be in the farmers' economic interest for their farms to become infected. By common consent, the valuations are relatively generous. Most farmers opt not for the standard scale but for individual valuations. Although the money paid for what is in effect a compulsory purchase is relatively generous, I do not claim that it in any way takes away the trauma that farmers suffer, or that it is preferable to being able to carry on business. I merely state that funding has been made available, sensibly in this regard. Those farmers can do nothing. They are practically frozen, and are in the worst situation possible. It is the same situation as for many businesses, but perhaps without the hope of being able to recover as quickly.
There is also a problem of bottlenecks in cleansing and disinfecting. It is fair to say that, in my constituency, most people regard the operation up to slaughter, culling and transport to have been carried out not merely efficiently, but with great sensitivity. Recently there has been much more controversy, because certain things went wrong with a cull that happened close to Skipton, as such incidents always seem to, so it was much more public than the others. Since then, some groups of people have been desperate to find anything that has gone wrong and any little incident has been magnified into fiction worthy of Harry Potter, of whom I am a devotee. Myth has run riot, partly because little proper information was issued at the beginning. Now, the smallest fragments of circumstantial evidence are woven into tremendous horror stories.
Once a cull is over, the animals have been carted off and the sheeted lorries have disappeared, the real problems begin. There have been problems with people not being allocated a case officer for long enough, and with the rotation of case officers. It is rather like when a relative dies: everyone is busy until after the funeral. The busyness keeps them occupied, but then they have to cope with what follows. People have not been given adequate information about what follows. Different case officers are involved, so the information that farmers get about what they can do—whether they can make hay or store it—has differed from farmer to farmer and from place to place. The timetables have differed. There has been no consistency.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw hon. Members' attention to my connections with farming, which are set out in the Register of Members' Interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have lost their stock need the Government to give a lead on the role of British agriculture? If we are to get such people back into agriculture, they must make important economic decisions after the six-month quarantine period. They will have to buy expensive stock, which will take time to reach peak production. They are wondering whether it is worth going back into agriculture, and we need a lead from the Government to get them back.
Mr. Curry: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that point will form the content of some of my concluding remarks.
If negligence and non-observance of the rules in the agricultural industry have contributed to the spread of the disease, let us hear about it and see the evidence. If there are to be prosecutions, let us have them. Far too
26WH
many stories have attributed the spread of the disease to such things, but none has been given substance. Nothing is more anguishing for farming communities than to be told that they are somehow responsible, but that no one will ever bring a case. I know that obtaining evidence is difficult, but if cases are to be brought, let us knock off the non-attributable stories about how the farming community has contributed to its own crisis.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances of children in my constituency who have come from farms where culling has been taking place to sit public exams. There is evidence that the cull in my constituency coincided precisely with the period of public or internal examinations and of standard assessment tests. Will the Minister ensure that examination boards understand that individual children might have been under great pressure when taking exams?
I want now to deal with the farm crisis that is looming in the autumn. I said that the business crisis will continue well after the cull and when the disease has, I hope, been eradicated. The end of the epidemic does not mean that farming will escape. We already know that the new premium is at an historic low because of the price on the continent. Even after the cull and welfare disposal, which will take care of 3 million to 3.5 million lambs that would have gone into consumption, there will still be a surplus of 1.5 million to 2 million on the home market because of the closure of the export market, which would normally take 6 million lambs a year. Many of those would have been the lighter lambs. The Government need to consider their response. There is a case for aid to private storage, and there might also be a case for a Government scheme to remove some of the lighter lambs. Otherwise, we shall have immensely low prices and we shall simply move from the present crisis to the resumption of the economic crisis that was a four or five-year constant for agriculture before foot and mouth hit.
I want to talk a little about the aftermath of the crisis. Some farmers who have lost all their stock might be able to quit the industry. To be frank, they might be better off economically than they would have been if they had quit before the epidemic struck. Others might be able to stay, and the process of restocking could accelerate the development of scrapie resistance in breeding flocks, which would be a small gain. Those people might also think a little about the management of their systems. I have been struck by the fact that many farmers are so busy running their farms that they can no longer think about how they manage them. They are run off their feet: they have shed all their labour and pared things down to the bone and they work every hour that God gives simply to keep things moving from day to day.
It is also true that the industry, particularly the sheep industry, will emerge smaller but perhaps fitter from the crisis. We all acknowledge that there was a significant surplus of as many as 3 million sheep. That fact has given rise to the great myth that somehow the foot and mouth epidemic was a vast, planned economic cull to scale the industry down to size. However, it is none the less true that, following the crisis, we are able to examine factors such as stocking densities and management systems.

27WH
There are some reflections for the Department that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention. It is true to say, although I say it with some caution, that the Department—MAFF as was—has become rather disconnected from the industry that it is supposed to be supervising. It was a tremendous shock for it to discover that in my constituency farms did not all sit in nice, compact holdings. They were scattered over many different locations and were fragmented. Had that sunk in sooner, perhaps some of the movement permissions that were granted earlier would not have been granted, in recognition of the risks involved.
The Department has lost knowledge of the industry. That is partly because ADAS—the old Agricultural Development Advisory Service—has been floated off, and partly because the staff of the Department largely fulfil a gendarme role in policing the giving of grants. The issue is serious and needs to be addressed.
It is a myth that we need more vets. We need many more people at the technical level, such as animal health officers, because vets are doing many jobs that they should not do. We need far more competent people at the level below vets. They would have helped a great deal with the crisis. Vets should be integrated fully into the mainstream administration of the Department. It does not make sense for the vets to be in separate hierarchies, parallel to the main administrative organisation. That has been a real problem in the handling of the epidemic. Vets are not supposed to be managers and it is much more effective if they are integrated into the management system.
In my experience, the Department has been reasonably good at giving statistics. I have no complaint about the statistics, once the indigestion caused by data protection legislation had been overcome, although we need to examine the effective workings of that legislation.
The Department is not good at communicating issues. Halfway through the epidemic, the word "biosecurity" suddenly appeared and the concept was treated as if it was an eternal truth that everybody had taken in with their mother's milk. I did not have the faintest idea what biosecurity was—I thought it was an organic washing powder. Suddenly, farms were being told that they were breaching the rules of biosecurity, but it is only in the past few days that a video has been produced to tell farmers what biosecurity is. They can hardly be reproached if they are suddenly told that management systems that have operated for generations are somehow dangerous.
There is still no piece of paper setting out for farmers the route from cull to restocking. We know that it is difficult and complex, but a timetable is necessary, setting out the steps and showing who does what and who approves what. To have in one's hands a piece of paper that sets that out clearly is important. The problem partly arises because of the Department's reliance on the wretched internet. In my constituency, most farmers are not connected to the internet and old-fashioned bits of paper are of a great deal more use to many people than a constant reliance on electronic communications, which are irrelevant to many farmers. Perhaps that will change.
28WH
We must reflect on media handling. Department officials have been thrust into the cauldron. I attended a meeting 10 days ago—a sort of anti-cull protest—to which people had come from all over the country. It was not violent, but it was extremely rowdy. It was an outdoor meeting of about 400 people. It is the sort of thing a politician has to do—it is good training, and when one has finished one is glad to have dealt with it.
A few days later Steve Hunter had to deal with a similar meeting, but it is not the job of officials to be in that political forum. Ministers ought to do that job. We need to think hard about where the role of officials ends and that of Ministers begins. The crisis has placed officials in front of the media more and more, taking the flak. They are inevitably asked to respond to political questions. All that they can say is, "Sorry, I carry out the orders." However, people shout and scream from the audience that they should denounce those orders. There should be a sensible review of that matter.
We need to look again at co-operation between Departments. It is an old story, but the epidemic has shown yet again the problems that arise if there is no proper coterminosity. In addition, we need to reflect on the circumstances in which vaccination might have a role. It is simplistic to say that there is a clear choice: that we should either kill or vaccinate. We all know that it is a great deal more complex than that, but the sooner that is spelled out, so that the argument can be conducted on sensible scientific territory, the better.
Finally, I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). We must avoid saying that because foot and mouth disease and BSE have happened, agriculture is heading for a radical departure. I do not believe in radical departures, and in any case such matters have to be agreed at European level. BSE has probably had a greater impact on the continental way of thinking than foot and mouth, which will simply push us further in the direction in which we were already going. That is not a bad thing. We must think much harder about what we want from farmers and about what public good farming is delivering. We must then crystallise our thoughts about what we are willing to pay for that public good, especially in terms of food production—higher quality and going upstream in food production—of recreation and of the environment.
People want a better balance between the broad economic sectors in the countryside, and between the ecology and the industrial activity there. This debate gives us a chance to set that out in an intelligent fashion, bringing people with us, rather than giving the impression that everything that went before foot and mouth was somehow a culmination and a preparation for the epidemic and that we will now go back to a new annus mirabilis—some anno domini in which everything will change. The world is not as simple as that. A sensible evolution is not only imperative: it is inevitable. The more signposts that we can put along that roadway, the better it will be for everybody.
I am grateful for the Minister's attention, and look forward to his reply— particularly his reply to the first part of my remarks, so that my concern about those schemes having come to an end may shortly be abated. Then we shall know that he has really woken up.
11.22 am
Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who spoke with real feeling and practical knowledge of the difficulties that affect his constituents. He sketched out some of the longer-term issues that face rural communities. Before I come to those, I should like to point out to those in Parliament and elsewhere who try to run a divide between rural communities and urban ones that the foot and mouth outbreak has implications for the urban community. There are two examples in my constituency. A maggot farm in Clipstone that sells angling equipment has had difficulties because people from urban areas have not been able to go out to the countryside. For the same reason, a textile company in Hucknall in Nottinghamshire that makes high-quality visible protective clothing has seen its sales drop and the business is in peril.
Of course, there are real problems in the countryside. The significant lesson of the foot and mouth outbreak is the importance of tourism to the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants to get people from Leeds and Sheffield back into the countryside. In the Peak district we must get people from Derby, Nottingham and Leicester back. It is all very well for colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to go abroad and promote our countryside in Europe and America, but the reality is that we must get local people back. One of the dangerous political divides that have arisen in recent years is that between urban and rural areas. We must recognise that the two interrelate. However, I have been impressed by the importance to the countryside of walkers, climbers, anglers, canoeists and birdwatchers. It is clear that pubs and bed-and-breakfast places have faced real difficulties. The significance of closing the rights of way network throughout the country has only just been realised.
I was tempted to read some of the research undertaken on the subject, and came across a helpful paper written by Peter Midmore, professor of rural studies at the university of Wales, on the economic value of walking in rural Wales. His conclusions were striking. He found that, each year, walking and climbing bring £77 million into Wales and contribute to 4,250 jobs. He compared the cost to the public purse of the subsidies for farming and agriculture and for the tourist industry. The public cost for climbing and walking—the leisure business—was £433 a job, whereas that of supporting jobs in agriculture in Wales was almost 10 times higher, at £4,279.
I was also struck by the Scottish natural history survey of 1998, which showed that open air recreation accounted for 29,000 jobs in Scotland—almost the same as farming. The Countryside Agency in England has not been slow to follow that: it found that on arty given weekend more than 7 million people visited the British countryside, that the main source of transport was by foot and that the majority of visitors lived less than 30 miles from the places visited.
The implications for rural communities, following the closures caused by the foot and mouth epidemic, are significant. It is bizarre that some local authorities still deny it. Lincolnshire county council has done little to reopen its footpaths. East Yorkshire, another county with tremendous tourist potential, has done little, as has
30WH
Hertfordshire. Some county councils—including Kent, which made a good start in opening up its footpaths—are now slowly coming off the accelerator. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether to remove the blanket ban and I will be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter.
Mr. Tyler: I know that the hon. Gentleman has walked extensively in Cornwall. He will be glad to know that, as from 9 am today, virtually all footpaths in the county are open.
Paddy Tipping: I am aware that bodies such as the National Trust have been quick to enter into the discussion and that beaches and coves were opened early. Tourism and outdoor recreation are indeed important.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dartmoor national park has been closed for far longer than necessary, and that when national parks are closed people do not visit the area? Does he agree that the Government should give special help to tourist attractions in the national park areas and to hoteliers who are on the verge of bankruptcy?
Paddy Tipping: We need to examine the measures that have been put in place to help rural businesses. One of the questions that will arise at the end of the crisis is how successful those measures have been. I suspect that they will not be as successful as was thought at the outset. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is vital to reopen Dartmoor as soon as possible. Again, I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to say something on the subject.
People visit the countryside because of the landscape. There is a symmetry between what farmers and landowners do and what tourists want from the countryside. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, the outbreak will lead to an acceleration of thinking on the subject. Like him, I do not think that it will lead to anything radical: I believe that the bones of a new approach are already in place.
In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, many farmers and landowners are looking for alternative businesses. We must reconsider how the planning system works in rural areas. There is much evidence to suggest that there is a black economy of industry that brings wealth into the area, taking place with no planning permission in farm buildings throughout the country. That is of little detriment to the countryside and I hope that we will take the opportunity to ease planning conditions.
In the longer term, there will be a move away from the manner in which we support agriculture. The common agricultural policy will face radical reform that will be driven by the enlargement of the European Union, not by the current crisis. As new countries such as Poland and Hungary enter the EU, it is inconceivable that the CAP will not have to change. Change is driven by foot and mouth and the other crises of the past four or five years: BSE, low commodity prices and overproduction. The strength of the pound against the euro has also been a factor.
The English rural development programme has set the path on which we must go. We must switch from a system that rewards production to one that brings other

31WH
benefits into the area. I have mentioned changing the planning system to bring new business into the area, but as I said, it is the landscape and environment that bring tourists in. Increasingly, we will pay farmers and landowners more green premiums to develop and look after the countryside and to introduce new planting, walls and hedges to make it more attractive to visit.
That process will not be painless—it will be extremely painful. It will be timetabled over a number of years. It is clear that, however much is done with organics, local marketing and the development of a market in energy crops, commercial farming faces real difficulties and big challenges. That is why I tell the Minister that whatever the difficulties—I know that there are real difficulties with colleagues in the Treasury about retirement and outgoer schemes—we must give farmers whose capital, livelihood and family are tied up with their farmstead a chance to leave with dignity and some money in their hands. The problem is one of new entrants and substitution and we must work hard to develop a system to allow change in the countryside.
Many people, and particularly incomers to the countryside, want a countryside that is preserved in aspic and does not change. I had hoped to go to the Yorkshire dales this coming weekend—I am a Yorkshire lad from the urban textile town of Halifax. One of my favourite walks is to the top of Buckden Pike. I used to take my children there, and as we looked down over Upper Wharfedale the kids would say, "Nothing's ever changed." However, in Upper Wharfedale, everything had changed, from a land that was soggy and woodland to one that was intensively used. The challenge is to make and plan such change
I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that all the voices in the countryside, not only landowners and farmers, are crying out for change. We do not have long to act. I welcome the suggestion of an independent commission. We must move quickly. The sign of DEFRA's success will not be a change of nameplate on the door of Nobel house, but a change that creates a new and living countryside—a countryside that is in stark contrast to the barren fields and desolation that we see in many parts of England and Wales at present.
11.35 am
Mr. Colin Breed: There is a widespread belief in many rural communities that the Government do not understand the depth of the crisis and how it has affected so many different businesses and people. The Prime Minister has said that we are on the home straight, however bumpy it is. Perhaps we are over the worst, yet many businesses are entering what should be their more lucrative period with much trepidation.
We hope that hotels and small businesses connected with tourism in Devon and Cornwall are now facing good weather and many visitors. It has been estimated that 97 per cent. of them have been affected in some way by foot and mouth. Small businesses—sometimes even micro-businesses comprising one or two people—that always live to a certain extent on the precipice are now clearly faced with possible disaster. That such businesses would not be readily connected with farming has been a difficult problem for some district councils considering
32WH
applications for relief. For example, the boat storage business in my constituency is not connected with agriculture or foot and mouth, but it has been affected significantly. Even the fancy dress hire business is looking bleak because it has not had the advantage of young farmers club events or mystery evenings put on by hotels and so on. Such tiny businesses have missed out significantly and can ill afford to lose what is literally a few thousand pounds.
Large agricultural shows such as the Royal Bath and West show and the Devon and Cornwall show are the shop windows for many small businesses, which market themselves and take a huge number of orders during the few days of the show. The orders keep them going for the rest of the year. They have other opportunities to market their products, but the shows are key. A further problem is the temporary closure of an enormous number of National Trust houses and attractions. They have their own problems with admission fees, but what about their ice-cream suppliers and so on, which are often micro-businesses?
We want the Government to understand the depth of the crisis and how it has affected small businesses in rural areas. It has been dealt with principally by the provision of hardship rate relief. As has already been said, that has now ceased, but many businesses are still suffering considerably as a result of the foot and mouth crisis. We want an extension of that relief. When it was introduced, it was intimated that the Government would review the position before the end of the three-month period to determine whether it would, in fact, be extended. The case has been made, and I hope that an announcement will be made that the scheme will be further extended for a minimum of three months.
The scheme does not deal with all businesses that have a rateable value of up to £12,000. I understand that about 3,500 applications have been made nationally. We were told that a £12,000 limit would include 75 per cent. of all businesses that might be affected. If only 3,500 have made applications, something is seriously amiss. Consideration should be given, perhaps during the extension of the three-month period, to raising that limit to, say, £50,000, so that businesses that are affected can obtain some relief.
Apart from agriculture, tourism is probably the economic activity that has been most affected. In many tourist areas, there is a feeling that England has missed out considerably in terms of Government support for tourism compared with Scotland and Wales. Many of the hardest hit areas of tourism are in England. A significant increase in marketing support and promotional activity is necessary to benefit tourism.
One of the other aspects that we should consider is why we did not learn enough from the 1967 outbreak and the 1969 report. Although many comparisons made are erroneous, as the 2001 FMD outbreak is significantly different from that of 1967, comparisons can be made about the effects and how the disease can be controlled.
I hope that the Government will agree to hold a full, open and independent public inquiry. Many people—not only those involved in foot and mouth but the entire country—want to understand how the Government handled the matter. Indeed, in my area, a telephone poll—they are not always entirely accurate—taken by

33WH
the local daily newspaper, the Western Morning News, asking people whether they would like a public inquiry, showed more than 2,200 in favour and only 61 against. The impression from that relatively small number of people, who nevertheless come from the entire south-west, show, the Government how important it is to have such a full and independent public inquiry.
We need to do more, and quickly. Many lessons can be learned in the absence of an inquiry, such as how farmers' and local markets can be encouraged in local towns. The Government are putting public money into the regeneration of small market towns, but is it not nonsense to continue to allow planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres at the same time as we are trying to regenerate towns? Joined-up thinking is necessary to reap the benefits of both. Larger out-of-town shopping centres have benefits, but they should not undermine local town centres. We need planning permission that avoids one competing with the other and public money ultimately having to be put into town centres.
Long discussion on food and farming policy is necessary. Many of us have been calling for that for some time. Before the commencement of foot and mouth disease, it had become apparent that the common agricultural policy and other factors had had an impact on farming. We have been producing more and more and creating surpluses, there has been a reduction in world prices, and farm incomes have rapidly disappeared. If there can be an advantage to a crisis such as this, it may he that it will concentrate minds and create real change.
People sometimes say that everything that happened before foot and mouth was bad and that everything after it will be all right. Although there is a place and a niche market for the smaller, local, organic farm supplying produce for the local town and its restaurants and shops, and such farms may produce local cheeses and meats, they can never supply the need for wider food production. The larger agribusinesses will continue to thrive, operating on a national and international scale, supplying large supermarkets and food processing businesses.
Surely, however, a place must remain for the less intensive, more traditional food production farming units, which even now comprise the vast majority of farming enterprises throughout the country. They still provide a significant amount of the food that we want, including an enormous amount of food for processing. Day by day, week by week, year by year, they continue to trade and to be profitable in their own right—if we discount the problems of FMD for the moment. They have been looking after, enhancing and producing the very countryside from which tourism and the whole country benefit. Somehow, however, despite being a significant number, they have been excluded from the debate.
We need to incorporate such farms in any future policy decisions. Yes, we want to move away from more intensive farming and promote organics as a niche, but we will never reduce significantly the large number of farming enterprises that fall between, not being hugely intensive or totally organic, but provide much of the food that we eat. We should not neglect them, because they also provide the countryside that is so important to
34WH
us. If we tried to change that, we would change significantly the whole way in which the rural economy operated.
I hope that one of the effects of foot and mouth will be that we take a good look at how we produce our food, and at how the rural economy could fit together to include all types of business. However, let us not forget that an enormous number of farms—often family farms—that have operated quite satisfactorily for a long period, may feel alienated by a policy that considers only agribusinesses and smaller, organic businesses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I intend to call the Opposition spokesman at 12.10. Before that, at least three people want to speak. With a little self-discipline, they may all be able to do so.
11.48 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall do my best to follow that advice, Mr. O'Hara. The debate is not an opportunity for a long discourse on the origins of foot and mouth in relation to the current crisis. I want to focus on the implications that the outbreak has for the way in which the Government deliver services to the farming community and, specifically, to the culture and performance of former MAFF services that are now the responsibility of DEFRA.
This crisis has demonstrated a number of things to which those of us who have been close to farming and to MAFF have frequently drawn attention. First, this is a Ministry that does not naturally develop strategies for the delivery of its services, or for the future of the industry that it seeks to guard and help. Several speakers have made lucid arguments concerning the fact that a strategy has been lacking for some time, and have pointed out that a rural strategy that encompasses the role of farming in the future is desperately needed.
Secondly, the Ministry has never had a good track record with regard to contingency planning or preparedness for dealing with major crises. As I said in the House a few days ago, a major outbreak of foot and mouth disease was not an unknown possibility, as it has happened before. However, although it is an eventuality on which much administrative time was spent in the 1960s, there is plenty of evidence that the Ministry had little in place to guide it on how to deal with an outbreak on this scale. It lacks preparedness and long-term thinking for dealing with such major biological crises.
Thirdly, the Ministry has had an introverted and defensive culture, which has made it peculiarly hard for it to engage with other parts of the public service or with other groups that may be able to assist it in dealing with such crises. That is evidenced by how slow it was to engage with scientific expertise to give guidance on the mapping of the crisis and how it would spread across the country. The issue of the engagement of the Army in logistical tasks also provides evidence to support that opinion. I recognise that this is a politically sensitive matter, but it was apparent to me at an early stage that the Army's help was required, because the Ministry was ill-equipped to deal with the scale of the task facing it in some parts of the country, and yet it went into denial for a critical few days before recognising that that was necessary.

35WH
However, it should also be pointed out that MAFF officials are tremendously nice people. Reports from my constituency, where there were eight cases of foot and mouth disease, support that point: there was positive feedback on the ground concerning how the officials did their work. They were sensitive: they recognised that the tasks that they had to perform were awful and that they were working on other people's property and destroying their livelihoods. They conducted themselves with a degree of sensitivity and tact that must not be lost. Although I will talk about some of the things that must be lost if MAFF is to change into a Department that serves rural areas far better than before, that local feel was present, and it was appreciated by people who were going through the worst experiences of their lives. It is only fair to point that out.
However, a painful—and, occasionally inconceivable—amount of bureaucracy was sometimes imposed. I handled cases in which, to apply for a local movement, a form had to be completed that had to be sent to Nottingham, from where it was transmitted to Cambridge, before being routed back through the process. The apparent reason for that was that it did not seem possible for MAFF to devise a one-stop process for dealing with the matter. To resolve it, two regional service centres had to be involved.
Similar problems arose with regard to the welfare scheme. Some cases in my constituency had to go through an appalling process. It has been remarked that often the worst-hit farmers did not have foot and mouth disease on their farms but were restricted in their movements and activities. There were some awful welfare cases, and sorting some of them out took up a significant amount of my time. That the wrong rates were set for the welfare scheme was not helpful. Most of us who know a reasonable amount about the subject would have said straight away that the rates were too generous. They produced a secondary marketplace into which everyone immediately dived, thereby overloading the bureaucracy. That could have been spotted immediately.
The paperchase process was then imposed on people seeking to go through the welfare scheme. I have local examples of that, one of which is someone who did not have lifting gear available to deal with carcases, and was told by one person that it was his responsibility to provide it, but by another that the Ministry could do so. The muddled communication was bad news for local farmers.
The compensation payment arrangements also provided plenty of room for complaint. They were often slow. They were sometimes unfair in certain respects, and I have taken up such cases separately with the Department. In one critical area—the payment for previously redundant farm workers to carry out certain cleansing tasks—the arrangements in my constituency were so woefully slow that people who lived on little money in the first place were often denied any income for six to eight weeks. First, someone would check off the payment in Stafford, move it to London to be authorised again, and then to Alnwick, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for someone finally to pay it off. I cannot understand how we can tolerate such jobsworth bureaucracy when dealing with a crisis.
36WH
The blood tests, which were critical in finally clearing up the cases in my area, were slow. Someone made another mistake and missed a critical farm, which delayed the process, so restrictions were in place for far longer than necessary. The people might be nice, but what a painfully bureaucratic muddle there was. To call the operation byzantine would seem only a mild criticism.
Communications were awful. The example given earlier on vaccination was right, as the explanation of what vaccination meant was muddled. Various meanings of that word never got through to some farmers, although most farmers in my area grasped the issue reasonably clearly. To the public and the media, the dichotomy was clear between vaccination, as a way to save animals, and the alternative, to kill them. As most of us know, that is a woefully simplistic view of a complex subject.
I hope that, as a result of the change of nameplate on Nobel house, there is a powerful change in the culture, management style and key management personnel in the Department that delivers such key services. We cannot accept that such a level of bureaucracy should be applied to a critical sector that needs regeneration, new thinking and new strategies. I find it hard to conceive that some of those involved will be able to deliver such powerful change in the future.
My key message is that we must change the culture and performance of the key services as a direct outcome of the crisis. If one positive change can come out of the crisis, I hope that that is it.
11.58 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on initiating the debate, as the issue has had an enormous impact on my constituency, not only on the blighted farmers and those who have been directly affected in terms of tourism and agriculture but on people in the towns and villages who are related to or know those farmers. A dark cloud hangs over the areas that have been directly affected by the disease.
My right hon. Friend was right to say that when there is a withdrawal of information, the rumour mill can and does take over. I have heard daily rumours on how the disease has spread and where it will go next. We need to fill the vacuum to ensure that the rumour mill is displaced.
It is impossible to overestimate the impact of foot and mouth in my area. As I said, its impact has been felt not only by those directly affected: the contiguous culls sometimes affect 16 other farms. We can only imagine how many animals are taken out with each outbreak.
It has been said that the vast majority of culls have been carried out sensitively, and I thank those involved for that. However, that is sometimes not the case. I have had a letter from John Barber of the Lancashire Rural Stress Network telling me of a cull that took place in West Bradford. There were not many animals, and they belonged to the lady who runs the post office. The road was not closed, and passers-by who had become attached to the animals—including some children—saw the cull taking place and were affected by what they saw. I ask the Minister to ensure that it is stressed yet again

37WH
to those who take part in the culls that they deal sensitively with the people who live in the area and with those who are directly affected.
Compensation has been mentioned, and I pay tribute again to the charities for the role that they have played during the outbreak. I should like to think that the Minister will today announce new initiatives to support those affected by foot and mouth, rather than withdrawing the initiatives that have already been announced, some of which were inadequate in the first place. I hope that he can reassure us that some of the schemes that have been started will continue and that some of the problems that can be more clearly seen now that we are way down the line can be properly tackled.
Hon. Members have mentioned the future and the fact that it might be six months before those who are affected by foot and mouth can restock. I want to know about the long-term future. I also want to know about the long-term future of those who get compensation. I heard today of someone whose animals were culled virtually at the start of the outbreak, but who still has had no money, while others, whose animals were killed a month ago, have had theirs. There might be difficulties in that regard.
Are farmers supposed to live on the compensation until they can restock? If they have to eat into money that is earmarked for the replenishment of stocks, there will be so much less when they finally get round to restocking. We must reconsider exactly what the money will be used for. We have heard about new entrants, but we should talk about the old entrants who want to stay in farming. We must ensure that they are properly compensated and can support themselves during this difficult time. It has been stressed that it would, ironically, be better for some people if their stock got the disease. People who are not involved in dairying have been unable to move their animals and have had no income since the outbreak of the disease. We need to reconsider what compensation and support can be given to such people.
I ask the Minister yet again to restate that the Government will hold a public inquiry into the disease so that farmers and those involved in the industry can give evidence. People want to know how the epidemic started and spread. There are rumours that helicopters were involved and about foot and mouth living on the beaks of birds and being spread by vermin. Indeed, there was a suspicion that MAFF officials were spreading the disease by not properly disinfecting premises—not deliberately, of course.
I was delighted when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Gisburn in my constituency, which houses the DEFRA headquarters for the outbreak in my area. She also met several people involved in tourism, and we need to see what more can be done in that regard. Absurdly, the tourism industries are often those that diversified out of farming in the first place because there was no money in it. Now, they have been clobbered because there is no money in tourism that is related to farming, as agriculture has been blighted.
I ask the Minister to re-examine cases where businesses can prove that their income and turnover have gone down by a considerable percentage, and to give them special relief. Conservative Members have
38WH
suggested one scheme and I am sure that the Government can come up with another. Labour Members have expressed sympathy today, but farmers and the tourism industry cannot bank sympathy. We need something far more tangible, and I hope that we will hear it from him today.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I intend to call Mr. Paice at 12.10.
12.5 pm
Mr. Beith: I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for ensuring that we share the last few minutes of the debate between our two constituencies, both of which have been seriously affected—mine from end to end—by the foot and mouth outbreak. The few areas that have remained clean throughout the outbreak are of course affected by the secondary effects that have spread into the towns as well. In the limited time available to me, I would like to list some of the serious problems, some of which are less obvious to the outside world than they are to those of us in the area.
Many businesses other than farming are adversely affected. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) mentioned agricultural shows. From now until the beginning of October, there is one every Saturday in my constituency—but not this year. All the businesses that exhibit at the shows will lose out badly as a consequence. A sweet seller told me that 95 per cent. of his business was at those shows. He has no source of income this year.
Many other businesses serve and provide for agriculture, and investment and even day-to-day spending are no longer taking place in those businesses, because the income is not there to provide for it. Some of those businesses are medium-sized rather than small, employing quite a few people, and have therefore not been significantly helped by the schemes that the Government have announced so far. People employed in such businesses who have been laid off, such as drivers and mart workers, have had no source of employment throughout this year and have no prospect of it in the near future.
Tourism businesses of many kinds have been affected, but especially those dependent on hill walking, canoeing, pony trekking, and other activities that have been restricted. That has particularly affected the Wooler area in my constituency.
Outdoor clothing sellers and manufacturers have had a terrible year. One famous national firm has taken to selling outdoor clothing in the car park of my local supermarket, because all its normal business outlets at the shows have disappeared. I do not suppose that it can begin to replace the business, because people do not buy clothes for activities that they do not engage in.
There are other, quite surprising victims. Specialist cheese producers have been prevented from using unpasteurised milk by foot and mouth restrictions, even though the scientific basis for this decision seems very doubtful indeed. Their cheese entirely depends on the use of unpasteurised milk.

39WH
Farmers and others who let grass parks have not been able to let them at all this year. That includes a variety of organisations, including in one case a church in my constituency, a substantial part of whose income comes from letting grass parks that have been gifted to it by previous generations.
Some in the farming industry are affected by movement restrictions. People who want to move clean cattle are not able to sell before the animals reach 30 months, because of movement restrictions, and lose financially if they have to go into the over-30-months scheme. The Minister has written letters saying that the Government are trying to find a solution. What is the solution, and will it deal with the substantial losses that the restrictions are causing farming businesses?
Farmers are prevented from moving cattle to the Ayr abattoir for slaughter because of restrictions placed at the Scottish border by the Scottish Executive. I have taken up that matter with the Scottish Executive, who have been helpful in changing and relaxing some restrictions. Cattle from an infected area exactly identical to one just over the border are not able to go to the nearest available slaughterhouse in Ayr, just because they are on the wrong side of the border. There is no scientific or veterinary difference—there is simply a national boundary. Suddenly, cattle from clean areas are not allowed to cross the border. According to the Scottish Executive, this is because there has been an outbreak in North Yorkshire—which is much further away than the abattoir is from my constituency—and they must maintain a restriction at the border. That is an unfair and unreasonable decision. Farmers wanting to move grain and oilseed rape from contiguously culled farms are not able to carry on their business.
In my constituency, there have been disposal problems. About 130,000 carcases have been buried at Widdrington, with a number of errors made in the way in which it was first done. About 3,000 carcases were burned and the ashes now have to be taken away from the sand dunes where the burning took place, because they cannot safely be left. The areas around Widdrington deserve compensation—for communities and even for households.
The Government should start a national scheme to reduce the council tax for those communities. That would provide direct help to those households that suffered from the burning and the fumes—and from anxiety about the health risks that they were exposed to when the massive burials were taking place. Previous Ministers have met my constituents. The Prime Minister met them, as did the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who was then a MAFF Minister, and the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). They expressed sympathy and said that there would be some kind of Government help for the communities affected by that disposal activity—help in the form of Government investment and so on.
I welcome the new Minister, but people expect a lot from him. They regard all those promises and commitments as binding on successor Ministers. New evidence has strengthened their case for help for the
40WH
businesses affected and for the communities that suffered so greatly from the disposal operations. We look to him to do everything that he can to help those communities.
12.10 pm
Mr. James Paice: I welcome the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) in his latest incarnation as Minister for Rural Affairs. He comes with the support not only of his own party, but of the Opposition. I was interested to read recently that, in his time in the Welsh Assembly, he was highly regarded by Welsh farmers. I hope that he manages to extend that regard in England.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced it. He brings a wealth of knowledge, not only because his constituency is seriously affected but because of his experience as a former Minister in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; he has many years' expertise on agri-policies and the like.
As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, the sorry saga of foot and mouth continues. My right hon. Friend listed the impact that it has had on his area since the Prime Minister said that we were on the home straight. Tens of thousands of farms—and families—are still affected by the crisis and, as so many hon. Members have said, many other businesses are affected. I shall not repeat the list, but it is generally understood that the disease has implications far beyond farming. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, they go beyond rural areas, and are now affecting urban areas.
I join my right hon. Friend in thanking the many people who have been involved, who are widely respected by the real sufferers, including MAFF staff and others. They have treated with sensitivity what has been a dreadful scenario for the farmers concerned.
The first issue of substance is the present fluctuating situation, and I hope that the Minister can explain it to us. We had no new cases on Sunday and four yesterday. It has been like that for some time, and we expect it to continue for some time. People want to know the truth about the outbreaks. Questions are being asked about dangerous contacts that have been slaughtered but not tested because no one knows whether they would be confirmed cases. Indeed, as happened on a farm in Wiltshire last week, some slaughtered animals have not appeared in any statistics. We do not know why they were slaughtered. Can the Minister shed some light on that? As my right hon. Friend said, wherever it happens, myth starts to run riot if people do not know why animals have been slaughtered. People start to make up their own stories about why it might have happened.
Next is the cause of new outbreaks. The Secretary of State said that last week that there was no evidence of walkers having transmitted foot and mouth disease. She is probably right, but there is no evidence—one cannot prove a negative—that they did not do it. As my right hon. Friend said, the same applies to all comments, including those of the Secretary of State, about farmers and farm contractors and machinery spreading the disease. We need to be clear whether there is evidence of

41WH
it happening or whether it is just supposition, otherwise we give the impression that farmers are bring blamed for their own problems. As my right hon. Friend said, if some individuals have behaved badly and caused outbreaks, we should jump on them hard, because they have let down the entire industry.
Will the Minister speak about the serological testing that we understand is going on in many parts of the country? To what extent is it taking place? What findings are beginning to emerge as to how endemic the problem is, especially in the sheep flock? I was concerned to read the latest information this morning, which is that Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, says that the recent cases of foot and mouth in the Brecon area mean that it has been there for "several weeks". That is worrying, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on it.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) touched on the first point I wanted to make on unrecoverable losses. On 27 February, the Opposition highlighted the problem of cattle going over the 30 months and the immediate devaluation that it created. It is somewhat regret table that the Government have even now done no more to deal with that than make sympathetic noises. There is an issue about cattle on the over-30-months scheme, which have not generally been moved off farms. Using pre-outbreak statistics, my estimate is that there must be about 200,000 such animals awaiting disposal.
There are other unrecoverable losses. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said the other day, he wrote to MAFF in April listing our proposals for compensation for unrecoverable losses, and there is still no prospect of any positive response.
I also want to ask the Minister about the disposal and methods of marketing of store stock. We are now beginning to approach the period—August, September and October—when hundreds of thousands of store lambs and store cattle are brought off the hills and traditionally sold in large store-market arrangements, often in a temporary purpose-built fairground, so to speak. They are sold to lowland farmers for onward growing and finishing. What thinking has the Department done on how it can help in the disposal of these hundreds of thousands of animals, especially sheep? They have to be sold, as there is no facility to keep them on, so how can that be accommodated?
I stand to be corrected, but I understand that farmers have an option to restock with what are described as sentinel cattle. If the cattle catch the disease, it proves that it is still around, and if they do not, it means that it is not. Farmers also have the option of not keeping stock on the farm for four months after disinfection. Problems arise—they have done so in Scotland—when two adjoining farms take different routes, and the farmer who opts for the four-month clearance period finds that his neighbour has sent in sentinel cattle. If those cattle go down with foot and mouth, the consequences for the farmer who opted for the alternative are serious. Some rationale must be established.
No one suggests that there be a full inquiry until the disease is resolved. Every effort must be concentrated on that first, but there must be a full inquiry afterwards. The Secretary of State has refused to accept that it would be a public inquiry, as she says that that would
42WH
have legal connotations and cause delay. That is not necessarily the case. It is critical that an inquiry have the powers to interview everyone involved or with a view on the subject. That includes former Ministers and former civil servants who may have left the civil service by the time that an inquiry takes place. A Select Committee does not have such powers, and nor do internal requirements.
We need to know what took place. If it takes a little longer but we get to the bottom of the matter, that is how it should be handled. A programme tomorrow night on Channel 4 will examine the background to the period, especially March, when the disease was clearly out of control, despite what the then Minister was saying. It was not until the meeting on 21 March that the Government accepted advice to aim for a target of slaughter within 24 hours of diagnosis. The Government then took more than a month to achieve that target.
Many questions have arisen for the Minister to deal with and I will not encroach upon his time, so I conclude by saying that some of this morning's debate has concerned wider issues of the countryside and DEFRA, which are important. I have not spoken about them because of the lack of time, but I hope that the Minister will persuade his colleagues in charge of parliamentary business of the genuine interest in this matter. Perhaps a full-scale parliamentary debate on the future of the countryside, even on the Adjournment, would be appropriate.
12.20 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing this debate and on the constructive manner in which he introduced it, which set the tone. That tone was reflected in the final remarks of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Opposition. We need constructive and searching debate on this issue. One of the strengths of Westminster Hall is to introduce that sort of atmosphere to the debate.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman started by paying tribute to all those who worked hard—and continue to do so—to eradicate the disease and to respond to many of the problems that have arisen. Last Wednesday, I visited the west midlands, where I saw officials returning from an exhausting and demanding period on the front line dealing with foot and mouth disease, and then immediately beginning the work of trying to give urgently needed advice and help to farmers and businesses. For them, the immediate future is as demanding as the period that they have just gone through. The impact of foot and mouth disease on rural areas has been complex and wide-ranging as well as devastating. All three of those characteristics were reflected in the debate.
I welcome the opportunity for the debate, but the time is too tight to cover the myriad issues raised. I undertake to write to colleagues, especially on specific and detailed points, and copy those remarks to others who have taken part.

43WH
The right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the nature of the business crisis. I am committed, as are the Secretary of State and my other colleagues, to delivering action, not words. He was also right to say that at present, relief schemes are limited to the end of June. We are assessing the needs in the light of pressures and developments, and will comment on that more fully shortly.
In relation to the Government matching charity funds, which was an issue raised by some hon. Members, that reflects the Government and the public showing generosity. The money donated is used with a flexibility that only the voluntary sector can provide in practice. The steps generally taken by the Government to encourage giving, such as the tax relief provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other such incentives, also assist in making that money as effective as possible.
On rate relief, applications are not excluded because they are not yet dealt with or they are still coming in. They can be back-dated to April, with relief given until 30 June.
The right hon. Gentleman said something important when he urged people not to jump on everything that goes wrong, or to help with the spreading of unfounded rumours. I share his liking for Harry Potter and agree that myth is fine in its place, but is not helpful to decision making at a time of crisis, or to those trying to decide their way forward in difficult times.
For a Welshman such as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to ask the Government to get rid of the rumour mill is a triumph of hope over experience, but I agree with the sentiment and I hope that all hon. Members, individuals and organisations concerned will help. Should there be concerns or worries, it would be best if the facts or rumours are provided to us and my colleagues and I will try to look as quickly as possible into any problems that arise. An example is the reference made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to a case in Wiltshire. I understand that testing and analysis has taken some time to complete. As soon as we have the facts, I will write to give them to the hon. Gentleman and others.
Similarly, in relation to Brecon, I understand that it is true that disease has been identified on farms at the bottom of the hill. Testing of the sheep that have moved on to the beacons is still being carried out and results will be available shortly. My officials are in contact with officials at the Welsh Assembly because, of course, we are all in this together. I undertake to provide that information when it is known. If we are given concerns, we will do our best to get to the bottom of them rapidly and to provide information. However, I appeal to everybody not to treat rumour as fact and confound the situation.
The hon. Gentleman is right that one cannot prove a negative. However, on both sides of positives and negatives, we must work with the available evidence. We should not be like the individual who throws paper balls in the air and says that that scares off the elephants. When it is pointed out that there are no elephants in the air, it is said that that proves that the practice is effective. I am trying to make the serious point that it is more
44WH
difficult to prove a negative, but we should not allow impressions to develop if there is no scientific and evidential basis.
In his introduction, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also referred to prosecutions. He will appreciate that it is difficult to provide evidence when rules have been breached. It is for the local authority to investigate whether there have been breaches of the law or regulations, and we will want prosecutions to occur in those circumstances. I agree that we should not talk up situations or beliefs unless there is evidence. It would be wrong of me to give a blanket assurance to stop prosecutions—he will agree that the matter is not that simple. We should try to be as clear as possible and not allow false impressions to develop.
The hon. Members for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Ribble Valley asked for assurances that there would be an inquiry to get to the bottom of events. We have repeatedly given such an assurance, but it would be irresponsible to bandy about words, such as public inquiry, which have specific meanings. The use of such terminology is not casual and the worst possible outcome would be to end up with a long-delayed and bureaucratic inquiry. We must deal with the emergency, eradicate the disease, bring business back into action and do the things that are currently putting pressures on officials, and then have an inquiry that gets at the facts quickly and clearly, and genuinely gets to the bottom of events. That is the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but we must be clear about the sort of inquiry that will best serve the public interest and the interest of those affected by the disease.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the video about biosecurity. We have tried to give out clear and crisp messages in the light of events surrounding foot and mouth disease—in some cases, messages that we thought were clearly understood by those directly involved. The video was issued because the message needed to be clarified.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to underline the choices for farmers who have been directly affected and who must decide about compensation—whether to restock or to change direction. That is not for the Government to dictate, and I have talked to officials about how to ensure that that advice is available. A survey in the west midlands that I saw last week highlighted the impact on farmers and other businesses. It also showed that 80 per cent. of the businesses had not sought advice and that 60 per cent. had made no change to the way in which they carried out their business or marketing and had no plans to do so. That shows that we have a big job to do.
I have tried to deal primarily with the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall write to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the matters to which he referred. The issues are complex and 10 minutes is an extremely short time in which to respond o what has been a first-rate debate. I agree that we need plenty of time in which to debate such matters and I hope that Conservative and Labour Members can agree on a mechanism to allow such a debate to take place.

Prostitution
12.30 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: I shall explain briefly why I asked for this debate. Like many large cities, Birmingham has areas where street prostitution and kerb crawling occur. Two such areas, one off Pershore road and near Balsall Heath and one off Hagley road in the Rotten park area, are mainly in my constituency. Prostitution takes place in many different establishments, such as so-called massage parlours, saunas, brothels, hotels, and sometimes in private dwellings. It has been with us for centuries and it will never be completely eradicated.
I believe that prostitution is ultimately exploitative and can—and often does— involve the very young and vulnerable. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I shall concentrate on street prostitution in residential areas. Why is it a special problem that deserves the attention of the Chamber? I shall quote a resident who came to one of my advice surgeries. She said:
"I find it totally unacceptable for me to come out of the house in the morning and find used condoms and needles in my front garden. I find it totally unacceptable for my 8-year-old daughter to grow up in an environment where she thinks it is normal for women to stand on the roadside and be picked up by men for money. And I find it totally unacceptable that I can't walk up to the papershop in the morning or evening without being accosted by some punter who wants to know whether I am doing business."
To be frank, I had little to say to my constituent other than that I agreed with her. She was almost kind about the problem in not mentioning a matter that she could have legitimately raised—that street prostitution is associated invariably with drug abuse. When street prostitution takes place in residential areas, there are inevitably drug dealers. Street prostitution is often a means by which people finance their drug habit. Associated with such a public nuisance is increased criminality closely connected with drug abuse.
Such problems are not new. In the past 10 years, the problem has sometimes been dealt with better than at other times in Birmingham. Sometimes we have seen sudden surges of activity. The argument arises about whether prostitution is a matter of displacement—about whether the minute it is dealt with in one part of the city, it moves to another part. Last year, Birmingham city council set up a panel composed of councillors and community representatives, including the police. I pay tribute to its work. The panel considered a variety of factors and it will report to the full council in due course. It considered environmental aspects such as street lighting, road configuration and litter collection. I visited some areas where different street lighting had been installed. It no longer provided the anonymity of darkness and began to reduce the problem. Similarly, the blocking of some roads prevented rat runs for kerb crawlers.
Such changes can, however, cause inconvenience to ambulance drivers, for example, who have difficulty in reaching certain places quickly. The panel considered housing and inter-agency arrangements to deal with information exchange. A big problem is tenancy agreement violations and the use of professional witnesses. However, some progress is being made in that area. The panel also considered children and young
46WH
people. It agreed to work with Barnardos and the police to identify and target vulnerable young men and women. The Barnardos Girlspace project, which was established in late 1998, has been successful, and I hope that the council can find money to extend it.
An often overlooked aspect is public health. In Birmingham, the Safe project encourages street prostitutes to ask for health advice and distributes free condoms. It is an extremely valuable project in terms of public health. However, the anger and resentment generated among local residents is easy to underestimate. They feel that people handing out free condoms makes their residential area an attraction. However, in relation to Birmingham's HIV infection rate, it seems to have been successful. There is no one answer to the problem. It involves living with the reality of something that we would all rather did not happen and dealing with it safely and acceptably.
The panel considered possible legislative changes. Since entering the House, I have campaigned for kerb crawling to be an arrestable offence. It currently results only in a summons. I am extremely pleased that the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 made the necessary changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a point to which I shall return.
Consideration was given to extending provisions for naming and shaming. The panel took evidence from the West Yorkshire police kerb crawlers rehabilitation programme, which I should like extended. The programme has been disbanded as insufficient referrals were made, but the principle behind it was that a kerb crawler stopped by the police was given a simple option. He could either appear before magistrates and possibly face a fine, or he could attend a day's rehabilitation programme and face up to the consequences of his actions, which included meeting local residents, who would ask, "What do you think it feels like, living here with people like you crawling along kerbs and stopping women?" Those men also had to meet prostitutes who had stopped working on the streets and face up to the unpleasant reality that most street prostitution is not an adult's choice of life style. It is not a question of an adult making the choice, saying, "I wish to earn my living by selling my body." Prostitution usually involves young, vulnerable people caught in dependent relationships or drug abuse, and is sometimes simply a form of child abuse. Initially, the programme seemed successful, but insufficient referrals were made. I hope that we shall consider it more closely. Ultimately, only if we stop kerb crawlers will we stop the associated problems.
Although there are many aspects of the report that I welcome and on which we need to build, one aspect caused me great concern. It seemed to suggest that, should the law on soliciting be changed, a multi-agency panel in Birmingham should actively consider a safety zone, or zone of tolerance, in a non-residential area, where the practice would cause the least alarm, nuisance and distress to residents, although the report was mindful of the physical safety of the female prostitutes who work within it. That sounds tempting as a solution to the problem, but I and agencies such as the police do not believe that it is. Where would the wonderful zone of tolerance be? I challenge any councillor to go to a Birmingham ward meeting, look in ward members' eyes and say, "We have now decided that your back yard is

47WH
the area in which we will tolerate it." We would have to move to areas with no residential element, which would mean industrial areas of the city. Part of what kerb crawlers look for is anonymity, which residential areas provide. They would therefore not go to those industrial areas; it would be blatantly obvious why they would do so.
In one project in my constituency, the car numbers of men reported kerb crawling were analysed. An amazing number of those cars were registered in women's names. The men did not want to use their company car for kerb crawling, so they used the family car, which was often registered in the wife's name. Anonymity is important to the kerb crawler. Zones of tolerance in industrial areas would not provide that anonymity. To put it in the crudest terms, parallel markets would evolve and street prostitution would increase in residential areas.
There is an argument that the zones would be safer because the police would be able to enforce the law more selectively in relation to drug abuse and pimps. I would not want to accept any system in which the law was enforced selectively in some well-established areas. That would put an unacceptable onus on the police.
The final point that is often cited is that the zones work in Europe, but I do not think that they do. First, they do not create the ideal situation that people like to claim. Secondly, people on the continent have very different attitudes to sex. Zones of tolerance on the continent are usually made in agreement with the prostitutes and the local authority, because the system of pimps does not exist there to the extent that it does here. The zones on the continent operate without the involvement of pimps, but that would not happen here, so there is no analogy between the two situations.
Will the Minister tell us about the Home Office's attitude to zones of tolerance? Are there plans to change the legislation? I was interested to hear that, last year, some £500,000 was made available to cities bidding for projects in relation to street prostitution. The bidding criteria specifically excluded plans for setting up zones of tolerance. In Birmingham, local elections will be held every year for the next three years, and the question will rear its head. It would be useful to have a Government statement on the matter.
What should be done as regards prostitution? I pay tribute to the work by the West Midlands police force in the past few years in tackling a difficult situation. The force has set up microbeat offices, so there is much closer association between individual officers and problem areas. After a slow start, the force has succeeded in proceeding with some 21 antisocial behaviour orders, 15 of them against prostitutes. So far, only one of them has been breached, which resulted in a custodial sentence. The police and local authorities, as well as housing associations, have recently issued eviction orders when drug dealing was taking place alongside suspected prostitution in private dwellings. The police continue to report kerb crawlers for summonses.
I welcome the Criminal Justice and Police Act, which makes kerb crawling an arrestable offence, but I understand that the commencement order has not yet been laid. Will the Minister tell the Chamber when the
48WH
measure will be introduced and whether it could be brought forward more speedily? West Midlands police tell me that they would welcome it as soon as possible.
One group that is often overlooked is the local residents. In both the areas that I have mentioned, there is an active street watch. In one street watch, which is well established and goes back some seven or eight years, the dedication of the local residents is exemplary. The beginning was difficult: the project arose from the anger of local residents, so they were accused of being vigilantes. However, now they work with the local police. In the past month alone, some 50 letters have been sent to drivers as a result of reports from street watch. Although it is usually not a good idea to single out individuals, I want to put on the record a tribute to the efforts of Raja Amin. Over the years, he has been involved with the local street watch and he has continually given his time and effort, as have many of his helpers.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether he and the Home Office will give special consideration to applications for closed circuit television in locations where property crimes and drug offences are particularly connected with street prostitution, and whether further thought has been given to the idea that I raised some years ago—although for a variety of reasons I could not pursue it—of putting penalty points on driving licences for kerb crawling. It would be a good disincentive if kerb crawlers were to lose their licences when they had accumulated a certain number of penalty points, as is the case with speeding.
As I have said, street prostitution raises a number of moral and ethical issues. However, in this debate, I am particularly concerned with its public nuisance effect. Although it is tempting to say that the introduction of zones of tolerance is a way forward, I do not agree. I think that it is a misguided idea and would not work. Rather, local authorities, police and residents should continue to work together within a legislative framework that allows them to deal with the problem.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Prisons (Mr. Keith Bradley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to many of the points that she has raised.
The Home Office is keenly aware of the nuisance associated with the activities of prostitutes and kerb crawlers—and, in particular, the considerable distress that is caused to local residents, which my hon. Friend has so graphically described. I want to add my words of tribute to local residents who participate in schemes such as the street watch scheme in Birmingham that she mentioned.
The power of arrest for kerb crawling that is contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will be of great benefit to the police in tackling the crime. It is an important and long-awaited reform, and I am delighted that it is now on the statute book. The measure will be implemented on 1 October 2001. We recognise that providing the police with an extra measure to tackle kerb crawling is a priority. When a new power of arrest is introduced, it is important that police forces are properly informed. It is customary to delay

49WH
implementation of such provisions while guidance is produced, and we shall issue a circular to police forces that informs them of the change and gives them time to consider how best to use the power in their regions.
The stigma attached to kerb crawling is a powerful disincentive, and I hope that the threat of being arrested may deter some potential perpetrators from engaging in this destructive activity. For that reason, I do not consider that the introduction of fixed penalties for kerb crawling would be useful. If an offender does not face the prospect of appearing in court and the publicity that may result from that, he might not be dissuaded from such behaviour.
The Act also contains measures to tackle another form of nuisance associated with prostitution—prostitutes' cards in telephone kiosks. From 1 September 2001, it will be an offence to place advertisements relating to prostitution in public telephone kiosks. Such cards are an increasing nuisance in our cities, and they often carry explicit images. I know Birmingham well, as I was born there, and the measure will improve the quality of life for the residents of affected areas, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and for visitors. At present, the problem is mainly confined to London and Brighton, but the new offence will cover all areas, so it will help to prevent the spread of this nuisance.
The Act also contains an order-making power to extend the measure, by affirmative resolution of the House, to other public structures. The power is available for use should the cards be placed in other structures, such as bus shelters. The nuisance and misery that street prostitution can cause to communities is evident from what we have heard in the debate. It is important that the police use the powers available to them, in consultation with residents, to tackle the problems. The allocation and deployment of officers, and the arrangements for the day-to-day policing of an area, are, obviously, the operational responsibility of the chief officer of the local force. He or she is responsible for investigating any acts of crime and disorder in the area and to enforce the legislation available.
My hon. Friend mentioned the policy development panel in Birmingham, and I reiterate her praise for it. Such multi-agency groups also have a role to play in considering local solutions to the problems faced by local communities.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not think that zones of tolerance will assist in dealing with the problems that we are debating. The Association of Chief Police Officers is also opposed to zones of tolerance, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Kerb crawling and soliciting are criminal offences, and we have no plans to relax the law in that regard. It would also be extremely difficult for communities to agree on the location of zones of tolerance. It is important that difficult problems, such as those associated with prostitution, are given careful consideration and not simply shifted from one area to another. More importantly, we are concerned that any such scheme might encourage demand for the services of prostitutes and put children at risk of becoming involved in prostitution. One primary concern is to prevent the exploitation of children through prostitution. Children involved in prostitution are primary victims, and those who buy their sexual services are sex offenders. That
50WH
position is the subject of the guidance document "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution", which was published last year and has been widely welcomed by agencies involved in the protection of children.
We are also concerned about the growing trade in trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. By its nature, trafficking is organised and often part of a major international crime. It is important that measures that are taken to deal with the nuisance associated with prostitution do not create an environment in which trafficking can flourish. Trafficking treats people as commodities and targets the vulnerable. We are determined to tackle this crime and have been actively negotiating the final text of a European Union framework decision to combat trafficking in human beings. The report of the sex offences review also recommends a new offence of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. We are now considering the responses to that recommendation.
Our other priority is to tackle the crime and disorder associated with prostitution. That is why we are funding 11 projects as part of the crime reduction programme to find out what works in combating the problems associated with prostitution. Such multi-agency projects involve measures to reduce the nuisance caused to residents, as well as longer-term strategies to assist those who want to exit prostitution to do so. Each project will be evaluated independently so that we can learn which strategies are effective and should be implemented elsewhere.
I regret that the bid from Birmingham did not meet our selection criteria. One reason was that any interventions would depend on the decisions of the policy development panel, which had not been made at the time of the bidding process. The funding is available only until March next year and the selection panel considered that other bids were better able to deliver measurable outcomes in the short time available.
Whether or not an area has a project selected for funding, we strongly believe that the funding will be of great benefit to all areas that are affected by the crime and disorder associated with prostitution. Projects should provide some ideas about good practice and help to demonstrate what works in tackling prostitution and, equally importantly, what does not work. I look forward to seeing the results and I am sure that Birmingham will be able to learn from the pilot schemes and implement good practice.
The projects focus on the effects of prostitution, but we are also committed to tackling antisocial behaviour in general. The police or the local authority may apply to the magistrates courts for an antisocial behaviour order to prohibit an individual from specific antisocial activities that are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. The breach of an order is a criminal offence, and the fact that no more than one in 10 antisocial behaviour orders is breached shows that they are effective in themselves. More than 200 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in England and Wales since 1 April 1999. They have been used successfully in a variety of cases, including those tackling harassment to residents caused by prostitutes and their clients.

51WH
I understand that antisocial behaviour orders have been used against 15 prostitutes in Birmingham, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. The breach of one of those orders resulted in a 12-week prison sentence. I look forward to hearing about the effectiveness of other orders when that information becomes available. Birmingham is one of many centres of good practice in using this method of tackling disorder. Those who have still to use antisocial behaviour orders should note other successes and follow their example.
Local authorities and the police are required to get together with other agencies to form crime and disorder partnerships responsible for developing and implementing strategies for reducing crime and disorder in their areas. We have written to crime and disorder partnerships reminding them that they should include antisocial behaviour orders as a separate element of their strategy, and that they should monitor such behaviour in their areas.
I understand that the policy development panel in Birmingham is in favour of a further review of the law on prostitution, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Although street offences were beyond its terms of reference, the report of the sex offences review, "Setting the Boundaries", recommends that there should be a further review of the law on prostitution. That is a recommendation to Ministers and it will be considered in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise. The period of consultation ended in March 2001and we received more than 650 good responses to the document, which we are considering in detail.
"Setting the Boundaries" also recognises the need for effective legislation to deal with those who exploit others for the purpose of prostitution. It recommends separate offences to cover the exploitation of adults and children, to set an unambiguous standard that the sexual exploitation of children is wrong. It is important that we tackle both the problems to which prostitution can give rise—exploitation by pimps and the nuisance that the activity of sex workers and their clients can cause especially in residential areas—as my hon. Friend has clearly recognised. The Government are therefore undertaking a comprehensive review of all the legislation in that area. This debate has enabled us to focus on some of the areas that my hon. Friend rightly identified. However, I am sure that she will recognise that these are complex issues, and that we need to be clear on the broad direction in which to tackle them.
Recent changes in legislation have made a real improvement in the lives of residents in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in the country. However, she will realise that legislation is only part of the solution. Local initiatives and the involvement of communities in tackling such issues are vital if we are to find good practice. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has highlighted the good work that is going on in Birmingham, the good practices that are being established and the work that has been done by residents involved in the new initiatives. I am sure that, working with the local authority and with my hon. Friend, residents will try to ensure that everyone living in areas blighted by this problem will have a better quality of life. I look forward to seeing some results in the coming months.

Heathrow
12.58 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the opportunity to introduce a short Adjournment debate on the future of Heathrow, a subject that is topical in south and west London and in the counties surrounding Heathrow.
I welcome the new Minister and congratulate him on his job. I do not know whether he likes controversial appointments, but I am sure that he realises that he is at the centre of what could be one of the biggest decisions that the Government will make during the next few years.
To state where I am coming from, I represent one of many constituencies that have a dual interest in this problem. There is a major preoccupation in my constituency with aircraft noise and pollution and air traffic safety concerns, but I also have a significant number of constituents who work at the airport and who value their employment there, and a significant number who use it for business travel. There is clearly a trade off to be made between those different interests. Personally, I emphasise the environmental aspects—that is the centre of gravity of public opinion in my constituency—but I realise that there are two sides to all the arguments about airport development.
I have secured this debate for two reasons. First, I want to register some concern about the way in which the public debate is evolving. I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for speculation in the press. However, in the past few weeks a debate that has been conducted for several years on the future of terminal 5 has suddenly broadened out into the possibility of a third runway. Again, this is pure speculation, and I would not expect the Minister to be able to give any definitive comment on it, but it is none the less a worrying matter for those of us who have airport-related constituencies.
I hope that the Minister can help us. I should like him to give us some reassurance that the airport-related questions will be looked at in a holistic, coherent way, and that there will be a properly managed national debate. The interconnected issues of terminal 5, a prospective third runway, a new system of regulation using market mechanisms for slot allocation—which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorses—and flight capping should be examined together and in a consistent way.
I realise that the Minister is circumscribed because of the dual role of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in setting policy and as a last source of planning appeal. I recognise his difficulty and do not expect too much from him. However, I should like him to give us some indication of the Government's thinking on flight capping and the level of flights. That is not a land use issue; it is quite specifically an aviation policy issue. The Government have direct say in the area. The Government's decision on future acceptable legally binding flight limits sets the framework within which the planning issues will be pursued.
That is where I am coming from, and that is why I have raised this subject for debate. Within that broad context I should like to touch on several specific issues.

53WH
I do not want to make a speech on terminal 5—I am sure that there will be a statement soon, probably from the Secretary of State, and we will all have an opportunity to comment on that. The arguments have been endlessly rehearsed.
I want to raise the way in which the process has been managed during the past six months, since when, I understand, the Vandermeer report has been in the hands of the Government. People who seem to know what they are talking about—although I cannot verify it—tell me that large-scale works are being carried out on the site of terminal 5. I am told that an underground road is being constructed, the sewage farm is being cleared and major capital investments are being undertaken. I find it difficult to believe that a public limited company would be risking its shareholders' money on a purely speculative venture, unless it had a pretty clear indication of what was happening.
There are only two explanations for those stories, with which I think all the Members who represent constituencies in our part of London are familiar. One is that they are complete fabrication—it may well be that nothing is happening, and that this is entirely incorrect information. Somebody may be scaremongering and putting around rumours that are untrue. The other explanation, which is equally worrying, is that the British Airports Authority, the developer, is confident that it knows what the outcome of the inquiry will be and is acting on that assumption.
I do not expect the Minister to give an answer today. I simply hope that when the statement is made we will receive assurances that the process has been properly honoured and that there has been no premature action on the planning inquiry report. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether the gun has been jumped or not. That is the only point that I wish to make about terminal 5.
The second issue that I want to talk about is a more important issue of substance: the resurfacing of the debate about a third runway at Heathrow, which for some years has been in abeyance. The British Airports Authority, as the developer of terminal 5, always made it clear that it did not see a third runway as necessary to the logic of its project; indeed, it specifically asked the inquiry to rule it out as unnecessary. In the past few months, we have heard more persistent reports that a third runway is being considered. I shall read the Minister some quotes with which I am sure that he is familiar. The first in the series appeared on 1 April, and we might have thought that it had something to do with April Fools' day. An article in The Observer said:
"The Government is `evaluating' a new full-length runway at Heathrow to increase capacity".
The speculation then died back, but on 25 June, after the election, there were detailed reports in two newspapers that are not normally given to extreme speculation. One was The Independent. The key passage stated:
"Secret plans for another runway at Heathrow are expected to be approved by the Government…Airlines have submitted the plan for an extra runway…as their main solution to increasing demand for air travel…Ministers are expected to favour the Heathrow project and announce their approval next year, but wanted the storm over Terminal 5 to die down first."
54WH
On the same day, a different reporter in a different newspaper stated:
"Ministers are seriously considering building a third runway at Heathrow".
So, someone is talking out of turn.
Mr. David Wilshire: Has it crossed the hon. Gentleman's mind that the source of those stories might be the anti-T5 brigade, which is desperately trying to wreck the future of my constituency by opposing T5 and putting pressure on the Government to do something other than what I hope they will do?
Dr. Cable: There are all sorts of possible sources for the reports, and one is indeed the protest movement. Another is the company that would have an interest in the matter, and still another is the Department, although I hope that that is not the case. Clearly, however, there is a lot of what seems to be informed speculation that the process is under consideration.
I am well aware that, as I am sure the Minister will point out, the south-east regional airport study by the Department is considering a variety of runway options. Hitherto, we had assumed that that would preclude a third runway at Heathrow, but it might well now include one. I shall simply say in passing why many residents consider that to be a worrying development. First, it will be wholly contrary to people's assumptions and to the assurances that we have been given in the past few years, particularly by BAA. Furthermore, I am concerned that it comes at the same time as the Government's announcement of a new approach to planning. We have yet to see the details of the legislation, but the Government have made it clear that they want a much more truncated and permissive approach to large planning projects. Indeed, one of the Minister's colleagues has responsibility for introducing new powers to ensure that that happens. Under such new powers, it would be much easier for a Government who were so minded to introduce a runway project without the planning difficulties that have occurred in the past.
Clearly, I cannot expect the Minister to say yes or no in response to questions about what is happening, but I wanted to bring up the concern, wherever it comes from, about the possibility that Heathrow expansion is going ahead far faster and on a far bigger scale than we had hitherto thought likely.
That leads me to the third issue, on which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment, which is flight capping—the level of flights that should be permitted into Heathrow. That is the key factor, which affects the environment and the balance between it and economic development. As I am sure that the Minister knows, BAA assumed, in the various projections made for future demand for flights, that the level of flights into and out of Heathrow around 2015 would be about 453,000 a year. On another set of assumptions, I think that the final figure was 470,000. The striking fact is that that level has already been reached. That raises questions about how committed the Government are to managing demand. Do they believe that it is the task of the Government to provide infrastructure to meet whatever level of demand exists? Are they willing to manage it and insist that it be managed? At what approximate level of flights should the cap apply?

55WH
Should the cap be legally binding? How should any legal bind apply in practice, considering that it has not been effective in the past?
Although I cannot expect the Minister to comment on the planning inquiry or prospective planning inquiries about a runway, I hope that he will suggest how he sees this key area of aviation policy, for which he is responsible. I also hope that he will suggest something on one dimension of the broad issue of flight capping. He will know that protesters from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise have taken the issue of night flights to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Government have been asked to provide evidence to that inquiry to demonstrate whether a national interest justifies the intrusion into family life arising from early morning and late night flights, which is considerable if one is under the flight path. I hope that the Minister will suggest how that evidence will be provided. Will it be published, if so, when, and what form will it take? The night flights issue and the capping of night flights have disproportionate importance in terms of the wider debate.
I want to touch on how Government thinking is evolving on regulation of airports, as it applies to Heathrow. There is some common ground between the objectors to and the supporters of further development at Heathrow, which is that one cannot operate indefinitely on the basis of predict and provide. There must be some management of demand. Hitherto, the market for landing at Heathrow has been highly distorted. The landing charges are low by comparison with other major international airports and landing slots are provided free of charge because there is no optioning of slots.
I convened a debate on the subject almost exactly a year ago, which was answered by the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill). He gave a helpful and forward-looking approach, which suggested that the Government had an open mind on revisiting the regulatory problems and reopening the issue—the rules were set in the mid-1980s—about how the airport should be regulated. It suggested that the Government were willing to consider adapting landing charges and licensing slots. The Chancellor has taken that fully on board. In his Mansion House speech, referring to the economic reform agenda, he included:
"air liberalisation, with reforms to the allocation of take-off and landing slots that introduce market mechanisms to allocate scarce capacity."
The Chancellor, who is clearly a very big fish in the Government, sees the need for reform on the issue.
I mention the matter not simply because it makes for an interesting academic debate, but because if the system of charging is radically changed—if airlines have to pay substantially more to land at Heathrow, which is the implication of the reform—the demand will be considerably less. I want some suggestion from the Minister as to how the new approach to regulation will affect expectations about demand for Heathrow flights. How will the two elements of the exercise be knitted together coherently?
56WH
I shall bring my remarks to a close to give the Minister plenty of time to reply and to give those hon. Members who represent other constituencies near Heathrow to intervene if they wish. I reiterate the two central points. First, I am concerned about how the debate on people's fears and anxieties about the third runway has evolved. Secondly, I ask the Minister to reassure us on the dangers of over-development and to say what is the Government's view of flight capping.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this important debate. This is my first aviation debate since taking up my post as Minister, although plenty of debates seem to arise on other transport matters, and I am sure that it will not be the last.
It is important that the Government respond to such debates as fully as possible; I realise that hon. Members are raising important matters on behalf of their constituents. I appreciate, too, that the matters raised today are of considerable importance to the hon. Gentleman and to those whom he represents. I know that he has been assiduous, as other hon. Members here today have been, on the matters raised today, and I assure hon. Members that they are being considered most carefully. However, just as there is an imperative on me to answer as many questions as I can, the hon. Gentleman will know from answers to previous questions that, to a large extent, Ministers are restricted in what they can say about the enlargement of and the other major proposed changes to the airport. I know that the hon. Gentleman is thoughtful, and that he appreciates the limits within which I speak today. Notwithstanding that, I shall attempt to answer many of his questions. I shall put them in a more general framework, and he may be able to draw out some of the answers to the specific questions that he was right to ask.
The hon. Gentleman asked about recent press speculation on Heathrow, but it is not for me to speculate on that speculation. However, I assure him that the underground road that is being constructed stands entirely remote from any other decisions that may be made at Heathrow. I can also tell him that the Perry Oak sludge works is being decommissioned and will be replaced. Again, that is not relevant to other issues raised today.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, I state clearly that I will not be answering questions on any issues that concern the planning application or the inquiry into the fifth terminal at Heathrow. To do so could prejudice the Secretary of State's consideration of the inspector's report, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the reasons for that. I also recognise, as did the hon. Gentleman, the strategic and national importance of Heathrow and the contribution that it makes to the local and the national economy. Its contribution to the United Kingdom should not be underestimated.
John McDonnell: We all understand that the Minister is restricted in the comments that he can make on terminal 5, but I wish to

57WH
raise a matter that he may wish to pass back to the Department and perhaps to the Leader of the House. The statement on terminal 5 should be made on the Floor of the House and it should be given adequate time for debate. It should not be part of a grubby process one day before a recess. All Members should have the opportunity to address the long-term implications of the new terminal.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am sure that what he says will be carefully noted.
The trade handled at Heathrow makes it Britain's largest port and it is a major employer in the area. Indeed, 68,000 people are directly employed there, a proportion of whom live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. It is estimated that as many as 250,000 jobs nationwide are related to the airport. It is recognised as a key asset in the promotion of London as a world city. I also recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that Heathrow has a substantial impact on the environment and on a great many of the people who live in its immediate vicinity. Far more people suffer from aircraft noise caused by Heathrow than by any other airport in the United Kingdom.
There has, however, been a substantial improvement in the noise climate around the airport during the past 20 years. I restate our policy: the Government will continue to do everything practical further to improve the noise climate. We are well aware that the role of Heathrow in the future pro vision of air travel in the UK is central to our aviation and airport policies. We said in the Labour party manifesto that our plans for aviation and airports in the next 30 years would be produced next year; and so they will.
Heathrow handles more international passengers than any other airport in the world and, in 1999, the overall number of passengers made it the fourth busiest, trailing only behind Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. However, other European airports are catching up.
The previous national airports policy statement was published in 1985, so a new one is long overdue. The aviation world has changed dramatically since 1985; UK airports now handle more than double the number of passengers. Our forecasts show that demand for air travel in the UK might almost double during the next 15 years from approximately 170 million a year to about 340 million passengers by 2015.
The Government are aware that some of our major airports, particularly in the south-east, are already working close to their capacity. The demand for air travel for business and for leisure is rising inexorably—and from both UK residents and foreign visitors. We need urgently to decide how to respond to the problem, and that is what we shall do.
Our drive to review national airports policies was established in the 1998 "New Deal for Transport" White Paper, which announced our intention to prepare a UK airports policy that would lay down the framework for the sustainable development of UK airports for the next 30 years. Those policies will be brought together in a new air transport White Paper, which will assess the social and—most importantly—the environmental and economic impacts of airports and of aviation.
Mr. Wilshire: I am concerned about the delay suggested by the Minister. I am not being party political;
58WH
successive Governments have dithered. The Minister referred to what is happening elsewhere in Europe and the fact that other airports are catching up. Does he accept that it is crucial that Heathrow remain Europe's No.1 hub? If it does not, the impact on the jobs in my constituency will be catastrophic.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are mindful of the need to carry out these policies in due time. However, many other matters, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham, have to be balanced in our discussions.
The Government are aware of the uncertainty that surrounds airport development and we are conscious of the need to put policies in place as early as possible. However, before we prepare the White Paper we need to consider carefully the options for the development of airports, to appraise thoroughly their impact, and to consult all those who have an interest. I hope that that answers some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
There are three main building blocks to the formation of the new White Paper. First, in December 2000 we published the "Future of Aviation" consultation document, which is concerned with national policies and does not deal with specific airports. The deadline for responses passed in April, and we received more than 500 responses. That is encouraging and shows the level of interest in aviation in the UK. There are many detailed and constructive comments and we shall make a summary available.
The other two building blocks are consultation on options for the development of regional airports and consultation on options for south-east airports. That is probably of interest to the hon. Member for Twickenham and is related to his arguments today. We plan to issue those documents around the turn of the year. The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study is examining a wide range of options at existing airports and new sites in the south-east. Options for the future development of Heathrow are clearly key considerations in this work.
I must stress and make it patently clear that, contrary to recent press speculation, Ministers have not seen and do not know what options are being considered in the SERAS study. Consultants carrying out the work on the Government's behalf have identified a large number of options at all the south-east airports, and I understand that the number of options runs into three figures.
Some of the options being evaluated would provide additional terminal capacity to make the maximum use of existing runways; other options would provide additional terminal and runway capacity. Obviously, it would be impractical to carry out detailed appraisal of all the options. However, I understand that officials will shortly ask Ministers to decide on a much shorter list of options, which will go forward for full and detailed appraisal in the next stage of the study.
It has sometimes been suggested that we should release details of the options that have been eliminated and those that have been taken forward. We do not

59WH
agree with that approach. We understand that it might reduce the anxiety of some people. However, even when we have narrowed down the number of options, there will still be a substantial number in the frame, and to publish them would do far more harm than good. It would be premature, would spread unnecessary blight and anxiety and would not enable meaningful public consultation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will therefore understand my lack of references in this debate to Heathrow.
Following Ministers' decisions, the next stage of the SERAS study will involve more detailed analysis of options. Once this work has been undertaken, we will then decide on a shortlist of options for public consultation. I should make it clear that the study does not include projects for which planning applications have been made or are imminent, as we do not want to be studying those at the same time as they are being considered in the planning system. That would lead to duplication and delay.
Although we are keen to retain and promote the contribution airports make to the economy—nationally, regionally and locally—we also acknowledge that there are strong environmental and social concerns associated with airport development, both at Heathrow and at other airports. That is why in the SERAS study we have devised a full and rigorous appraisal framework, which will be a crucial tool to assist Ministers to reach the right decisions on where and how airports are allowed to develop.
The appraisal framework seeks to be comprehensive and evaluate all issues relevant to expanding existing airports and creating new airports. It also seeks to ensure that proposals brought forward to meet or restrain demand can be compared on a consistent basis. The issues covered are grouped under four main headings— economic effects, environmental impacts, accessibility and integration.
Indicators for each of the issues will be set out in appraisal summary tables. They will highlight the tradeoffs between the various options. In addition to the south-east airports study, work is continuing on options for our regional airports. As I have said, we aim to consult on those around the turn of the year.
Airports affect all our lives and there are many conflicting views about what action the Government should take towards airport development and some of those have been reflected in the contributions to today's debate. I am sure that, when our policies emerge, we will not please everyone. However, in establishing our policies we will consult widely with all organisations and individuals who have an interest in airport issues and we will consider their views carefully.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issues again and for the way in which he raised them. If he feels that I have not done justice to some matters in the short time that I have had, and if he brings them to my attention, I shall happily ask my Department to write to him.

Employee Pension Schemes
1.29 pm
Mr. David Watts: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important matter on behalf of many of my constituents. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, as I have not had a chance to do so before. I raised the closure of the Ravenhead Glass plant in an earlier Adjournment debate, but I should like to spend some time explaining the background to the problem and how it affects my constituents.
Ravenhead Glass went into administration in December after a long history of producing first-class tableware in St. Helens, where the factory had been for more than 150 years. In its heyday, it employed more than 5,000 people, but when it closed in December, it had fewer than 350 employees. Nevertheless, that is a significant number of jobs in my constituency.
Those 350 Ravenhead employees are not numbers but people, such as Dave Rotherham, a constituent of mine who worked at the plant for 30 years. His father had previously worked in the plant for 50 years. Dave Rotherham has lost his job and now found that he has a 20 per cent. shortfall in his pension. In a matter of months, his life has been turned upside down.
Ravenhead Glass was not a two-bit operation. It was owned by Durabor, which was owned by the Belgian regional government. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) and I have already contacted the Department of Trade and Industry and the Belgian Government about the closure and how the pension scheme was managed, and we await a DTI report on the issue. We have also met Belgian Ministers, who have promised to consider a claim for compensation for the 20 per cent. shortfall in pensions. We will continue to put pressure on the DTI and the Belgian regional government to see how we can help our constituents.
Most of the Ravenhead workers had worked there for 25 to 30 years and intended to retire from the company in the next 10 years. They would have hoped for gold watches and presentations after 25 years' service, good pensions and the opportunity to finish their working lives with good pay and working conditions. That was not to be the case, so they want answers to some questions. They want to know why the company was placed into receivership and what happened to their pension scheme. Why did the company take the decision to have a contributions holiday, and why was it allowed to do so? How was the company pension scheme managed?
I want to thank the DTI Ministers for the help and assistance that they have given so far. However, after a series of disasters in the pension world, I am concerned that things still do not seem to be right. I understand that the Government have initiated Paul Myners' report, which is about changing the legislation on protection for employment pension schemes. I welcome that review. It important that the pensions of loyal workers who have worked in companies for 25 to 30 years be protected. The Government should give them statutory protection.
British workers need better protection in employment and pensions, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of that review to consider the

61WH
Ravenhead scheme and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) also wants to raise issues that affect some of his constituents. I hope that we will take the opportunity to change the system for the better. The Maxwell scandal and the situation at Ravenhead Glass are merely two examples of what can go wrong.
The review seems to have been dominated by the Treasury and the pension industry, and I understand the need for both to take a view on the issues. However, they may have been driven by the need to improve economic performance and to maximise long-term support for the markets. While those two matters are important, the No. 1 priority of any review should be to ensure that employees' pensions are protected in the future.
I should like the Minister to answer a number of questions that my constituents have raised during the course of their problems with Ravenhead. I am aware that some of the questions are technical and complex and if the Minister does not feel that they can be answered today, I shall be happy for her to write to me later to clarify her and the Government's view.
Do the Government believe, as the Trades Union Congress does, that defined benefit schemes offer the best deal for working people? If so, what action will they take within the review to encourage employees to move along that road? I believe that those schemes offer the best protection and value for money to employees. I should like the Government to widen the scope of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority so that pension protection plans can be assessed. That would allow pension plans to be examined and ensure that protection plans that are put forward by the pension schemes give adequate protection to employees.
Will the Government consider setting up a pension protection fund, so that the liabilities from pension schemes that are discontinued would pass to a mutual company that would protect the funds of affected pensioners? There is an argument for ensuring that all pension schemes have a mutual insurance scheme, so that they all protect the liabilities of each other and ensure that employees are also protected.
Is the Minister considering examining whether pension schemes should be allowed to take contribution holidays? Employers should not be allowed to take a contribution holiday until a buffer zone has been built into the pension scheme and there are enough resources in the scheme to cover any deficit that might occur between valuations.
Is it right that company trustees should play a role in pension schemes? I can see no reason why companies should have representatives as trustees. Once the agreement has been made on a pension scheme, the company should be removed from the trustees' reviews. I should also like annual appraisals of pension schemes. Some pension schemes appraise annually, but many leave it for three or four years. The movement of the markets—as in my case—can make such a difference to a pension scheme that it may move from a surplus to a deficit.
I am aware that the Labour Government have done a great deal in recent years to strengthen pension and employee protection. However, the cases of Ravenhead and others, demonstrate that there is a lot more to do.
Mr. Ben Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) for allowing me to encroach on some of his time and make complementary points to his, which have been raised by my constituents and cause them concern. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to allow me to make the points to her at immensely short notice and I fulsomely congratulate her on her well-deserved appointment. I also thank you, Mr. Benton, for allowing me to catch your eye.
My hon. Friend made his points particularly, although not exclusively, in the context of Ravenhead Glass. It may be thought from the presence of hon. Members today that this is exclusively a Merseyside issue, but it goes wider than that. My constituents have expressed many concerns about employee pension schemes and occupational schemes. They do not believe that the balance of interest between the employee and the fund is right.
There have been concerns about the absence, as my constituents see it, of sufficient constraints on the way in which trustees may act. Pension schemes may, for example, contain discretionary provisions that are exercised exclusively by the trustees. Moreover, those of my constituents who have corresponded with me—of which there are many—consider that the representation of pensioners on trustee boards can be inadequate. They do not believe that, because employers provide occupational pension schemes, it is up to them alone to decide the nature of the scheme and its benefits. They do not consider that that in itself is enough to secure the common good.
My constituents are not content that members are not always obliged to consent when their accrued pension rights are transferred when, for example, employers are taken over, merge or restructure their pension provision. There are particular concerns, for example, that occupational schemes are not required to provide pension benefits before the normal retirement age in cases of ill health. When such provision does exist, it is discretionary and in the hands of the trustees, and there is no reason to provide reasons for refusal.
There are also worries about how pension funds handle grievances and the fact that the first stage of a complaint is handled entirely unilaterally by one of the parties to the scheme. My constituents are concerned about the way in which pension schemes can appear to be administered secretively. They do not believe that it is equitable that schemes seem to be administered as though the funds have been contributed by one party alone. As in the case of Ravenhead Glass, to which my hon. Friend referred, pensioners contribute much over many years and must find a life after the demise of the company. In some cases, the pension scheme has disappeared. They also worry about the management of funds that can cost the pensioner money. There are well-publicised examples, but a constituent of mine, who is a clergy pensioner, believes that he has also suffered in that regard. Another constituent believes that his union pension fund was transferred because it was regarded as voluntary, so his rights were not protected.

63WH
There are a range of other issues, but I shall not bore the Chamber with all of them. However, one fund removed the corporate trustee without consultation apparently simply to streamline expense and reduce administration, and one of my constituents feels, rightly or wrongly, that such action removed some of his protection. Overall, my constituents believe that trustees should not act without prior notice to members and that there is insufficient consultation and a lack of independent scrutiny. There is a limit to what the Government can do. It may be a notion of big government, but we must look at the provision of occupational pension schemes to see what, if any, role the Government can have. The worries that have been expressed to me seem to be sufficiently widespread to require some consideration. I hope that that will happen. I merely wanted to raise certain points. I do not seek an answer to them from the Minister today, but I hope that, in the fullness of time, such matters can be examined.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): It is a pleasure to be replying to my first Westminster Hall debate with you in the Chair, Mr. Benton, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on initiating the debate. As a fellow Merseyside Member of Parliament, I am aware of the matter that he has raised. He has raised it before in the House, and I have particular sympathy with those of his constituents who have found themselves in the position that they do as a result of the insolvency of Ravenhead Glass. St. Helens has long been identified with glassmaking and it was a blow to the town's morale for such a closure to occur.
The firm itself is of long standing and has been in existence for more than 150 years, as my hon. Friend reminded us. Many of those affected are long-standing employees of more than 30 years who will suffer the double blow of not only losing their jobs and being reduced to statutory redundancy pay, but finding a hole in the pensions in a defined benefits scheme that they had every right to expect would provide them with a well known, fixed amount when they retired. It is a double blow for them and for the town, and I understand why my hon. Friend has brought the matter to the attention of the House.
If time allows, I shall respond to some of my hon. Friend's points. I am grateful to him for giving me some notice of them. Doing so always helps me give hon. Members clearer answers. I shall respond to his points in the context of the more general law. Pensions law is tremendously complex, and issues that might seem to hon. Members, outsiders and members of pension schemes to be relatively straightforward and simple can be devilishly complex because of the law and how the schemes work. I shall explain the background before dealing with my hon. Friend's points.
The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the nation's rising prosperity. We are determined to protect the long-term security of pensioners and other pension scheme members in occupational pension schemes. We
64WH
all know that that security will be guaranteed not simply by the basic state pension but in large part by occupational schemes and funded arrangements. It is therefore in the interests of us all to ensure that they are as secure as possible.
We want to ensure that schemes are properly run, that contributions are properly paid in a timely fashion and that schemes are adequately funded. We believe that schemes should have investment policies that are appropriate to the circumstances of the employer providing them and that if something goes wrong measures should be in place to protect members.
Private pensions should be attractive to members and scheme providers. We must bear in mind that employers do not have to provide pension schemes but do so voluntarily. We need to ensure that as many of them as possible do so. We are taking steps to simplify the private pensions system while safeguarding the security of scheme members.
The vast majority of United Kingdom pension schemes are set up under trust law, which is at the heart of pension law. It is often said that trustees are secretive. Trustees have an exacting legal obligation to beneficiaries to ensure that they behave properly, and we must consider how to deal with trustees and pension schemes in the light of trust law. The duty to run a pension scheme lies with the trustees rather than the employer. Although employers may have members who are trustees, they have the same obligations to beneficiaries regardless of their status. They must ensure that the rules of the pension scheme are followed and comply with the law. They hold the scheme's financial assets for the benefit of members and have a fundamental duty to act prudently, conscientiously and honestly.
The framework of trust law was reinforced by the Pensions Act 1995, which introduced measures to protect members of pension schemes. It placed extra duties on trustees and established the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. As my hon. Friend said, we have been actively monitoring and reviewing the provisions of the Pensions Act to build on and improve existing measures.
OPRA is the independent pensions regulator. It investigates complaints about occupational pension schemes not complying with the 1995 Act. It has powers to impose financial penalties, bring criminal prosecutions, disqualify trustees if they do not fulfil their obligations, and refer cases to the police or the special fraud office. However, OPR A's role has limitations. It can investigate only matters relating to the Pensions Act 1995. Many schemes were established under previous legislation.
Professionals such as actuaries have a duty to the scheme. Anybody can report a pension scheme to OPRA if they think that it is not being run properly, but the scheme's auditor and actuary have a statutory duty to blow the whistle when they have reasonable cause to believe that the Pensions Act 1995 is not being complied with. Therefore, there are some safeguards.
The Pensions Act 1995 also introduced legislation to give scheme members the opportunity to have member-nominated trustees. Members' trustees help to give trustee boards a better balance of outlooks and experience; they also help to give members confidence,

65WH
and they encourage schemes to look carefully at how they are run. While I was listening to the points that were raised by both of my hon. Friends, I was struck by the fact that many of them arise out of suspicion that the trustees are acting secretively and are not acting for the benefit of members, and I think that getting more member-nominated trustees would go a long way towards reassuring members of schemes that are well run that they are well run, and towards ensuring that schemes that are beginning to be badly run, or are beginning to fall short of the law or their obligations, can be pulled up more quickly. Therefore, member-nominated trustees are a good way forward with regard to trying to reassure members of occupational schemes.
The presence of member trustees would help avoid some of the difficulties that have been raised and which are faced by some well publicised schemes that have gone wrong. That is why the Government want every scheme to have member-nominated trustees on the trust board. We will introduce measures to ensure that it is compulsory for schemes to appoint member-nominated trustees, and to simplify the procedure under which that is done. We have already taken the power in primary legislation—in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000—and we will consult regarding a package of regulations before the end of the summer, so that we can start to introduce the new requirements before the end of the year. The intention is to ensure that a third of all trustees are member nominated. That would be a step forward.
One of the central features of the Pensions Act 1995 was the introduction of the minimum funding requirement. It was designed to promote security for scheme members. It requires defined benefit schemes to hold the minimum level of assets to meet their liabilities. The aim of the minimum funding requirement is to ensure that a scheme that is funded to at least the level of that requirement will, in the event of the employer becoming insolvent, be able to provide pensions. It is also intended to provide younger members with a fair value of their accrued rights, which they can then transfer to another occupational pension scheme, or to a personal pension.
The minimum funding requirement came into effect in April 1997. If a scheme is underfunded on a minimum funding requirement basis—I understand that that was the case with regard to the Ravenhead pension plan—it must make good any underfunding within time scales laid down in regulations.
The matter of contributions was also raised by my hon. Friend, and they should be paid promptly and at the correct level. Under the minimum funding requirement rules, there must be a schedule of contributions, so that the difficulties of trying to find out if and when contributions were paid never have to be faced. Schedules show the contributions that must be paid by the employee and the employer, and the dates by which they must be paid. They will also include any additional contributions required to meet any shortfall in funding. Schedules must also be certified by actuaries, who should be content that they are sufficient to maintain the funding level of the schemes, or to restore them to the recommended levels, if they have fallen below that level. Trustees monitor the payment of contributions on the scheme's payment schedule and must tell OPRA and scheme members when contributions have been paid late, or not at all.
66WH
With regard to the Ravenhead Glass case, I understand that pension contributions were paid on time until two months before the company's insolvency. I also understand that that has been reported to OPRA, and that an independent trustee has made a claim for the outstanding contributions to the DTI's redundancy payment fund. When an employer becomes insolvent, the legislation requires that an independent trustee be appointed, and I understand that that has happened. The role of the independent trustee is to ensure that the interests of the members are represented in insolvency proceedings, and to make any necessary decisions about winding up the scheme. In this case, I understand that Berry, Birch and Noble Trustees Ltd. is the independent trustee that has been appointed by the administrators to deal with the issues that have arisen out of the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.
It is right that measures should be in place to protect the interests of members of a scheme whose funding has gone wrong. If a scheme is not fully funded on a minimum funding requirement basis when it winds up—which has happened in this case—the outstanding amount becomes a debt on the employer, and the independent trustee is responsible for pursuing recovery. The debts amount to the sum required to bring the scheme back to full funding on the minimum funding requirement basis. That is all very well if the employer is solvent, but it does not help if the employer is insolvent, as in the case under discussion. The provisions will not guarantee that the money owing to the scheme can be recovered. They are directed a fairly long way down the list of creditors as are the other obligations that the firm may have had.
The redundancy payments scheme was set up to protect members who were victims of their employer's insolvency, as happened in the Ravenhead case. When an insolvent employer has failed to pay contributions into the scheme, the scheme may be able to recover some of the missing contributions from the national insurance fund via the scheme. The contributions that may be recoverable are the employer's contributions as well as employee contributions that the employer has deducted from wages, but not paid over to the scheme. A claim has been submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry's redundancy payment fund for the contributions that were outstanding to the Ravenhead company pension trustees and I see no reason why they should not be fully recoverable.
Scheme members should be protected as far as possible if there is fraud or dishonesty, but it is not possible to say at this stage whether any such actions were involved in the case under discussion. Provisions for financial compensation were introduced under the Pensions Act 1995 and those provisions are administered by the Pensions Compensation Board. The board pays compensation to an occupational pension scheme if it has suffered a reduction in its assets because of dishonesty and if the sponsoring employer were insolvent. We introduced improvements to the pensions compensation scheme under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and they came into effect in April. Schemes will now be able to claim compensation if their assets fall below a new protection level.

67WH
I understand that the trustees of the Ravenhead pension scheme decided to trigger the winding up of the scheme with effect from the end of April this year. I am aware that several concerns have been expressed about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. That is often not a matter of bureaucracy, but of trying to trace some members of the scheme with deferred benefits. It is not always as easy as it looks to find out where everyone is and to make sure that they receive the fair value of their contributions.
We shall shortly be consulting on a package of measures aimed at speeding up the winding up of occupational pension schemes. OPRA will have a more proactive role in facilitating the winding up of schemes and supporting the trustees. The new rules will make those involved in the day-to-day administration of the scheme more accountable for unreasonable delays, but, as I said, delays are not always unreasonable. When the provisions become law and have had time to bed in, members of the scheme in wind-up should receive their benefit entitlements more quickly.
We are constantly reviewing the pensions regulatory framework and on 3 March this year we published the paper entitled "Security for Occupational Pensions". My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) may have read it. If he has not, I suggest that he does and that he takes part in furthering the Government's work in that regard.
I cannot deal with all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North, so I shall write to him about them, and that applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, too. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North asked if the Government would consider giving powers to OPRA to assess pension plans. We are placing a statutory duty on the scheme actuary directly to the scheme members. Currently, he has an obligation to the trustees, but it is
68WH
important that he also sees his obligation to the members. That may help him in clarifying and enhancing his whistleblowing role—a statutory role if something goes wrong.
My hon. Friend also asked if I would consider setting up a pension protection fund that could take on the liabilities of discontinued pension schemes. When we consulted on such an issue, it received little support although my hon. Friend was right in that many of those who responded to the consultation were from the industry. There is nothing to stop anyone else answering the consultation and letting us know their views. The difficulty with such an approach is that often good occupational pension schemes do not become insolvent, but provide good benefits to their members. We must bear in mind the difficulty of good schemes having to pay up for bad schemes. There is a matter of balance to be considered, although I understand my hon. Friend's concern in that regard.
My hon. Friend asked whether I would consider requiring all pension schemes to take out a form of mutual insurance that was financed by a levy. The same balance of views must also be considered. If we have to put costs on the good schemes to support the bad schemes, we must take fully on board the implications for pension levels under the good schemes before saying that such action will be taken.
My hon. Friend asked me for an assurance that no pension scheme would be allowed to take a contribution holiday until there was a buffer zone. The current situation is that contribution holidays can be taken only if the scheme has a statutory surplus. I am sure that he will understand that transparency and member-nominated trustees may help to provide information to the members about contributions payments. I am conscious that I am running out of time. I shall, of course, write to my hon. Friend about the other matters that he raised.
It being Two o'clock, The motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused, and in how many

  Applications under section 77 and Schedule 22 of the school standards and framework Act 1998 to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields larger than a sports pitch1

  19982

  1999

  2000

  20013

  Total

  Applications received

  35

  68

  49

  17

  169

  Applications approved4,5

  9

  54

  43

  23

  129

  Approved applications where there is no permanent loss of playing field larger than a sports pitch6

  3

  20

  12

  8

  43

  Applications rejected

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Applications withdrawn

  3

  6

  1

  0

  10

  Schedule 22(1)(3) direction made7

  1

  0

  3

  0

  4

  1 Sports pitch' means an area of open grassed land equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended area for games played by under-10s of 2,000 sq m, and which has a configuration making it suitable for use as a sports pitch

  2 The School Standards and Framework Act came into force on 1 October 1998. Figures for 1998, therefore, cover applications received and applications determined between 1 October to 31 December 1998

  3 This covers the period from 1 January to 22 June 2001

  4 Applications may not have been approved in the same year that they were made because of the time needed to assess them. There are 28 applications not yet determined

  5 In all approved cases, any proceeds were directed back into providing better sports or educational provision

  6 Not all approvals result in the loss of playing fields. Some proposals involve the granting of a lease in which the playing field remains in place, or they may involve the transfer of ownership but no change of use

  7 No directions made under Schedule 22(1)(3) have transferred land back to a local authority

  Modern Languages
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students obtained GCSE and A-level examinations in(a) Urdu, (b) Bengali, (c) Gujerati, (d) Hindi, (e) Mandarin, (f) Cantonese and (g) modern languages in each of the last five years. [1299]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of students of all ages who obtained GCSE and GCE A-level passes in the various languages over the last five years are shown in the table. Figures for Mandarin and Cantonese are not available, data for Chinese as a whole have been provided instead.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  GCSE

  (a) Urdu

  5,658

  6,660

  6,370

  6,497

  6,677

  (b) Bengali

  2,116

  2,220

  2,146

  2,152

  2,041

  (c) Gujerati

  1,313

  1,309

  1,026

  1,189

  1,200

  (d) Hindi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e)(f) Chinese

  1,956

  2,048

  1,937

  1,917

  2,028

  (g) All modem languages

  450,244

  444,639

  460,186

  472,010

  476,050

  GCE A-Level

  (a) Urdu

  833

  837

  591

  746

  725

  (b) Bengali

  99

  98

  108

  37

  53

  (c) Gujerati

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Hindi

  31

  19

  13

  8

  —

  (e)(f) Chinese

  972

  887

  1,074

  1,165

  1,225

  (g) All modem languages

  32,937

  32,340

  31,298

  30,224

  27,455

  82W
  cases in which requirements or directions were made under Schedule 22(3) that proceeds or land should be paid or transferred to the local authority under section 77 or Schedule 22 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for (i) the disposal or (ii) the change of use of land used as playing fields by schools in each year since 1 October 1998. [842]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table. This relates to applications to dispose of areas equal to, or larger than, a sports pitch. The table also shows the number of applications that did not result in the loss of any areas larger than a sports pitch. In the case of all approved applications, any proceeds were used to provide new or improved sports or education facilities at maintained schools.

  Departmental Response Times
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the speed with which her Department communicates with hon. Members. [1300]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department intends at all times to inform constituency MPs on announcements and to ensure letters are posted on the letter board the day before an announcement is made.

  MPs were notified of the new Beacon Schools on 20 June, in advance of the announcement the following day. We will continue to provide early notice to MPs of announcements which affect their constituencies.

  LEA Councillors (Disqualifications)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the disqualification for serving as a councillor on the local education authority applies equally to teaching staff of(a) foundation schools, (b) voluntary aided schools and (c) community schools. [1334]

  Mr. Timms
  Yes. Teachers are disqualified from being councillors for their school's maintaining local authority, regardless of whom the contract of employment is with.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information her Department collates on the number of people leaving teacher training who enter teaching; and if she will publish those figures. [1617]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: My Department collects the number of teachers awarded Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) each year. Data are then obtained from employers' returns to the Teachers' Pensions Scheme (TPS) to show which of these newly qualified teachers have entered teaching by the following 31 March in the maintained sector in England and Wales, the parts of the independent sector that are members of the TPS, full-time further education lecturers in England and Wales, and lecturers in higher education who are members of the TPS. The service of teachers is subsequently monitored at 31 March every year.

  There were 24,740 teachers in England who obtained QTS in 1998, having followed a BEd or PGCE course. 18,140 (73 per cent.) entered full or part-time teaching in England by 31 March 1999 and a further 150 (0.6 per cent.) were teaching in Wales, as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  QTS following BEd or PGCE awarded in 1998

  24,740

  —

  Not in service by 31 March 1999

  6,450

  26

  In service in England by 31 March 1999

  Maintained schools

  17,110

  69

  Independent schools

  800

  3

  Other1

  230

  1

  Total in service by 31 March 1999

  18,140

  73

  In service in Wales

  150

  0.6

  Total in service in England or Wales

  18,290

  74

  1 Includes further and higher education

  Other teachers with QTS following a BEd or PGCE, not recorded above, may have had service in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or parts of the independent or HE sectors that are not members of the TPS.

  AS Levels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are in place to ensure consistency of marking for AS levels(a) within and (b) between examination boards. [1959]

  Mr. Timms
  The procedures to ensure the consistency of marking of AS levels within awarding bodies are contained in the GCSE and GCE A/AS Code of Practice. A copy of this document, published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and its counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The QCA monitors compliance with this Code of Practice. It also looks at consistency between awarding bodies on a sample basis each year. In addition, the QCA has established an international panel of experts to review the QCA's arrangements for maintaining A level standards against best practice.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have entered for the AS level examination this year. [1960]
  84W
  Mr. Timms
  The total number of students who have entered to sit the AS level examination in England and Wales will not be available until the autumn. However, there have been over 800,000 subject entries for AS examinations this summer. Many students will have entered for more than one subject.

  Vocational GCSE Courses
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates her Department has made of the number of teachers required for the new vocational GCSE courses. [1962]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This autumn's annual review of the teacher training targets will take account of any likely additional demand for teachers as a result of the new vocational GCSE courses.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what qualifications will be required for teachers of each of the new vocational GCSE courses. [1963]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers delivering vocational GCSEs in maintained secondary schools will be required to have Qualified Teacher Status. While there will be no further statutory requirements concerning qualifications, headteachers will be expected to match teachers' backgrounds and experiences as closely as possible to the subjects on offer. A comprehensive training and support programme will be available to ensure teachers are well prepared for, and supported during, the delivery of courses.

  Secondary School Admissions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on admissions procedures to secondary schools. [1665]

  Mr. Timms
  We introduced a new admissions framework for all schools in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Its aim was to promote parental choice and make the admissions system fairer and easier for parents. A new statutory requirement was imposed on admission authorities requiring them to consult each other annually, before determining their admission arrangements. Where local agreement cannot be reached, admission authorities can object to an independent Schools Adjudicator or, where appropriate, to the Secretary of State.

  School admission arrangements are decided locally and admission authorities are free to choose what arrangements to use, although they must be clear, fair and objective and operated in a reasonable manner in line with guidance contained in the Code of Practice on School Admissions.

  Parents have the right to appeal to an independent appeal panel if refused a place at their preferred school

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what criteria local authorities may set up pupil referral units. [1667]

  Mr. Timms
  Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) can be established by local education authorities under section 19(2) of the Education Act 1996 to educate young people who are unable to attend school because of illness, exclusion or
  85W
  otherwise. Education authorities must tell the Secretary of State whenever they set up or close a PRU, although there are no formal opening or closing procedures. However, before opening or closing a PRU there should be reasonable consultation locally, including with other PRUs in an area. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 apply to PRUs with certain modifications. PRUs do not have to provide: a head teacher's room; playing fields; or staff accommodation for teachers to use for both work and social purposes. Education authorities may provide such accommodation, particularly for PRUs that offer full-time education on the premises. Education authorities must also ensure that PRU accommodation meets health, safety and fire regulations, and that it is suitable for education.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the(a) optimum number and (b) minimum number of pupils at which a primary school can provide a balanced education; and if she will make a statement. [2123]

  Mr. Timms
  There are good schools of all sizes. Delivery of a balanced curriculum depends on the organisation of the school and the skills and professionalism of the staff. We are supporting high standards in schools by effective inspection and targeted increased resources.

  Where schools have declining rolls and a large number of empty places, their future should be reviewed, particularly in cases where suitable alternative provision is easily accessible.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to take to reduce primary school class sizes for those aged eight years and over. [2144]

  Mr. Timms
  Following increases in the amount of education funding we have made available to schools and local education authorities since 1997, the average class size for primary pupils aged eight and over has fallen for the second consecutive year; it is now 26.7. We intend to continue to improve funding to schools and by 2003–04 the average funding per pupil will have risen by £750 in real terms since 1997–98; schools may use this to reduce class sizes for junior pupils if they see that as a priority. In addition, we have announced that £73 million is being made available this year specifically to ensure that infants transferring to junior class continue to benefit from small classes.

  Teachers' Employment Rights
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the employment rights of teachers facing(a) redundancy and (b) redeployment. [2200]

  Mr. Timms
  Although rare, teachers can face redundancy and redeployment when the need for their work at a particular school ceases or diminishes. Nevertheless, they enjoy the same general employment rights under the law as employees in other occupations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Net Metering
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will undertake a review of current arrangements affecting net metering for renewable energy. [1679]

  Mr. Wilson
  The issue of how best to value the export of energy to local electricity networks, including the specific issue of net metering, was examined by the Embedded Generation Working Group, who issued their final report recently. The Working Group concluded that further work on this issue was required and made a number of recommendations on how this might be progressed. We shall be making an announcement shortly on how the recommendations of the Embedded Generation Working Group will be taken forward.

  In May, the then Energy Minister wrote to electricity suppliers and distribution network operators asking them to consider improving net metering terms for small scale domestic renewable energy generators, including electricity from photovoltaics. A number of responses have been received and the Department will be considering what further action can be taken in the light of the conclusions that emerge.

  Information and Consultation Directive
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact her Department expects the Information and Consultation Directive to have on competitiveness; and if she will make a statement. [2161]

  Ms Hewitt
  The directive allows for flexible information and consultation procedures which can be adapted to meet the needs of individual employers. As such it will help foster partnership at work, thereby improving competitiveness.

  UK Productivity
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of her Department's measures over the last Parliament in respect of the targets for raising UK productivity. [295]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: During the last Parliament the Government set out their comprehensive strategy for meeting the productivity challenge in "Productivity in the UK: The Evidence and the Government's Approach", which was published alongside the November 2000 pre-Budget Report. The Government have also published major White Papers on enterprise, skills development and on science and innovation policy.

  The Government's policy is based on the twin principles of delivering macroeconomic stability, to allow firms and individuals to invest for the future, and implementing microeconomic reforms to remove the barriers which prevent markets from functioning efficiently.
  87W
  During the last Parliament the Government introduced a number of measures aimed at raising UK productivity consistent with the twin policy approach; for example we:
  encouraged enterprise and innovation, including through the tax system, with reductions in corporation tax and capital gains tax, the introduction of R&D tax credits for small firms and 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for SMEs investing in ICT equipment;
  created the Regional Development Agencies to drive forward growth in every region;
  strengthened the competition regime via the Competition Act 1980;
  increased real investment in the UK science base to reverse years of decline and encouraged business innovation through significant knowledge transfer funding including for the Higher Education Innovation and University Challenge Funds and Faraday Partnerships;
  made substantial investments in education and training;
  created the Small Business Service and Manufacturing Advisory Service to improve the services and environment for small firms;
  launched the joint CBI/TUC productivity campaign;
  instituted a new regulatory structure to promote competitiveness in the energy supply industry.

  The Government are clear that having set a sound framework for investment and growth, further radical reform is needed to tackle the challenge of enterprise and productivity. To this end, the Government recently published "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge" which sets out measures to remove obstacles to innovation and competition and to create an enterprise culture, open to all. We are introducing measures to reform the competition regime, to encourage small businesses to start, innovate and grow, and to raise the quantity and quality of investment in the public and private sectors.

  Icelandic Trawlermen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received under the compensation scheme for former Icelandic trawlermen; how many duplicate applications there were; how many applications have been paid to date; and how many have been rejected. [1064]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures as at 22 June 2001 are as follows:

  Number

  Total applications received

  11,000

  Duplicates

  2,173

  Passed for payment

  2,436

  Rejected

  1,323

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for compensation made to the Icelandic trawlermen's scheme have been referred to her for decision on the entitlement of those who continued in fishing; and when she hopes to reach a conclusion on those cases. [1065]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Some 905 claims from men who continued fishing on former Icelandic water trawlers after 1979 have been identified. My right hon. Friend the 88W
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received representations that these claims should be brought within the scope of the scheme. She is currently considering this issue.

  Export Licences (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences were issued, broken down by category, for military and security equipment to Israel(a) between 29 September and 31 December 2000 and (b) between 1 January and 31 May. [1616]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of military equipment is controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended (commonly known as the Military List).

  Between 29 September and 31 December 2000, seven Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to Israel of goods on the Military List. Between 1 January and 31 May 2001, 84 SIELs and no OIELs were issued covering the export of goods on the Military List to Israel.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the tables in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  This information could not be broken down in the manner requested as the equipment covered by most entries in the Military List could be used for military or security purposes.

  Individual licences issued between 29 September and 31 December 2000 covering the export to Israel of goods on the military list

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML2

  1

  ML4

  1

  ML5

  3

  ML10

  1

  ML16

  1

  ML18

  1

  Individual licences issued between 1 January and 31 May 2001 covering the export to Israel of goods on the military list

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML3

  1

  ML4

  11

  ML5

  27

  ML9

  3

  ML10

  21

  ML11

  6

  ML13

  1

  ML15

  3

  ML16

  3

  ML18

  2

  ML21

  2

  PL5017

  2

  PL5031

  2

  End-use

  2

  89W
  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  In addition, Israel is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Library of the House.

  Ilisu Dam
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received a copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment report for the Ilisu project in Turkey; and if she will make a statement. [2466]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have now received the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Ilisu project. A copy of the Report is being placed in the Library of both Houses.

  I am very well aware of the great public interest which exists in this project, and the associated application for export credit cover from ECGD. ECGD are therefore arranging for a copy of the Executive Summary of the EIAR to be placed on their website (www.ecgd.gov.uk). Copies of the CD-ROM of the full report can be obtained by writing to Ilisu Project, ECGD, PO Box 2200, 2 Harbour Exchange Square. London E14 9GS enclosing a cheque for £5. ECGD will also be providing, free of charge, a copy of the Executive Summary.

  Any comments on the Ilisu Dam project in the light of this report received by ECGD by 7 September 2001 will be taken into account by Ministers in their decision on whether or not to grant ECGD support for the project. Comments may be made in writing to the above address, or by e-mail to ilisueiar@ecgd.gov.uk.

  A decision about export credit support requires very careful consideration. I shall therefore be seeking expert advice on the EIAR and consulting my ministerial colleagues, before taking a decision. Until this process is complete, we will not be commenting on the report.

  Miners' Pension Rights
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to announce her decision in respect of the entitlement of sacked miners to pension rights. [1336]

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–022

  Programme budgets1

  Administration

  Programme budgets1

  Administration

  Programme budgets1

  Administration

  One North East

  99,385

  9,585

  111,749

  10,513

  139,832

  10,103

  North West

  175,361

  11,837

  179,379

  13,876

  243,153

  14,044

  Yorkshire Forward

  132,656

  7,795

  158,624

  8,284

  202,614

  9,989

  East Midlands

  47,844

  6,941

  69,781

  7,377

  74,343

  7,488

  Advantage West Midlands

  97,624

  7,421

  115,397

  8,352

  140,656

  8,793

  East of England

  26,627

  4,570

  38,205

  4,849

  51,411

  5,836

  South East

  70,498

  5,196

  81,658

  6,343

  89,708

  6,643

  South West

  26,151

  7,255

  60,071

  8,380

  59,490

  9,099

  London

  —

  —

  264,347

  6,009

  267,672

  9,470

  1 The programme figures are net of receipts that the RDAs recycle.

  2 Approved to date.

  90W
  Mr. Wilson
  I am well aware of the level of interest in this long running issue. I hope to be in a position to announce my decision before the summer recess.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the impact of the South West Regional Development Agency on the economy of north Dorset. [662]

  Alan Johnson
  The South West Regional Development Agency (SW RDA) has been in existence for two years and has been working with inherited programmes supporting economic, social and community regeneration within the South West Region.

  The SW RDA has been encouraging and promoting the economy of the area and has taken the approach of working in partnership with a substantial range of partners within the sub-region. In north Dorset these have included: Dorset County Council, north Dorset District Council, Town/Parish Councils, Business Link Dorset (now BL Wessex) and Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Training and Enterprise Council (now Learning and Skills Council), housing associations, private sector businesses/ developers and many more. The outcome of successful partnership working has been to introduce an integrated economic/social/community development process. Details of these arrangements and of specific projects supported by the RDA are available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) budgets and (b) administrative costs were for each of the regional development agencies in England for each financial year since their establishment; and what their planned budgets and administrative costs are for the next two years. [1434]

  Alan Johnson
  The table shows the Regional Development Agencies'(a) net budget for expenditure on programmes and (b) their administration budget for the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  The RDAs' net budgets collectively are planned to be £1,430 million for 2002–03 and £1,580 million for 2003–04. These have yet to be divided up between the RDAs, or between programme and administration.

  Hawk Jet
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Indian Government concerning the BAE Systems bid to supply Hawk jets; and what is the value of the BAE bid. [1307]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry have been supportive of BAE Systems' bid to supply Hawk to India. Visits have been made by Government Ministers from both MOD and DTI during the past 18 months. These visits have provided valuable opportunities to assure the Indian Government of HMG's support for a greater co-operation between UK and Indian defence companies, including on the BAE Systems Hawk proposal.

  The value of the bid is a matter between BAE Systems and the Indian Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost was of printing and publication of EDMs in the last 12 months(a) in total, (b) per week and (c) per day. [2014]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply. House of Commons printing and publishing charges are volume related and calculated in arrears by financial year. Final figures for EDM costs are therefore available only for FY 2000–01 and amount to approximately £443,000. This figure does not include electronic publication costs associated with EDMs, which are not separately identifiable from overall electronic publishing costs.

  There were 35 sitting or part-sitting weeks; and 159 sitting days in FY 2000–01, from which can be derived average costs for EDM printing and publishing of approximately £12,660 per sitting week and £2,786 per sitting day.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  First Junior Chancery Treasury Counsel
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the occasions on which First Junior Chancery Treasury Counsel were employed by the Department of Trade and Industry between 5 April 1999 and 4 April 2000, indicating the commencing dates, durations and purposes. [1451]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply

  The First Treasury Junior (Chancery) is appointed to work exclusively on Government business. Between 5 April 1999 and 4 April 2000 he worked on 36 Department of Trade and Industry matters. Like others, the Government seek and receive their legal advice in confidence. All such advice is covered by legal professional privilege and is therefore exempt from disclosure. In the circumstances it is inappropriate to give the further particulars requested.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disability Issues
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define departmental and ministerial responsibilities for disability issues. [1642]

  The Prime Minister
  Maria Eagle, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has responsibility for civil rights for disabled people, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission, for disability benefits, and for the promotion and co-ordination of disability issues across Government. Practice on the allocation of responsibility for disability matters in other appropriate Departments varies.

  Work Permit Applications
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made, and by which officials on his behalf, to(a) the Department for Education and Skills and (b) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding the applications for work permits by Mr. Hector Sam and Mr. Carlos Edwards. [2090]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, no representations have been made on my behalf in respect of these matters.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for a public inquiry into the handling of the foot and mouth crisis. [2176]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an independent public inquiry into all aspects of the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease. [2199]

  The Prime Minister
  There will be an inquiry to ascertain the lessons that can be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak. Its nature will be a matter for decision later: the immediate priority remains the eradication of the disease.

  Climate Change
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) of 21 June 2001,Official Report, column 1W, if he will provide details of the new high-level group on climate change. [1774]

  The Prime Minister
  The EU-US summit of 14 June agreed to a proposal by the EU Presidency to establish a high-level group on climate change. I understand that a mandate for the group has not been finalised, but that it is envisaged that it will act as a channel for the EU and US to exchange information and maintain contact on important climate change issues. It is envisaged that the EU would be represented by the Troika.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [2335]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a further project to review the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the wider voluntary and community sector and bring forward proposals for reform.

  The Government are committed to working in partnership with charities and the voluntary sector to strengthen their contribution to the health and dynamism of the society and the economy. The project will consider how the regulatory and legal framework could better enable existing organisations to thrive and grow; encourage the development of new types of organisations where needed; and ensure public confidence.

  The PIU will report in the winter. The sponsor Minister will be Baroness Morgan.

  EU Institutions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to bring forward proposals to define and limit the powers of European Union institutions; and if he will make a statement. [1452]

  The Prime Minister
  The declaration on the future of the Union (Declaration 23) attached to the treaty of Nice lists:"the precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and member states reflecting the principle of subsidiarity"
  as one of the issues to be addressed by the inter-governmental conference in 2004.

  The declaration also states that these discussions should be preceded by a deep and wide debate with all those representing public opinion. That debate has already begun. As I said in my speech in Warsaw in October 2000, the future shape of the institutions should concentrate on delivering real benefits to people in the areas that matter most to them. They should also ensure that the EU becomes more transparent, accountable and relevant.

  Voting Systems
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister by what date he will carry out a review of the new voting systems for elections to(a) the Scottish Parliament, (b) the National Assembly of Wales, (c) the European Parliament and (d) the London Assembly and if he will make a statement. [1453]

  The Prime Minister
  We said we will keep the situation under review and we will do so. No decision has yet been made on the precise timing of any formal review process.

  Government Annual Reports
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to agree to requests for him to give evidence before a Select Committee on the Government annual reports; and if he will make a statement. [1847]
  94W
  The Prime Minister
  By long-standing convention, Prime Ministers have not given evidence to Select Committees. I regularly answer questions from members at Prime Minister's questions.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if former members of Cabinet Committees are required to submit political diaries and memoirs for clearance by the Cabinet Office prior to publication. [1975]

  The Prime Minister
  The ministerial code states that former Ministers are required to submit their manuscript to the Secretary of the Cabinet and to conform to the principles set out in the Radcliffe report of 1976 (Cmnd 6386). These principles are drawn to the attention of Ministers when they are appointed and a note of them is included in the Directory of the Civil Service Guidance. Copies of the Directory are in the Libraries of the House and the text is available on-line at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/guidance.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what restrictions govern the publication of minutes of meetings of the Joint Cabinet Committee held in the last Parliament. [1977]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the proceedings of all Cabinet Committees, including the Joint Cabinet Committee, are exempt from disclosure for 30 years under the internal discussion and advice exemption of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 17W, on the Appointments Commission (1) what categories of individuals other than those ennobled in order to enter the Government as Ministers will be recommended by him for a peerage without reference to the House of Lords Appointments Commission; [2154]

  (2) if he will place in the Library correspondence with the House of Lords Appointments Commission concerning his practice of recommending some peerages without reference to the Commission. [2155]

  The Prime Minister
  With the exception of peerages created to enable individuals to serve as Ministers, all recommendations that I make to the Queen are referred to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for scrutiny. The final decision on whether to recommend those names, however, rests with me, unlike those recommendations proposed by the Commission itself.

  Gothenburg Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with his Swedish counterpart in respect of the shooting with live ammunition of demonstrators at the European Summit in Gothenburg. [1759]

  The Prime Minister
  Since I left Gothenburg, I have had no communication with the Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, about the policing of the violent rioting at the recent European Council meeting there. This is a
  95W
  matter for the Swedish authorities. I understand that the Swedish Government have set up a commission to investigate all of the events surrounding the riots.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department is responsible for overall monitoring of each Department's performance in relation to its public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [1454]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers in charge of Departments are responsible for delivering their public service agreements. I shall continue to hold regular meetings to take stock of progress against key objectives on crime, education, transport and health, with the support of the new delivery unit. The Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure (PSX), chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and supported by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, has overall responsibility for monitoring performance on public service agreements.

DEFENCE

  CHARM 3 Proof Firing Programme
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the CHARM 3 proof firing programme at Dundrennan in Kirkcudbrightshire. [2394]

  Dr. Moonie
  Due to the foot and mouth restrictions no firings are currently taking place at the Kirkcudbright range in Scotland. The results from the proof firings for the earlier batches of the CHARM 3 round have shown a consistently high standard of quality and performance. No changes are being made to the manufacturing process for the few, final batches and, based on advice from MOD's technical, safety and commercial experts, it has been agreed that the final firings can be waived. Further proof testing while the ammunition remains in service may be required, but this has yet to be confirmed.

  There will still be a need for some CHARM 3 firings at Kirkcudbright. These firings relate to two safety trials for the Challenger 2 tank. The first is a worn barrel trial which is needed to establish with absolute certainty the amount of wear that can be permitted within a barrel while still being confident that the round can be fired safely. The second relates to trials prior to the acceptance of a new charge for Al climatic conditions (very hot and dry). These safety trails could require the firing of an estimated maximum of 120 rounds.

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies and organisations which submitted expressions of interest in the provision of facilities management for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory; when he will issue invitations to tender; and when tenders will be due. [848]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 June 2001]: The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) has advertised a future requirement for facilities management services in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) and the MOD "Contracts Bulletin".
  96W
  Expressions of interest detailing financial and relevant commercial experience were invited and respondents given the appropriate period in which to submit information in accordance with EC Procurement Directives. These advertisements generated significant response from potential suppliers. I am withholding details of potential suppliers under Exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to government information.

  The anticipated date for release of invitation to tender documents was identified in the OJEC and MOD bulletin notices as 31 July 2001.

  As Dstl is still in the process of defining its requirements of facilities management services, interested parties have been advised that invitations to tender will not be released before 1 October and that a revised date of release will be notified in due course. A four-month response period is to be allowed. Accordingly, tenders are anticipated in the period of spring 2002.

  In accordance with MOD guidance, organisations invited to tender will be listed in the MOD "Contracts Bulletin" when invitations are issued.

  Defence Diversification
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for, and what progress has been made on, establishing a Defence Diversification Council. [2202]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 57W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish funding to encourage technological innovation for defence diversification purposes. [2201]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) encourages the widest possible exploitation of defence technology by the civil sector. Since its establishment in 1999, the Defence Diversification Agency has fulfilled this role by encouraging, fostering and facilitating the cross fertilisation of technology between the UK defence and civil sectors. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 57W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). We have decided to bring the Defence Diversification Agency into the MOD head office where it will be best placed to continue to deliver defence diversification following the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency public-private partnership and the formation of the new company QinetiQ on 1 July 2001. We have no plans to change the roles and responsibilities of the Defence Diversification Agency nor to establish a separate technological innovation fund.

  Future Joint Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay his decision to rename the future carrier borne aircraft programme the future joint combat aircraft programme. [1596]

  Mr. Hoon
  The previous future carrier borne aircraft (FCBA) title dated from the period before the 1998 Strategic Defence Review when the programme was envisaged as a Sea Harrier replacement only.
  97W
  The decision to rename the FCBA programme as future joint combat aircraft acknowledges that Joint Force 2000 will operate from land bases as well as aircraft carriers. The name change also reflects ministerial signature in January this year of the UK/US memorandum of understanding which recognised that the joint strike fighter has the best potential to replace the current force of both Harriers and Sea Harriers.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in relation to the memorandum of understanding between the UK and United States Governments to participate in the next development phase of the joint strike fighter. [1595]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current JSF concept demonstration phase continues to make excellent progress. Following signature of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) to cover the UK's entry into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the joint strike fighter programme in January this year, the process to select a single company to be awarded the EMD contract has been proceeding to schedule. As a result of our decision to sign the MOU, UK personnel are fully involved in this process. The plan remains to award the contract in October.

  RAF Air Tanker Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the RAF air tanker programme. [2139]

  Dr. Moonie
  The future strategic tanker aircraft will replace the RAF's fleet of VC10 and TriStar air-to-air refuelling and air transport aircraft from around 2007. This will provide the RAF with a modern fleet that will ensure that our forces have truly global reach.

  The programme is at the vanguard of smart acquisition, and the integrated project team is forging innovative partnerships with industry to develop a public-private partnership solution to the requirement. Initial bids for a PFI service are due in today prior to a detailed negotiation and assessment phase. We are currently planning to make a final investment decision around mid-2002.

  Future Large Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which types of aircraft are expected to operate in the future large aircraft carriers. [2138]

  Dr. Moonie
  The types of aircraft aboard the future aircraft carriers will depend upon the operational circumstances at the time. However, the CVF will have the capacity to operate a wide range of aircraft, including the future joint combat aircraft; future organic airborne early warning platforms; and helicopters in a variety of roles, for example, attack, anti-submarine warfare and support.

  Chatham Dockyard Radiation Workers
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects former Chatham dockyard radiation workers to receive an offer of compensation under the no fault scheme for former radiation workers. [1949]
  98W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are two cases involving ex-Chatham dockyard radiation workers that have been assessed by the British Nuclear Fuels compensation scheme for radiation-linked diseases as eligible for compensation. The level of compensation due in both cases is still being assessed and, following completion of this exercise, offers of settlement will be made. It is not possible to predict precisely when this will be. However, in an effort to move matters forward, my Department would be prepared to consider reasonable requests for interim payments of damages in both of these cases.

  Missile Defense
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria will govern whether the United Kingdom joins the United States Administration's missile defence programme. [1773]

  Mr. Hoon
  The US has not yet decided how it will seek to proceed with missile defence and has not put forward specific proposals for UK involvement. We have made clear that we would consider any such proposals carefully, in the light of circumstances at the time.

  Aston Down
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the date of the offer and the amount received by his Department from Serco for the purchase of the MOD site at Aston Down; [1349]

  (2) what proposals his Department has for the future use of MOD Aston Down. [1350]

  Dr. Moonie
  The former Defence Storage and Distribution Centre at Aston Down, which closed on 31 March, is surplus to requirements and is currently on the market for sale by public competition. The site is being advertised in the property press and the closing date for bids is 24 August. It has not been sold to Serco.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in upgrading the prisoner database; and what response has been given to the recommendation of the Searches on the Person Review concerning the statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches. [978]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service management board is to consider a proposal for upgrading the prisoner database—local inmate database system (LIDS)—later this year. The proposal for LIDS is to put the existing database onto a more modern computer system to improve sustainability and operational flexibility.

  The requirement for statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches has been submitted to the Prison Service information technology (IT) provider, to consider whether inclusion in the LIDS upgrade is the most appropriate way of meeting this requirement.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been refused have been moved from their settled address to another area while their appeal is dealt with since the setting-up of NASS. [1124]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only through examination of individual case records.

  As a matter of policy and practice, the national asylum support service (NASS) will move an asylum seeker it is supporting from their settled address only if the asylum seeker has requested it or there are exceptional circumstances which necessitate moving the asylum seeker.

  Asylum seekers transferring to support from NASS because they have received a negative decision on their application or because they have reached the age of 18 will normally be moved from their current accommodation into NASS accommodation unless there are overriding reasons for supporting them in their existing accommodation.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the asylum support stakeholder group to meet; and if he will make a statement about its role. [1123]

  Angela Eagle
  The aim of the group as originally constituted was to act as a consultative forum at the time the asylum support scheme to be administered by the national asylum support service (NASS) was being set up. The asylum support stakeholder group has not met since NASS went live on 3 April 2000.

  Currently, responsibility for formation of stakeholder groups rests with individual local authority regional consortiums responsible for asylum support issues.

  Plans are being made to establish a new national forum on asylum support for consulting with interested parties.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been(a) rejected and (b) rejected as a result of being incorrectly completed in each year since 1995. [1469]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the number of initial decisions to refuse refugee status from 1995 to 2000 is given in the table. Data on the number of refusals resulting from incorrectly completed applications are unavailable. However, such cases fall into the category of noncompliance, covering, for example, failure to provide further evidence as required, failure to respond to invitations to interview and failure to complete a statement of evidence form correctly or within the time allowed. Data on non-compliance are included in the table.

  My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that in May 2001 79 per cent. of initial decisions were upheld on appeal.
  100W

  Applications for asylum in the UK refused refugee status from 1995 to 2000

  Refusals1

  Year

  Total

  Non-compliance

  1995

  21,300

  2,085

  1996

  31,670

  2,015

  1997

  28,945

  3,615

  1998

  22,315

  2,995

  19992

  11,025

  1,085

  20002

  76,850

  26,630

  1 All data have been rounded to the nearest five

  2 Data for 1999 and 2000 are provisional, and exclude decisions made under backlog criteria

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it remains his policy to end the use of prisons to hold asylum seekers by October. [1466]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government remain committed to their long-term strategy of reducing the use of prison accommodation to hold immigration detainees. However, even in the long term, for reasons of geography, security and control, there will continue to be a need to hold some detainees in prisons. The use of the dedicated detention facilities managed by the Prison Service at Haslar, Rochester and Lindholme does not at present have a set duration. The temporary use of 500 additional places made available by the Prison Service in a number of local prisons is being reviewed and the timing of the withdrawal of immigration detainees from these prisons is the subject of discussions with the Prison Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the percentage of substantive family applications which received an initial decision within two months in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [1599]

  (2) what was the average time taken for an initial decision to be made on asylum applications by single applicants without dependants in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [1598]

  Angela Eagle
  Information regarding the average time taken to make an initial decision is not available for the whole of 2000.

  Nearly two thirds (63 per cent.) of new substantive family applications lodged in the period of 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2000 had an initial decision within two months.

  The average time taken for an initial decision to be made on asylum applications by applicants without dependants for decisions made in the period of October to December 2000, was 14 months.

  Information on the average time taken to make an initial decision, separately identified for family and single applicants is not available for 1998 and 1999.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications included dependants in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [1597]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is given in the table. This information for 1998 and 1999 is published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Asylum Statistics",
  101W
  copies of which are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Estimated proportion of applications which include dependants1

  Percentage

  1998

  13

  1999

  220

  2000

  210

  1 Percentages are based on the cases for which the information is recorded

  2 Provisional figures

  HMP Garth/HMP Wymott
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on reductions in the number of prison officers at HMP Garth and HMP Wymott. [2022]

  Beverley Hughes
  As part of the substantial settlements which the Prison Service received from the Treasury under the comprehensive spending review and spending review 2000, the service is required to deliver 1 per cent. cashable efficiency savings each year on its baselines. Following studies by the Prison Service's management consultancy service, the governors of Garth and Wymott are seeking to agree with the Prison Officers Association a package of efficiency measures including regrading and civilianisation. The proposed reduction at Wymott is 18 prison officer posts and at Garth 10 officer and two senior officer posts, to be partly offset by increases in civilian staff and operational support grades. The governors are satisfied that these changes can be introduced without endangering the safety of staff or prisoners or the security of the establishments.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the monitoring of the running of HMP Garth and HMP Wymott. [2024]

  Beverley Hughes
  All prison establishments are regularly monitored by area managers against over 40 key performance targets, and the deputy director general personally reviews performance monthly. Area managers visit every establishment at least eight times a year and therefore there are no plans to introduce monitoring for Garth and Wymott over and above the current level already provided.

  Double Jeopardy Rule
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes to the double jeopardy rule to apply retrospectively; and if he will make a statement. [1498]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government's manifesto included a commitment to reform the double jeopardy rule in cases involving murder and we will do so when parliamentary time allows. Details of the legislation will be announced when any Bill is published.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the representations made to him during the period of public consultation on possible changes to the law on sexual offences. [2218]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 99W.

  Mr. Cameron McArthur
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 31 May (Ref. 10266/1) from the hon. Member for Northavon regarding Mr. Cameron McArthur. [1790]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member about Mr. McArthur on 27 June.

  Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost was in the last year of a place in each prison in(a) the prison estate and (b) privately run establishments; and if he will make a statement. [2113]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average cost per place for each Prison Service and privately run establishment for the financial year 2000–01 is listed in the tables.

  (a) Prison Service establishments

  Prison name

  Cost per place (cash)

  Acklington

  15,083

  Albany

  20,007

  Ashwell

  15,623

  Askham Grange

  19,353

  Aylesbury

  23,392

  Bedford

  22,449

  Belmarsh

  32,822

  Birmingham

  21,487

  Blantyre House

  19,346

  Blundeston

  21,869

  Brinsford

  22,606

  Bristol

  33,029

  Brixton

  27,750

  Brockhill

  31,058

  Buckley Hall

  17,735

  Bullingdon

  17,744

  Bullwood Hall

  27,991

  Camp Hill

  19,153

  Canterbury

  47,944

  Cardiff

  23,328

  Castington

  23,742

  Channings Wood

  18,212

  Chelmsford

  21,966

  Coldingley

  19,596

  Cookham Wood

  26,696

  Dartmoor

  20,999

  Deerbolt

  18,910

  Dorchester

  30,407

  Dover

  19,918

  Downview

  19,210

  Drake Hall

  14,873

  Durham

  31,806

  East Sutton Park

  19,590

  Eastwood Park

  22,266

  Elmley

  19,001

  103W

  (a) Prison Service establishments

  Prison name

  Cost per place (cash)

  Erlestoke

  18,772

  Everthorpe

  17,845

  Exeter

  29,242

  Featherstone

  18,733

  Feltham

  26,361

  Ford

  11,608

  Foston Hall

  28,064

  Frankland

  34,888

  Full Sutton

  37,591

  Garth

  19,478

  Gartree

  24,233

  Glen Parva

  22,479

  Gloucester

  28,963

  Grendon

  22,089

  Guys Marsh

  16,365

  Haslar

  16,777

  Hatfield

  22,931

  Haverigg

  18,517

  Hewell Grange

  13,815

  High Down

  25,700

  Highpoint

  18,801

  Hindley

  21,463

  Hollesley Bay

  23,790

  Holloway

  37,376

  Holme House

  16,343

  Hull

  20,803

  Huntercombe

  24,038

  Kingston

  24,834

  Kirkham

  14,588

  Kirklevington

  14,346

  Lancaster

  22,471

  Lancaster Farms

  22,408

  Latchmere House

  13,717

  Leeds

  29,774

  Leicester

  36,566

  Lewes

  19,686

  Leyhill

  19,461

  Lincoln

  25,534

  Lindholme

  23,226

  Littlehey

  15,805

  Liverpool

  20,827

  Long Lartin

  33,376

  Low Newton

  31,716

  Maidstone

  19,823

  Manchester

  28,558

  Moorland

  18,466

  Morton Hall

  18,967

  The Mount

  15,046

  New Hall

  25,573

  North Sea Camp

  15,265

  Northallerto

  35,174

  Norwich

  23,606

  Nottingham

  19,539

  Onley

  19,181

  Parkhurst

  24,462

  Pentonville

  22,625

  Portland

  20,308

  Preston

  29,166

  Ranby

  17,218

  Reading

  30,226

  Risley

  18,680

  Rochester

  20,464

  Send

  19,371

  Shepton Mallet

  26,599

  Shrewsbury

  24,946

  Stafford

  16,786

  Standford Hill

  16,136

  Stocken

  15,881

  Stoke Heath

  19,597

  Styal

  25,240

  Sudbury

  13,635

  Swaleside

  16,864

  104W

  (a) Prison Service establishments

  Prison name

  Cost per place (cash)

  Swansea

  27,439

  Swinfen Hall

  21,464

  Thorn Cross

  20,886

  Usk

  24,300

  The Verne

  15,977

  Wakefield

  25,703

  Wandsworth

  20,294

  Wayland

  15,170

  Wealstun

  16,112

  Weare

  17,375

  Wellingborough

  16,516

  Werrington

  44,668

  Wetherby

  21,728

  Whatton

  16,844

  Whitemoor

  40,006

  Winchester

  24,195

  Woodhill

  29,721

  Wormwood Scrubs

  18,028

  Wymott

  19,082

  (b) Privately run establishments

  Prison name

  Cost per place (cash)

  Altcourse

  57,063

  Ashfield

  38,906

  Blakenhurst

  22,845

  Doncaster

  25,640

  Forest Bank

  28,637

  Lowdham Grange

  29,713

  Parc

  39,058

  The Wolds

  26,874

  Buckley Hall prison returned to Prison Service management in June 2000. Rye Hill prison opened in January 2001 and is excluded because only part-year data are available. The data in the tables are not comparable with the Prison Service key performance indicators (KPI) cost per place because headquarters overheads are not included in the establishment figures. Public prisons' cost per place data are not comparable with private prisons' data as their cost includes an element of capital repayment. These data will shortly be published in the Prison Service annual report and accounts 2000–01.

  Fire Alarms (Humberside)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of cases where fire alarms were present in dwellings on fire in 2000 they(a) raised the alarm, (b) operated but failed to raise the alarm and (c) failed to operate altogether in the Humberside fire authority area. [1470]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information relates to fires in dwellings where a smoke alarm was present that were attended by the Humberside local authority fire brigade in 1999. 2000 data are not yet available.
  In 38 per cent, of cases the smoke alarm operated and raised the alarm.
  In 15 per cent, of cases the smoke alarm operated but failed to raise the alarm.
  In 47 per cent, of cases the smoke alarm failed to operate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Overseas Territories (Citizenship)
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to introduce a bill granting British citizenship to the citizens of the British Overseas Territories; and if he will make a statement. [1784]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Overseas Territories Bill, which will grant British citizenship to all British dependent territories citizens in qualifying territories, was given a First Reading in the House of Lords on 21 June. The Second Reading is scheduled for 10 July. The Bill was published on 22 June. Copies of the Bill, with explanatory notes, are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he or his Department has had recently with the Government of Sudan regarding the treatment of Sudanese Christians. [1355]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to he deeply concerned by the suffering of all in the Sudan, regardless of religious or ethnic background. Christians do have specific concerns, which we take up with the Government of Sudan bilaterally and through the EU. In recent weeks, our ambassador in Khartoum has discussed our concerns with a number of leading Sudanese politicians, including the Vice-President, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Religious Affairs and the Governor of Khartoum State. He has also held a meeting with Archbishop Marona, the leader of the Episcopal Church of Sudan. This is part of a continuing dialogue on a key issue for human rights, and peace, in Sudan. Church issues are also an important part of the agenda of the EU/Sudan political dialogue. In London my officials keep in close touch with representatives of the British Churches with an interest in Sudanese affairs.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the Government will delay ratification of the Nice treaty until the Republic of Ireland can ratify the treaty; [2204]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of the outcome of the Irish referendum on the future of the Nice treaty. [2208]

  Peter Hain
  I refer to the right hon. Gentleman to my answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 167W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the clauses in the treaty of Nice which are essential to EU enlargement. [2207]

  Peter Hain
  The Nice treaty as a whole is essential for enlargement. The enlarged EU we want cannot work effectively without the changes that Nice makes to the EU's institutions and procedures. All member states are agreed that Nice opens the way for enlargement, and that,106W
  with the entry into force of the treaty, the EU will have completed the institutional changes necessary for the accession of new member states.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on the future of the Nice treaty of one member state's inability to ratify it. [2205]

  Peter Hain
  In order for the treaty of Nice to enter into force it must be ratified by all 15 member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to hold a referendum on UK ratification of the Nice treaty following the Irish referendum. [2209]

  Peter Hain
  The treaty of Nice can come into force only if it is ratified by all member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. In the UK, this means that Parliament must pass legislation to amend the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament will decide whether or not to accept the Nice treaty, as it did for the Single European Act, Maastricht and Amsterdam.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies his Department will adopt at the UN conference in New York in July on the trade in small arms and light weapons; and if he will make a statement. [1860]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government attach great importance to supporting efforts to reduce the uncontrolled spread and use of small arms and light weapons.

  The UK and its European partners have consistently maintained that the forthcoming UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects should adopt a politically binding programme of action containing concrete measures to deal with both the supply and demand side of the trade. The UK has made substantial contributions to proposals put forward by the EU on key areas of the programme of action. These include:
  export control and export licensing criteria;
  marking and tracing and brokering where the EU hopes for progress towards a commitment regarding the elaboration of a legally binding instrument;
  management of stockpiles and surpluses, and destruction;
  disarmament, demobilasation and reintegration (DD&R) of ex-combatants;
  assistance for implementation of concrete measures agreed on, with a view to improving the situation on demand side, through weapons collection and destruction, capacity-building for border control, customs and law enforcement etc.

  We believe that the conference should not be seen as the end but the start of a process, which must be actively followed up. The EU has supported the proposal of the preparatory committee chairman, Ambassador Dos Santos, for a major review conference in 2006, with meetings of states on a bi-annual basis to consider the national and regional implementation of the agreed programme of action.
  107W
  The Government also acknowledge the important role which NGOs and civil society can play in this field. We are working to see their interests reflected in the conference's programme of action and in its follow-up.

  Mr. Ian Stillman
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the case of Mr. Ian Stillman who was recently jailed in northern India. [1855]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations HM Government have made to the Government of India regarding the detention of Mr. Ian Stillman; what assurances have been received from the Indian authorities about the health and well-being of Mr. Stillman; and if he will make a statement. [2219]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Consular staff are monitoring Ian Stillman's welfare closely. They were successful in arranging his transfer to a jail more suited to his special needs. They will continue to ensure that he receives adequate medical treatment.

  The Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Mr. Stillman's welfare at a meeting on 26 June with Prime Minister Vajpayee's principal secretary, and also our hope that his appeal will be heard swiftly. We will continue to speak to the Indian authorities.

  Drugs Trade Conference
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference on the global economy of illegal drugs held in London on 25 and 26 June. [2017]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This conference was the first attempt in an international gathering to address aspects of the economy of the illegal drugs trade. The conference attracted over 200 participants from 60 countries, and leading speakers in their fields. The conference looked at a number of key interrelated areas in the illegal drugs economy, including factors influencing production of illegal drugs; middle markets and how best to attack them; and the wider corrosive impacts of the drugs trade internationally, including its impact on livelihoods, governance, environment, legitimate trade and conflict. The conference also addressed the relationship between the drugs trade and other areas of illegal economic activity. These are important issues for the UK's drugs strategy and for our wider foreign policy, which we intend to follow up in the coming months.

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Colombian Government concerning paramilitary incursions into peace village communities in the Cacarica region of Colombia. [2019]
  108W
  Mr. MacShane
  The British embassy in Bogota is in regular contact with the Colombian authorities on the safety and protection of vulnerable groups, including the peace communities. On 27 June, the Colombian ambassador to London wrote to me in order to outline the measures that his Government are taking to protect displaced communities in the Cacarica river basin as they return to their homes. He also assured me that the Colombian Government are aware of the need to strengthen the protection mechanisms for a civilian peace scheme in the region, and will adopt the measures necessary to protect vulnerable communities there. Also on 27 June, British embassy officials met members of the San Francisco peace community close to Cacarica, and experiencing similar serious problems, to listen to their concerns first hand. The UK and Dutch Governments are sponsoring a project to build a refuge in the town of Rio Sucio where members of the peace community can stay.

  We remain very concerned about the activities of all the illegal armed groups in Colombia. We have called upon the Government of Colombia to continue their efforts to combat paramilitarism effectively and to continue taking concrete action to dismantle such groups by arresting, prosecuting and punishing all those involved.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he next intends to meet Bob Kiley to discuss progress towards a partial privatisation of the London Underground. [661]

  Mr. Byers
  There is no question of privatising, or part privatising, the Tube. The Tube is a public service and the public sector should own and run it.

  The current Tube is not good enough. It desperately needs modernising. Of course there is a role for the private sector—working for the public sector London Underground. Together they will deliver the massive improvements that are needed for a better, more reliable and more secure Tube.

  I am not prepared to put safety on the Tube at risk. I therefore intend that there should be a double safety veto. Our proposals for the Tube will not go ahead unless:
  First, HSE accept the new safety case for London Underground's new structure, and
  Second, HSE accept the new safety case to be applied to the involvement of the private sector.

  In addition under my proposals, London Underground will run the Tube and retain responsibility for safety. I shall be making this clear to Mr. Kiley when I meet him later today.

  Leeds Supertram
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the funding of the Leeds Supertram. [663]
  109W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Funding arrangements for the Leeds Supertram have now been agreed. I am delighted that the Government will be making a very substantial contribution towards the capital costs of this project, which are estimated at £487 million. It is another example of our delivery of the step change in public transport set out in the 10-Year Plan.

  Roads (North-west England)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve the road infrastructure of the north-west of England. [664]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is currently taking forward four major road schemes in the north-west of England and 12 route management studies. In addition, the local transport plan settlement for this year allocated some £84.5 million for local roads—an increase of 75 per cent. over the last year.

  "Transport 2010: the 10-Year Plan"
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the proposals in "Transport 2010: the 10-Year Plan". [665]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 10-Year Plan came into effect in April at the start of the new financial year. It is too early to draw conclusions about progress, but we remain firmly committed to the outcomes and targets it contains. We are setting in place mechanisms to secure and monitor delivery, and will produce a first progress report next year as part of the first review of the plan.

  Regeneration Finance
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to widen access to regeneration finance. [666]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal sets out a programme to use mainstream funds to combat deprivation and regenerate marginalised neighbourhoods—and there will be increases of over £30 billion to these programmes over the coming three years.

  Neighbourhood renewal will focus those resources on combating deprivation and meeting the needs of local people—and local people will have a say in how they are used through Local Strategic Partnerships. We recognise, though, that in the areas with the most severe deprivation extra resources will be needed to kick-start this process. This is why we have introduced the £900 million Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, as well as the Community Chests and Community Empowerment Fund to help local people get involved in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods.

  Labour Relations (Transport Industry)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the state of labour relations in the transport industry. [667]
  110W
  Mr. Spellar
  We believe that problems at work should be resolved by constructive negotiation; accordingly we are pleased that the RMT and almost all of the relevant train operators were able to avoid a dispute planned for Monday 25 June and tomorrow, 4 July, and that the recent dispute which led to industrial action on the London Underground has been resolved with the RMT and ASLEF. I will also be meeting representatives of employers and unions in other parts of the transport industry.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the future of Railtrack. [668]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Statement of Principles agreed on 2 April between the Government and Railtrack set out a new agenda for the company and a new working relationship with the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority. Railtrack is now implementing the reforms and restructuring of its organisation agreed as part of the new deal.

  M6 Multimodal Study
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the M6 Multimodal Study will be published. [669]

  Mr. Spellar
  This study of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester started in December 1999. The study is due to report to both the West Midlands and North-West Regional Planning Bodies in the autumn.

  Planning Laws
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations his Department has received concerning reform of planning laws; and if he will make a statement. [670]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department receives regular representations making proposals for changes to planning laws.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received in the last 12 months concerning reform of planning laws; and if he will make a statement on the Planning Green Paper. [1431]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department receives regular representations making proposals for changes to planning laws. It is proposed to publish a Green Paper in the autumn on the steps that might be taken to improve the operation of the planning system.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make a statement on reorganising the planning system. [1654]

  Ms Keeble
  It is proposed to publish a Green Paper in the autumn on the steps that might be taken to improve the operation of the planning system.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for elected regional assemblies. [671]

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation for regional government in England; and if he will make a statement. [678]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional government in England.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to publish(a) Green and (b) a White Paper on regional government in England. [1324]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional government in England.

  No date has been set for publication.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the proposed regional assemblies in England outside London will levy a precept on council tax. [1280]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional government in England. This will include proposals on the funding of regional assemblies, including whether they should have preaccepting powers.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received in the last 12 months concerning the creation of regional assemblies. [1297]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has received a number of representations from organisations and members of the public on the creation of regional assemblies.

  Council Tax (Park Homes)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to reform the council tax system in respect of park homes. [672]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are aware of concerns of park home owners and other occupiers of low value properties about the council tax bands. We intend to publish a White Paper on local government finance later this year, and decisions on any reforms of the council tax system will be made in the context of the White Paper.

  Cullen Inquiry
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken to follow up the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry. [673]
  112W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission published Part 1 of Lord Cullen's Report into the Ladbroke Grove train crash on 19 June. I have asked them to ensure that the 89 recommendations are acted upon, and to report back to me within six months. The Chair of the HSC has asked the industry to tell him within a month how they intend to take forward the recommendations.

  Fire Brigade (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Fire Brigade cover in north Shropshire. [674]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Responsibility for providing fire services in north Shropshire rests with Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering an application from the authority under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 which includes the replacement of two pumping appliances by one with a larger crewing capacity at both Whitchurch and Market Drayton. He will not grant approval unless satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained.

  Rural Rail Services
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the improvement of rural rail services. [675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our aim is to bring new life and more passengers to rural rail services. The Strategic Rail Authority's Rail Passenger Partnership scheme is providing funding for new or improved local services. The SRA is also encouraging Community Rail Partnerships to promote rural lines locally and in the wider tourist market.

  Local Government Funding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he is making in reviewing local government funding formulae. [676]

  Dr. Whitehead
  September's local government finance Green Paper set out our plans for reform of the revenue grant distribution system to local authorities. An analysis of the 16,000 plus responses we received on this and other issues was published on our website in March. A White Paper setting out our decisions on the way forward will be published later this year.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform the system of standard spending assessments. [677]

  Dr. Whitehead
  September's local government finance Green Paper set out our plans for reform of the revenue grant distribution system to local authorities. An analysis of the responses we received on this and other issues was published on our website in March. A White Paper setting out our decisions on the way forward will be published later this year.

  New Transport Infrastructure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans
  113W
  he has to reform the planning regulations and the Transport and Works Act 1992 to speed up the decision-making process on new transport infrastructure. [1029]

  Mr. Spellar
  We intend to announce shortly measures to streamline planning procedures for major infrastructure projects, which include safeguarding opportunities for public involvement in the process.

  We shall also shortly be embarking on a fundamental review of Part 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 with the aim of identifying any scope for improving and speeding up the process for authorising guided transport projects.

  Railway Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the Government's policy regarding the ownership and structure of the railway industry. [1018]

  PFI contract (contracting authority in brackets)

  Date of contract signature

  Does contract contain clause to recompense public funds in the event of refinancing by the private sector?

  Notes

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  February 1996

  No

  DTLR would directly benefit from any refinancing through a reduction in the requirement for an operating subsidy in future years

  Birmingham North Relief Road (Highways Agency)

  February 1992

  No

  Finance for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road has yet to be finalised

  A69 Carlisle to Newcastle (Highways Agency)

  January 1996

  No

  —

  A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough (Highways Agency)

  February 1996

  No

  Refinancing not relevant due to use of bond finance

  A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester (Highways Agency)

  February 1996

  No

  Refinancing not relevant due to use of bond finance

  M1-A1 Lofthouse to Bramham Link Road (Highways Agency)

  March 1996

  No

  Refinancing discussions in progress with Highways Agency

  A50 Stoke to Derby (Highways Agency)

  May 1996

  No

  —

  A30/A35 Exeter to Bere Regis (Highways Agency)

  July 1996

  No

  —

  A19/A168 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel (Highways Agency)

  August 1996

  No

  This contract has been refinanced and Highways Agency will obtain a share of the benefit

  M40 Denham to Warwick (Highways Agency)

  October 1996

  No

  Refinancing discussions in progress with Highways Agency

  MOT Computerisation (Vehicle Inspectorate)

  February 2000

  No

  —

  Traffic Control Centre (Highways Agency)

  March 2001

  Yes

  —

  Strategic Rail Authority (Consultants)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a list of the technical and financial consultants currently employed by the Strategic Rail Authority, the nature of the assignment for each consultant, and the value of each contract. [1025]

  Consultant

  Project

  Contract value (£)

  AEA Technology

  PTE Passenger Fares analysis

  5,900

  Light Rail Franchising

  105,000

  Analysis of Passenger Rail Fares

  13,000

  Thameslink report

  6,250

  South London Metro Study

  48,000

  Calculation of Passenger Miles

  2,500

  114W
  Mr. Spellar
  The framework provided by the Transport Act 2000 is now in place to enable the Government's objectives for rail in the 10-Year Plan to be achieved. We will work with the industry to drive up performance and to identify obstacles to progress, and we wish the industry to focus on these objectives rather than on another structural reorganisation.

  Transport Projects
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give details of contracts undertaken by his Department with private firms for transport projects which do not contain a clause to recompense public funds in the event of a re-financing deal entered into by the private partner. [1024]

  Mr. Spellar
  The table sets out the information requested.

  Mr. Spellar
  Since its inception on 1 February 2001 the Strategic Rail Authority have used the following technical consultants with an awarded contract value. It should be noted that contract values do not necessarily equate to expenditure in this financial year.
  115W

  Consultant

  Project

  Contract value (£)

  Babtie Group Ltd.

  DDA funding at stations

  39,975

  Booz Allen and Hamilton Ltd.

  West Coast Mainline enhancement and Renewal

  10,000

  BAFO evaluation

  36,850

  WCML U monitoring

  47,250

  General Economic and technical advice

  50,000

  CJ Associates

  Six tracking at Paddington study

  59,840

  Entec UK Ltd.

  High Speed Line study

  29,780

  GIBB Ltd.

  Island Line replacement

  38,000

  Buxton-Matlock reopening

  22,816

  East Anglia mapping

  15,000

  Planet model extension

  99,933

  Old Oak Common study

  2,750

  Maunsell Ltd.

  London East West study

  123,935

  North London Line engineering

  46,611

  MDS Transmodal

  Neutral Grant scheme

  78,190

  CTRL

  28,770

  Transpennine Market Research

  33,170

  Freight Strategies study

  6,000

  Mott McDonald

  Orbirail study

  164,000

  East West study

  48,950

  Mouchel Consulting Ltd.

  Central Railway

  32,541

  MVA Ltd.

  Northern Rail

  26,420

  High Speed Line (infrastructure)

  91,900

  East West study

  36,910

  Oscar Faber

  Greater Manchester Strategic Rail study

  99,250

  Ove Arup and Partners

  Appraisal methodology for Rail Freight

  86,000

  Impact of planned and proposed infrastructure work

  70,000

  Review of sensitive lorry miles

  60,000

  Heathrow new train services

  33,000

  High Speed Line (infrastructure)

  30,000

  Radical Ltd.

  Freight Strategy study

  105,350

  Sinclair Knight Merz

  Freight Strategy study

  118,500

  Total

  1,952,341.00

  The SRA have also used the following technical consultants on a call-off basis.

  Consultant

  Project

  AEAT

  General technical advice

  Babtie Group Ltd.

  CTRL technical advisers

  Thameslink 2000 advisers

  General technical advice

  Booz Allen and Hamilton Ltd.

  CSC franchise replacement

  SWT franchise replacement

  Performance renegotiation

  Transpennine Franchise study

  First Class Partnership

  General technical advice

  GIBB Ltd.

  Rail Passenger Partnership

  Strategic Scenario testing

  Thameslink replacement

  General technical advice

  Halliburton Brown and Root Ltd.

  Transpennine Express Project

  Interfleet Technology

  Mark One rolling stock replacement study

  MDS Transmodal

  General technical advice

  Mott McDonald

  Economic advice

  General technical advice

  MVA

  Thameslink replacement

  ECML infrastructure

  General technical advice

  Oscar Faber

  General technical advice

  Ove Arup and Partners

  Wales and Borders replacement

  General technical advice

  Symonds Group

  Freight grant adviser

  WS Atkins

  General technical advice

  The SRA are currently using the following financial advisers on a call-off basis.

  Consultant

  Project

  KPMG

  Financial adviser

  Lazard brothers and Co. Ltd.

  Financial adviser

  116W

  Consultant

  Project

  Marsh UK Ltd.

  Financial adviser(insurance issues)

  Price WaterhouseCoopers

  Financial adviser(external auditors)

  Parish and Town Councils
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications for the abolition of parish or town councils he has received from district or unitary authorities in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these applications he has granted. [1142]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Local Government Act 1972 contains no provision for the abolition of parish councils. However, this legislation provides for the dissolution of parish councils where the population of a parish falls below 150. Dissolution in such circumstances is carried out by order of the district council. We have no record of any dissolution orders.

  The Local Government Act 1992 made provision for the abolition of parishes by the Secretary of State following a recommendation by the Local Government Commission. No parishes were abolished as a consequence of the structural review of local government during 1992–97.
  117W
  In implementing recommendations made by district councils under Part II of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 the Secretary of State has abolished five parish councils, all in 1999, as follows:
  The East Lindsey (Parishes) Order 1999—the common parish council for the three parishes of Saltfleetby All Saints, Saltfleetby St. Clements and Saltfleetby St. Peter was abolished to be replaced by a single new parish and parish council of Saltfleetby.
  The Mid Sussex (Parishes) Order 1999—the parish councils of Clayton and Keymer were abolished to be replaced by a new single parish council of Hassock,.
  The Tandridge (Parishes) Order 1999—the parish council of Lingfield and Dormansland was abolished to be replaced by two new parish councils, one for each of the villages.
  The West Lindsey (Parishes) Order 1999—on the creation of the parish of Brookenby from part of the parish of Stainton le Vale, the parish council of Stainton le Vale was abolished to be replaced by a new parish council of Brookenby and a parish meeting for Stainton le Vale.

  Public Transport Information System
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in implementing a national public transport information system. [1420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traveline, the national public transport information system, is now available throughout Great Britain. It provides route and timetable information for bus, coach, tram, underground, train, ferry and metro through a national-rate call to a single telephone number—0870 608 2 608.

  I am delighted that transport operators and local authorities have worked in partnership to deliver Traveline, with the support of central Government. Traveline will form part of our Transport Direct initiative. Transport Direct will allow people to plan their journeys and to compare routes and prices.

  M6 (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will rule out the widening of the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 16 in Staffordshire. [1333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Options for dealing with the problems on the M6 between junctions 11 and 16 are currently the subject of the MIDMAN multi-modal study on which the final report will be made later this year. It would be premature to make any statements on widening before the report is complete.

  Rail Safety (Shenfield)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the signals passed at danger incidents at Shenfield in the last two years. [1474]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that there has been only one SPAD incident at Shenfield in the last two years. This occurred on 9 November 1999, when a First Great Eastern passenger train over-ran signal L487 by three yards. The cause of this incident was linked to driver misjudgment of the trains braking.

  Railways
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the process is of allocation of funds from(a) the Railway Development Fund and (b) the Freight Strategy. [1400]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The concept of the Railway Modernisation Fund is outlined in the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Agenda. Further details will be provided in its Strategic Plan, to be published in November.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what moneys have been allocated to Scotland from the Freight Strategy. [1399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy includes a number of infrastructure schemes with relevance to Scotland and the new funding schemes will be applied on a GB-wide basis.

  In addition the Scottish Executive have responsibility for the administration of the Freight Facilities and Track Access Grant schemes in Scotland.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions over how many years the Freight Strategy is to run. [1398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy is designed to deliver growth over the period of the Government's 10-Year Plan but also looks to provide sustainable growth beyond the 10-year horizon.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to allow local authorities a discretionary power to levy 100 per cent. council tax on long-term empty homes within their area; and if he will make a statement. [1471]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the Rural White Paper last November, we set out proposals to consult on giving local authorities discretion on applying the 50 per cent. discount for second homes. We are considering whether the principle of greater local discretion could be extended to long-term empty homes as well.

  Municipal Incinerators
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received in the last 12 months concerning planning permission for the construction of new municipal incinerators; and if he will make a statement. [1285]

  Ms Keeble
  Some 1,304 representations (including 237 as signatures on a petition) concerning 14 sites, either where planning permission has been granted or there are proposals for future development, have been received. Two of the sites relate to applications for waste to energy incinerators at Belvedere and Edmonton, in the London boroughs of Bexley and Enfield respectively, where the applications have been made to my right hon. Friend the
  119W
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 because they are proposed to generate more than 50 megawatts.

  Departmental Merger Costs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated administrative cost was of the merger of the Departments of the Environment and Transport in 1997. [1430]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The costs and benefits of the merger in 1997 of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport were set out in the DETR Merger Group Report published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in August 1997. Estimates of expenditure, including those elements designed to modernise the working methods and service delivery of the new Department and to take advantage of best practice, for example in IT and financial management systems, are set out in the table.

  Expenditure area

  £ million

  Measures to link office automation systems

  0.1–0.2

  Measures to move to a single office automation system

  3–6

  Measures to move to a single financial management and accounting system

  6–9

  Conversion of parts of an HQ building to provide flexibility

  0.35

  Measures to co-locate Ministers and supporting staff

  0.2

  Co-location of Finance divisions

  0.05

  Co-location of Personnel divisions

  0.05–0.08

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans(a) he and (b) his Ministers have to (i) address and (ii) visit the EU Committee of the Regions. [1298]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor his ministerial colleagues within this Department currently have any plans to address or visit the EU Committee of the Regions.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to change the electoral system(a) in the Greater London Authority, (b) for the election of directly elected mayors and (c) for the election of local councillors. [1281]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans to change these electoral systems.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the electoral system planned for the election of regional assemblies in England outside London. [1275]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional government in England. This will include proposals on the electoral system for regional assemblies.

  Empty Council Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in the amount of empty council housing in England. [1294]

  Ms Keeble
  Figures showing the level of empty council housing need to be seen in the context of local authorities' overall strategies for addressing deprived areas, and areas of low demand. In this respect an increase in properties awaiting demolition may be a relevant factor. It is clearly important that local authorities turn round empty properties which are available for letting, whether immediately or after minor repairs, as quickly as possible.

  Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to give an equity stake to residents in(a) council housing and (b) non-municipal social housing; and if he will make a statement. [1328]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are committed to examining the ways in which social tenants might gain a stake in their homes. A range of options for how this might be done and the issues that these raise are now being considered. The current intention is to consult more widely once this work is further advanced, probably in the autumn.

  Departmental Restructuring
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many civil servants were employed by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in April 2001; and how many it is anticipated will be employed by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions once departmental restructuring is completed. [1467]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At 1 April 2001 the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Central) (DETR (C)) employed 4,044 staff. We estimate that once restructuring is complete, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central) ((DTLR (C)) will employ approximately 3,400 staff subject to final decision on the number of support staff to transfer. This figure also takes account of staff movements between DTLR, Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry which follow from Machinery of Government changes made after the election. Neither figure includes staff employed by DTLR in Government Offices.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated administrative cost is of the recent changes to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. [1432]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Costs incurred so far on changing the Department's name amount to £25,250. No major systems costs associated with machinery of government changes have been incurred. Work of a short-term nature to implement the transfers of responsibilities is in hand, involving staff at various levels and in a number of
  121W
  different areas of the Department. No central record is kept of the time spent and no estimate of the staff cost is therefore available. However, these costs are not significant.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) budgets and (b) administrative costs were for each of the regional chambers in England for each financial year since their establishment; and what their planned (i) budgets and (ii) administrative costs are for the next two years. [1276]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The eight regional chambers have been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of each region. The Government proposed earlier this year to provide £15 million for the chambers over a three year period to enable them to strengthen their role in the regions. It is hoped to make a further announcement about this soon; otherwise, their costs and budgets are a matter for the chambers and their members.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the responsibilities are of each Minister in his Department. [1327]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) has seven Ministers:The right hon. Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions;
  John Spellar MP, Minister for Transport;
  Right hon. Nick Raynsford MP, Minister for Local Government;
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, Minister for Housing and Planning; and
  David Jamieson MP, Sally Keeble MP and Dr. Alan Whitehead MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.

  Full details of individual portfolios are set out in a DTLR press notice published an 12 June, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of priority homeless acceptances in England since 1997. [1293]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of households accepted by local housing authorities as unintentionally homeless and in priority need during the 12 months prior to March 2001 was 113,590. That is 2.5 per cent. higher than the number of households accepted during the 12 months prior to March 1997 110,810.

  It is greatly to the credit of local housing authorities that they have been able to meet their statutory obligations to help those who are homeless and in most need of accommodation, and they are to be congratulated.

  The underlying reason for the increase in acceptances is a shortage of affordable accommodation in some areas, especially London and the south-east. This shortage follows a significant cut in housing resources, when the
  122W
  1992–97 Government cut total capital investment in housing from £3.9 billion in 1992–93 to planned spending of only £1.5 billion in 1997–98. High property prices in a very buoyant housing market, particularly in these areas, may also have contributed to an increase in homeless acceptances by reducing the availability of low cost affordable accommodation.

  The Government have substantially increased the resources available for housing investment to tackle the significant problems they inherited. The housing resources provided for the current year, of around £3.3 billion, are twice the amount made available for 1997–98, and further significant increases are planned for the next two years. As part of this, we have nearly doubled the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme with an additional £872 million aimed at building more affordable social housing. Our target is to provide at least 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost renting or ownership through the Approved Development Programme and other programmes between April 2001 and March 2004.

  QE2 Centre
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the operating loss or profit of the QE2 Centre was in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [1326]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The operating surpluses for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Trading Fund were:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  687,000

  1998–99

  48,000

  1999–2000

  216,000

  2000–01

  159,000

  Further information on the Centre can be found in its Annual Report and Accounts for each of the above years, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set up an investigation into the working of the new postal voting arrangements in the recent general election. [1663]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Electoral Commission, which was established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, will publish a report shortly on various aspects of the administration of the general election, in accordance with section 5 of the Act.

  Home Zones
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the home zones currently in operation. [1659]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department is monitoring eight home zone pilots in England. The schemes are in Ealing, Lambeth, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham, Peterborough, Plymouth and Sittingbourne. The pilots are at different stages of development, and works are planned to commence in all the schemes by the end of the year.
  123W
  Local authorities are free to take forward home zones outside of the monitoring process. We are aware that home zones have been completed in Birmingham, Tower Hamlets and Luton, and are being implemented in Hertford and Bristol. A number of local authorities included proposals for home zones in their local transport plans.

  Airport Slots
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to reform the allocation of take-off and landing slots at UK airports so as to introduce market mechanisms into allocating such slots; and if he will make a statement. [1366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government said in their consultation document "The Future of Aviation", published in December 2000, that they believe that the establishment of a transparent market in slots would be a means of improving the use of slots at congested airports. However, the allocation of slots is subject to European regulation. The European Commission published proposals for a new regulation on 20 June. These do not include the use of market mechanisms for allocating slots, although the Commission has said that it intends to undertake research into the subject. The Government will be consulting the industry about the proposals.

  Motor Vehicle Crashes
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number of sleep-related motor vehicle crashes in each of the last 20 years. [1935]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics on the main contributory factors in road accidents are not available. Research on behalf of the Department indicates that for car drivers in particular, driver fatigue may have been a principal factor in around 10 per cent. of accidents across the road network in Great Britain.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he proposes to publish new draft regulations regarding the siting of mobile phone masts and base stations; and if he will make a statement. [1787]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 25 June 2001,Official Report column 20W.

  Beacon Status (Councils)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will invite councils to apply for beacon status. [2334]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will publish an Application Brochure tomorrow, inviting councils to apply by 2 October. Copies of the brochure will be placed in the Library of the House.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  People's Panel
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has for the People's Panel. [1939]

  Mr. Leslie
  We are currently considering the future role of the People's Panel.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the cost of the People's Panel for each year for which the figures are available. [1938]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the year 1998–99, the cost to all Departments for research and consultation employing the People's Panel was £459,000, for 1999–2000 the cost was £321,190 and for 2000–01 the cost was £525,865.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs there were in the manufacturing industry in May(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [1641]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Redwood, dated 3 July 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of manufacturing jobs in May 1997 and May 2001 (1639).
  Information for May 2001 is not yet available but will be published in table 6 of the Labour Market Statistics First Release on 18 July 2001, copies of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library. In May 1997, there were 4,160,000 manufacturing jobs (seasonally adjusted).
  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for April 1997 and April 2001 for comparative purposes.

  Thousand

  UK

  Number1

  April

  1997

  4,152

  2001

  3,867

  1 Seasonally adjusted

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website www.statistics.gov.uk./statbase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=342 under series identifier YEJL.

  Euro
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his preferred rate of entry is for the pound against the euro. [1640]

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the optimum value of sterling in relation to the(a) DM, (b) euro and (c) dollar at which it would be most beneficial for the

  125W
  United Kingdom to enter the euro, provided that all other elements of his five economic tests are met; and if he will make a statement. [2106]

  Mr. Boateng
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest. The Government have said that the rate at which sterling would enter the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the UK and compatible with sustainable convergence between the UK and other euro area economies.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the responsibilities and role are of(a) regional chambers, (b) local authorities, (c) regional development agencies and (d) the EU Committee of the Regions in the national handover plan and preparing for the euro. [1402]

  Mr. Boateng
  A full list of all the organisations involved in changeover planning was set out in the second outline national changeover plan, which was published in March 2000. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the constitutional implications of United Kingdom membership of the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [1861]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's October 1997 statement on EMU acknowledged that to share a common monetary policy with other states represents a major pooling of economic sovereignty. It also stated that if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) dates and (b) membership of each meeting of the cross-policy committee on preparations for the European single currency over the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [1862]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cross-party advisory group on preparations for the euro is an informal group which acts as a channel for the exchange of information and develops cross-party awareness of the continuing preparations for the euro. Given the importance of preparations for the euro, every parliamentary party is invited to be represented on the group. The group has met six times since its first meeting on 19 June 2000, the last being on 8 March 2001

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast is for the balance of payments in goods for the current year. [1639]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's most recent forecasts for the UK economy were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001 (HC 279). Forecasts for trade in goods and set vices and the balance of payments can be found on pages 171–175, tables B5–B7.

  Annuities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the age limit by which annuities have to be purchased. [1361]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to section 5.66 to 5.69 of the economic and fiscal strategy report published on Budget day, copies of which are in the Library. This sets out the Government's view on annuity pension arrangements.

  Building Society Ballots
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the procedures for ballots which may result in the de-mutualisation of societies. [1364]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.

  Equitable Life
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he estimates the Financial Services Authority inquiry into Equitable Life will be completed; [1779]

  (2) if he will set up an inquiry into the regulation of Equitable Life for the 10 years prior to 1 January 1999; and if he will make a statement.[1849]

  Mr. Boateng
  Arrangements for the publication of the report on the regulation of the Equitable will be made when the report is completed and handed to HMT. We will decide whether any further action is necessary in the light of this report.

  Gold Sales
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tons of gold have been sold by the Bank of England since he instructed it to do so; and what has been the average price secured from these sales.[1449]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since the gold sales programme was announced in May 1999, as part of the restructuring of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves, 295 tonnes have been sold. The average price secured at the 12 auctions held to date is $273.09 per ounce.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total number of euros purchased by the Bank of England is since he instructed it to invest 40 per cent. of the proceeds of gold sales in this currency; and what has been the average purchase price. [1450]

  Mr. Boateng
  The proceeds from sales of gold are invested, over a period of time, in interest-bearing foreign currency assets, in broadly the same proportion as currently held in the net foreign currency reserves, as part of the Bank of England's day-to-day management of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves.

  Currency Dealings
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of jobs which would be lost in currency dealing in the City of London if the pound were abolished. [1612]
  127W
  Mr. Boateng
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest. The Government have said that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Renewable Energy (VAT)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current VAT regime affecting renewable energy materials and their installation. [1365]

  Mr. Boateng
  A reduced rate of 5 per cent. was introduced last year on the supply and installation, in residential accommodation, of goods whose primary purpose is to save energy. Energy-saving materials sold direct to the public are not included in the list of goods and services to which, under agreements with our European partners, a reduced rate of VAT may apply. The Government are in favour of extending the reduced rate to cover these DIY installations and have raised this with the European Commission.

  Kingscrest Case
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision of the London VAT tribunal in the Kingscrest case on the implementation of free nursing care and the affordability of fee levels. [1700]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision of the VAT and duties tribunal in the Kingscrest Associates Ltd. and Montecello Ltd. case does not impact upon nursing care. The Government are of the view that the care of vulnerable people provided by residential homes should not be subject to VAT and are considering how best to challenge this decision.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend VAT regulations to clarify the VAT status of care homes following the recent decision of the London VAT tribunal in the Kingscrest case. [1699]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are of the view that the care of vulnerable people provided by residential homes should not be subject to VAT and we are considering how best to challenge this decision.

  IR35
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what advice is now being offered by individual Inland Revenue officers to those businesses that may be affected by IR35. [1363]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Genuine businesses are not affected by IR35. 1R35 applies only where, if it were not for the interposition of an intermediary such as a service company, the worker would be an employee of the client. The Inland Revenue provides a free service to anyone who wants advice on the application of the IR35 rules. This includes providing opinions on contracts of engagement and a dedicated IR35 helpline. There is also extensive material freely available on the Inland Revenue IR35 website. Full details about how to use the opinion on contracts service are available on the Inland Revenue website.
  128W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had recently with the professional contractors group over the subject of IR35. [1362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. Inland Revenue officials have met with members of the professional contractors group executive to discuss practical issues arising out of the application and operation of the IR35 legislation.

  Property (Zero Rating)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce zero rating on house improvements and adaptations; and if he will make a statement. [1313]

  Mr. Boateng
  Agreements with our European partners mean that we cannot introduce any new zero rates.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policy of zero rating new property developments; and what plans he has to introduce VAT on such developments. [1312]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to put VAT on new housing.

  Public Service Agreements
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways public service agreements negotiated to date enjoin Government Departments to raise the quantity and quality of regulatory impact assessments. [1645]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public service agreements (PSAs) focus on outcomes; the Cabinet Office has a specific PSA target to ensure that rigorous regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are undertaken. Revised guidance on how to complete RIAs was issued to all Departments in August 2000 and followed up by a series of seminars for policy officials within each of the main regulatory Departments.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many, and what percentage, of public service agreements negotiated to date contain an explicit commitment to deregulation and a reduction in administration.[1644]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public service agreements (PSAs) focus on outcomes; PSAs give Departments powerful incentives to deregulate and reduce administration, where sensible, in order to achieve those outcomes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service published its 2001–04 corporate and business plan; and what performance targets have been set for 2001–04. [2363]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's corporate and business plan for 2001–04 was published
  129W
  on 29 May 2001. The following key performance targets have been set for 2001–04:

  1. To achieve 100 per cent. security for top and high-risk prisoners.

  2. To achieve 99.7 per cent. security for medium and low-risk prisoners.

  3. To reduce the number of staff assaulted by prisoners to less than the 2000–01 ratio of 6.8 per 100 prisoners.

  4. To reduce the number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners to less than the 2000–01 ratio of 8.8 per 100 prisoners.

  5. To establish baselines for weekly average hours of constructive activity attendance per prisoner for each prisoner group and set targets and system of measurement for 2002–03.

  6. To ensure an average minimum of 60 per cent. of the eligible prison population, including life sentence prisoners, is working to a sentence plan.

  7. To achieve an average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff.

  8. Representation in recruitment competitions of:

  (a) women:

  (b) Roman Catholics; and

  (c) Other under-represented groups.

  9. To ensure expenditure is within the budget allocated.

  10. To reduce the difference in cost per prisoner place between Northern Ireland and England and Wales by 5.7 per cent. by March 2002.

  11. To lay the Annual Report and Audited Accounts before Parliament prior to the summer recess.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the reopening of footpaths near areas infected with foot and mouth. [33]

  Alun Michael
  Over 16,000 letters have been received during recent months on foot-and-mouth-related issues. It is not possible to say precisely how many of these concern the reopening of footpaths, although we estimate the number to be in the region of 1,000. Ministers have also met representatives of a range of interested parties, including users of footpaths, farmers and land managers; to discuss path reopening and the issue has been discussed at several meetings of the rural task force.

  A range of representations concerning the reopening of footpaths have been received by letter and in meetings with a wide range of interested parties, including users of footpaths, farmers and land managers. This subject has been discussed at several meetings of the rural task force. In the immediate vicinity of cases of foot and mouth disease, the Government have taken a precautionary approach through the 3 km closure requirement and the power given to local authorities to impose a blanket ban on the use of footpaths in a specific area where that is considered appropriate. Many representatives have sought the lifting of such blanket bans where they are no longer needed and I have announced the intention to end this power except where a local authority can show it is needed in order to maintain the effectiveness of efforts to eradicate foot and mouth disease. I hope to make a further announcement shortly following the current consultation with local authorities.
  130W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will encourage county councils not to lift restrictions on the use of footpaths in areas where farmers remain unable to move their stock as a result of foot and mouth disease control measures; and if she will make a statement. [39]

  Alun Michael
  As part of our strategy for rural recovery, we want to see footpaths and other rights of way reopened wherever it is safe to do so. I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 June 2001,Official Report, columns 166–86. My right hon. Friend also announced a significant relaxation of movement restrictions on livestock to help the farming industry by enabling more normal trade to take place. In both cases the action taken reflects an assessment of the disease risk involved in easing restrictions. While we are determined to do everything possible to eradicate foot and mouth disease, we also have to do all we can to enable rural businesses to return to normal working, and this must include an end to footpath closures where they are no longer needed.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effects of foot and mouth disease on businesses in the United Kingdom and the adequacy of existing Government measures in responding to those effects. [16]

  Alun Michael
  We have commissioned a series of regional surveys on the economic impact of foot and mouth disease, and we are planning further follow-up work including local area surveys. Members of the rural task force were briefed on the survey work and we will continue to keep them up to date. The general picture emerging from the surveys is very varied, with some areas and types of business displaying serious losses and others largely unaffected.

  Many small rural businesses affected by foot and mouth disease are benefiting from the measures we have introduced. Over 11,000 affected businesses have now had cash benefits either through deferral of tax payments, hardship rate relief, or grants from the RDA business recovery fund. We are keeping the operation of each scheme under review in consultation with the rural task force.

  A report on the impact on businesses in the west midlands, published last week, showed that 80 per cent. of the companies surveyed had not sought help or advice and 60 per cent. had made no change in their business and marketing. We will redouble our efforts to encourage all rural businesses to use the sources of advice and help which the Government are making available via regional development agencies and their local partners.

  Sewer Flooding
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the outcome of her discussions with Ofwat about possible remedies following sewer flooding last year [1479]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: Discussions between the Department and Ofwat about the various causes of, and remedies for, sewer flooding are continuing. As set out in its forward programme, Ofwat is

  131W
  examining companies' systems for prioritising work and dealing with flooding incidents, ofwat will publish its conclusions for consultation early in 2002.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of implementing the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 on dog owners walking in the New Forest. [866]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will require persons exercising a right of access under the Act to keep any dog on a short lead during the period March to July, and at any time in the vicinity of livestock. The Act also allows for further restrictions on dogs to be imposed in certain circumstances. However, the new right will not apply to any land with existing statutory rights of access (such as commons in former urban boroughs and districts), nor will it interfere with any use of land which takes place with the implied or explicit consent of the owner. The Act will enable any more relaxed regime of controls on dogs in the New Forest or elsewhere to continue with the consent or tolerance of the owner of the land.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations are planned prior to the implementation of the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in the New Forest. [865]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: There are a number of provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make regulations before they are brought into force. In particular, a consultation paper was issued in March on proposals for regulations under section 11 of the Act to enable the Countryside Agency to prepare draft maps of open country and registered common land. We are now considering the comments received and we expect to lay regulations during the summer recess. We expect to consult on a framework for regulations under part V of the Act relating to the establishment of local access forums with a view to laying regulations in the autumn. We shall also be consulting widely on regulations on other provisions in part I of the Act, as well as on regulations relating to part II (rights of way).

  Environmental Improvements
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to reduce the level of(a) graffiti, (b) litter, (c) fly-posting and (d) the illegal dumping of waste; and if she will make a statement..[813]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government place a high priority on improving the quality of the local environment.

  (a) Graffiti—In addition to using the penalties available under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the most effective way to tackle vandalism is through co-ordinated preventive action at local level involving all of the relevant agencies such as local authorities, schools and voluntary bodies as well as the police. The police and local authorities now have a statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to develop crime reduction
  132W
  partnerships. Police school liaison officers cover vandalism during regular visits to primary and secondary schools. The Government support the idea of Youth Action Groups in England and Wales and many have tackled issues like vandalism and graffiti. The Government are working with Crime Concern, the DfEE and the Youth Justice Board to develop the concept of these groups into the wider community.

  (b) Litter—The Government grant funds to the Tidy Britain Group (TBG) who are the Government's recognised agency for litter abatement. TBG provides local authorities and others with advice on effective litter control techniques including design, sitting and maintenance of bins.

  In addition, the Local Government Act 1999 introduced the new "duty of best value" from 1 April 2000. This requires that local authorities seek continuous improvement in the way they carry out their functions such as dealing with litter.

  In March I announced three new initiatives to address litter within a wider context:
  Local Environmental Quality Pathfinder Programme—This involves up to 50 local authorities developing innovative Local Environmental Codes of Best Practice to tackle issues such as litter, fly-tipping and graffiti. £1 million has been secured for this programme, which is being co-ordinated by TBG on behalf of DEFRA.
  Voluntary Code of Practice for Fast Food Traders—Leaders of the fast food industry will work with DEFRA on a new, demanding code of conduct for the fast food industry. It will be based on best practice for preventing and clearing up litter in and around fast food outlets, minimise packaging, and support the use of recycled and environmentally friendly materials.
  Review of legislation—A new advisory group with all relevant stakeholders is being set up to review the existing legislation and make recommendations to government about the changes and additions that are required. The review will cover: litter in water; storage and collection of trade waste; the provision and use of civic amenity sites; fly tipping; the management of trade wastes, litter on private land; and making it easier for local authorities to prosecute offenders.

  (c) Fly-posting—In October 2000 we published a Good Practice Guide to help local planning authorities control fly-posting.

  (d) Illegal dumping of waste—The action being taken by the Government on illegal waste disposal was set out most recently in the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (CM 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  Carbon Sinks
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role is played by carbon sinks in the Government's climate change strategy. [818]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK already has policies in place which are consistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations framework convention on climate change to protect and enhance carbon sinks, such as forests. The Government continue to support the planting of new woodland. The total uptake by sinks from UK agriculture and forestry is projected to increase from around 1.7 per cent. of UK carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 to
  133W
  2 per cent. in 2010, although not all of this could be counted towards the UK's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. If the present rate of increase in tree cover continues, afforestation since 1990 could save 0.6 MtC in 2010.

  Adhesive Labels
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the change in annual cost to the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry of the Environment Agency's reclassification of backing paper as packaging material; and if she will make a statement; [1241]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of the Environment Agency's reclassification of backing paper as packaging material on the competitiveness of the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry. [1240]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency recently issued guidance clarifying that backing paper of labels should be treated as a packaging material. The Environment Agency has estimated that the cost in 2001 to the UK adhesive label manufacturing industry as a whole will be in the order of £430,000. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) should not place UK business at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic market given that imported packaging is equally obligated. Similarly, packaging which is exported from the UK is not obligated under the UK packaging Regulations.

  Aarhus Convention
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans the Government have to implement the 1998 Aarhus convention; and when they intend to introduce legislation to effect this; [817]

  (2) what plans the Cabinet Office has to introduce (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation to strengthen environmental freedom of information. [805]

  Mr. Meacher
  The majority of the Aarhus convention's requirements (the UNECE convention of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters) are already implemented in the UK. As with other international treaties, implementation of the convention is through a mixture of legislative measures and administrative actions.

  The powers needed to amend existing legislation in order to deliver the remaining requirements of the convention have already been taken in England. For instance, section 74 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 contains a power to implement the convention's access to environmental information provisions. The Government intend to use these powers to replace the current Environmental Information Regulations (SI 1992/3240).

  Implementation of the convention is a devolved matter. The Government intend to ratify the Aarhus convention as soon as all parts of the UK have implemented its requirements.
  134W
  The Government remain strongly committed to the Aarhus convention and its underlying principals.

  Energy Efficiency Rating
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure that(a) the energy efficiency rating of a home and (b) advice on how to improve it is made available to potential house purchasers at the point of sale; and if she will make a statement. [1318]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  As set out in our manifesto, we are committed to making it easier for people buying and selling homes through a new seller's pack. Recognising that a real opportunity exists for improving the energy efficiency of a home when it is purchased, and fully supporting the provision of energy efficiency information to home buyers, we propose to include in the seller's pack an energy rating and advice on how the energy efficiency of the property might be improved. The necessary legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Poverty
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his definition is of poverty. [1131]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information relating to poverty can be found in the second "Opportunity For All" report; "One year on: making a difference", (CM4865). Our next report is due for publication in the autumn.

  Benefits (Children)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of increasing Child Benefit and the Child Allowance in Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for each child aged three or under by(a) £10, (b) £15 and (c) £20. [1569]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Proposed increase

  £ million

  £10

  1,350

  £15

  2,050

  £20

  2,700

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is based on the caseload given by the February 2001 Child Benefit administrative data.

  2. The cost is for one year.

  3. The figure is rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  Benefits
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of increasing Child Benefit and the Family Premium in Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by(a) £10, (b) £20 and (c) £30 for each family in which there is at least one child aged three or under..[1566]
  135W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Proposed increase

  £ million

  £10

  1,150

  £20

  2,300

  £30

  3,500

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is based on the caseload given by the February 2001 Child Benefit administrative data.

  2. The cost is for one year.

  3. The figure is rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  Exchange Trading Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice his Department offers to individual officers on how to treat benefit claimants who are also engaging in local exchange trading schemes.[1353]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Guidance for Benefits Agency staff on the treatment of people engaging in local exchange trading schemes is contained in the "Decision Maker's Guide", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the granting of Jobseeker's Allowance to jobseekers with temporary national insurance numbers. [1126]

  Malcolm Wicks
  If a person does not have a national insurance number and makes a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance, their local Benefits Agency office should invite them to attend an evidence of identity interview and complete the relevant documentation for the allocation of a national insurance number to be considered. Provided the person's identity can be verified their claim for Jobseeker's Allowance will be treated in the normal way.

  Temporary national insurance numbers are designed only for use by employers who send their returns to the Inland Revenue electronically, and do not know a new employee's national insurance number.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of council house occupiers are claiming Housing Benefit in Stockton, South; and how many people in Stockton, South in total are claiming Housing Benefit. [1092]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested as Housing Benefit data for the parliamentary constituency of Stockton, South are not available. Such information as is available is as follows.

  At February 2001, a total of 12,800 people were claiming Housing Benefit in Stockton on Tees borough council, 8,600 of whom were local authority tenants.

  Information on the number local authority tenancies in existence in each authority is not collected by central Government.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to reform Housing Benefit in respect of amalgamating the tax and benefit systems. [1085]
  136W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Our long-term aim is to make structural changes to Housing Benefit and its interaction with the tax system. The final design of Pension Credit and the new tax credits, and how they will interact with Housing Benefit, will be set out in due course.

  However, our immediate priority is to continue to improve the administration of the current Housing Benefit scheme.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average length of time is for a Housing Benefit application to be processed, broken down by local authority. [933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From April 2000, local authorities in England and Wales have been collecting data against best value performance indicators for the speed, accuracy, cost and security of their Housing Benefit services. Analogous performance indicators have been set by the Accounts Commission for Scottish authorities.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions expects to publish this summer unaudited and estimated data for 2000–01 against all best value performance indicators in respect of English authorities. Final results will be published once this provisional data have been fully analysed.

  Prior to the introduction of best value, the Audit Commission collected data for the last six months of 1999–2000 on the average length of time taken by English and Welsh authorities to process new Housing Benefit claims. This information is set out in two reports: "Local Authority Performance Indicators 1999–2000—Council Services Compendium For England", published on 10 January 2001, a copy of which is in the Library; and "Local Authority Performance Indicators In Wales, 1999–2000", published on 26 March 2001.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work arid Pensions for what reason Working Families Tax Credit is taken into account in full when calculating Housing Benefit. [1089]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Housing Benefit (HB) is an income-related benefit and most types of income are generally taken fully into account when calculating entitlement. This applies equally to the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), which is intended to help meet ordinary living costs. To disregard WFTC when calculating HB entitlement would result in double provision from the Government for the same basic living costs.

  However, limited situations exist where WFTC is partly disregarded in the assessment of HB. People who work 30 hours a week or more and who have children may get a partial disregard of WFTC if their earnings are very low. In addition, people with relevant child care costs which cannot be fully met from earnings can have the balance of those costs disregarded.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 35W, on pensioner poverty, if he will set out how the Government have ensured that no pensioner has to live on less than £92.15 a week. [1560]
  137W
  Mr. McCartney
  The significant increase in the Minimum Income Guarantee and the increase in the lower and upper capital limits in April together with our successful publicity campaign ensure that no pensioner has to live on less than £92.15 a week. We will continue to work in partnership with the voluntary sector and local authorities to find ways of identifying and encouraging those who are likely to benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee to claim.

  Working Age/Pensioner Organisations
  Kali Mountford
  ; To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the new organisations for people of working age and pensioners will be established. [2393]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government are establishing a new business for people of working age, Jobcentre Plus, and a new service for pensions and pensioners, the Pension Service.

  Jobcentre Plus will bring together the Employment Service with the working age part of the Benefits Agency to deliver a single, integrated service to people of working age and employers. The Pension Service will provide a unified, better and more modern service for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  The first Jobcentre Plus offices will be launched in the autumn. Beyond that, we intend that Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will formally come into existence as national organisations from 1 April 2002. The Benefits Agency and the Employment Service will therefore cease to exist at the end of this financial year on 31 March 2002.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what evidence he has about the impact of age discrimination in restricting employment opportunities: and if he will make a statement. [259]

  Mr. McCartney
  There is a wealth of UK and European research which has tried to measure the effect of age discrimination, but it is difficult to give a robust statistical analysis of its extent and impact. Research is inevitably based on people's own perceptions of employment related age discrimination. Initial findings from the evaluation of the code of practice on age diversity in employment indicate:around one in four older people believe that they have experienced age discrimination in relation to an actual or possible job at some point in their working lives; and
  the use of age criteria in job selection has halved from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. since the code was launched in June 1999.

  These initial findings were published in March in "Age Diversity: Summary of Research Findings", copies of which are in the House Library.

  The Government are continuing to promote vigorously age diversity in the workplace through the age positive campaign, which highlights the business benefits of an age diverse work force. This includes: three national and regional awards initiatives, which serve to publicise and reward achievements and examples of good practice; direct mail campaigns targeting selected industry sectors; and the placing of articles in trade sector and regional
  138W
  press. Later this year we are launching an age diversity website, which will provide information and guidance and include a discussion forum.

  As part of the work on taking forward the development of clear and effective employment legislation on age by 2006, the Government have set up an age advisory group of key social partners to help in identifying the issues that need to be addressed. The group, which includes representatives from the CBI, TUC, Age Concern, CIPD and Employers Forum on Age, will also be offering advice on further ways of achieving the changes in culture that will contribute to the success of tackling age discrimination.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of appeals against refusal of an award of Disability Living Allowance were successful; and how many appeals were made in each of the last three years. [2203]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA) appeal decisions

  Total appeals received in the Appeals Service1,2

  Successful appeals following hearing by Appeals Service (percentage)3,4

  1998

  47,025

  14,900 (32%)

  1999

  49,857

  16,200 (32%)

  2000

  57,522

  20,800 (36%)

  1 Figures are based on 100 per cent. data from DLA computer system.

  2 Figures relate to appeals due to refusal of benefit or dissatisfaction with award.

  3 Figures are based on 5 per cent. data and relate to 12 months ending November.

  4 Successful appeals do not include successful appeals against the rate or period of an award of an existing award.

  Notes:

  1. It is likely that the increase in the appeal success rate between 1999 and 2000 (an increase from 32 per cent. to 36 per cent) results from the introduction of DMA in late 1999, together with the pressure of the recovery that followed during 2000. DMA introduced a number of changes to the decision-making process, including a move away from a mandatory review prior to the appeal going forward, to a reconsideration as part of the appeal procedure. Decisions appealed against are now routinely reconsidered, but we are aware that some decision-makers need time to become proficient in the new procedures following DMA implementation.

  2. The figures quoted in the reply relate only to refusals of DLA. It is worth noting that the total figure for all DLA appeals shows no significant change in overturn rate in the same period.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Annuities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what investigations his Department is undertaking into the effectiveness of annuities. [1354]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have the issue under general review, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of pensioners in Wales eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [1584]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest estimate is that around 97,000 pensioners in Wales are benefiting from the Minimum Income Guarantee. An estimate of the number of pensioners eligible but not claiming is not available.

  Notes:

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

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

  3. Figure is rounded to the nearest hundred and is expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2001.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the number of overseas visitors to Britain in each quarter since May 1997. [140]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Quarterly figures for the number of visits to the UK from overseas are published by the Office for National Statistics as part of the international passenger survey. From May 1997, they are as follows:

  Thousand

  Year/Quarter

  Visits

  1997

  2

  6,447

  3

  8,168

  4

  5,961

  1998

  1

  4,804

  2

  6,834

  3

  8,027

  4

  6,080

  1999

  1

  5,046

  2

  6,799

  3

  7,913

  4

  5,636

  2000

  1

  4,993

  2

  6,733

  3

  7,923

  4

  5,541

  2001

  1

  14,920

  1 Estimated

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the funding made available to promote tourism in each regional tourist board area by its regional development agency. [1780]
  140W
  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted the Department for Trade and Industry to request some of the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letters in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed on the Dome site; and in what capacity. [84]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) currently employs 66 people at the Dome site in the following roles:

  Number

  Chairman's/Finance Director's Offices

  7

  Decommissioning

  6

  Finance

  17

  Legal

  3

  Human Resources

  5

  Information Technology

  4

  Press Office

  3

  Support

  21

  With effect from 1 July 2001. the number of people employed by NMEC was reduced to 31.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the total(a) maintenance, (b) security and (c) other continuing costs of the Dome; and if she will make a statement. [131]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that its budgeted costs for June for the Dome and site on which its stands are as follows:

  Maintenance: £72,000

  Security: £70,000

  Other site costs: £344,000

  (including rates at £300,000 which have since been refunded).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions officials of the Health and Safety Executive have visited the Dome since December 2000; and what the purpose of the visit was in each case. [85]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Officials from the Health and Safety Executive visited the site in January (at the invitation of the New Millennium Experience Company) to discuss its decommissioning programme and on 26 February as part of a routine inspection.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many court judgments have been made against the New Millennium Experience Company; and if she will list(a) settled and (b) pending court actions. [79]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: There have been seven county court judgments issued against the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), all of which were settled by 31 December 2000. Judgment

  141W
  against the company was awarded in an overseas action by a Belgian sub-contractor relating to a small contractual claim. This was paid in April 2001. In addition, an employment dispute resulted in a court action against NMEC for a small contractual claim. This has also been paid. NMEC has recently, out of court, settled court actions brought against it by a construction contractor and by an engineering company. The details of these claims are commercially confidential

  There are two cases currently involving pending court actions. One is a dispute with a lighting maintenance company, and the other arises from a trademark dispute.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the value of legal fees(a) invoiced and (b) paid by the New Millennium Experience Company in relation to settled or pending court actions. [83]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The value of legal fees paid to date by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) in respect of settled court actions against the company is circa £186k. The company is still awaiting final reconciliation of legal fees in relation to these cases.

  Royal Armouries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the finances of the Royal Armouries. [81]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Following restructuring of the Royal Armouries' relationship with their private sector partner in July 1999, additional grant-in-aid of £1 million per annum has been made available to cover the cost of the responsibilities transferred. The additional grant support is conditional on improvements in management and efficiency which are now being implemented as an essential component of the Royal Armouries' strategy for the future. Further grant has been made available to enable free access for children and the over-60s at the Royal Armouries' Leeds museum from 1 April 2001, and for adults from 1 December. The Royal Armouries is operating within its agreed budget and is so far on track to meet its major visitor and revenue targets for the year 2001–02.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to enable religious organisations to obtain a local digital licence. [1573]

  Dr. Howells
  The recent White Paper "A New Future for Communications" announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local terrestrial digital radio licence.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is regarding the change from analogue radio licences to digital licences for(a) Christian broadcasters and (b) non-Christian broadcasters. [1574]

  Dr. Howells
  Religious bodies are currently disqualified from holding digital radio licences. The recent White Paper "A New Future for Communications" announced that the Government will bring forward 142W
  legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local digital licence and invited comments on relaxing the ownership of other licences by such bodies. We are currently considering the responses. The Government will publish details of their proposals in a draft Bill as announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with United Christian Broadcasters about their desire to obtain a new licence. [1661]

  Dr. Howells
  None. However, the former Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), met with representatives of United Christian Broadcasters several times. The last meeting was on 4 April.

  School Sport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with the Department of Education and Skills in relation to increasing the number of hours spent on sport in schools. [2151]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS and DfES have been working closely together to deliver a significant amount of investment to allow greater opportunity for young people to spend more time on sport in and outside of schools. Work to date includes the school sport co-ordinators programme, NOF's opportunities for young people: PE and sport in schools initiative, space for sport and arts and the action points on education contained within the Government's plan for sport, published earlier this year. In June, my officials met colleagues at DfES to discuss the framework for enabling schools to offer two hours of high quality PE and school sport to their pupils, as set out by the Prime Minister on 11 January this year. We will continue to work together to bring about improvements in physical education and in the time spent by children in sport and other forms of physical activity.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Under-Secretary will next meet the senior management of S4C. [1756]

  Dr. Howells
  I am due to visit S4C in Cardiff on 10 July.

  Cricket
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to prevent further crowd trouble at international cricket matches. [1718]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following my meeting on 27 June with representatives of English cricket and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, I have today appointed a review group to consider recent problems of disorder at cricket matches and make recommendations on practical measures for ensuring the safety of spectators and players. The group will be chaired by a senior official from my Department, and will include representatives of the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the cricket authorities. A representative of the Football Licensing Authority will
  143W
  join the group to provide expert guidance on issues of stadium safety. I expect the group to report to me within six weeks.

  Free Television Licence Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to extending the free television licence scheme to all pensioners. [2137]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such discussions. The Government have no plans at the present to extend free television licences to pensioners below the age of 75.

  Football Transfers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the football authorities on proposed changes to the transfer system.[1662]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will be having introductory meetings with a number of football's governing bodies over the next few weeks, including the Football Association, the FA Premier League, the Football League and the Nationwide Conference. These discussions will cover a range of issues, among which will be the proposed changes to the international transfer system, on which FIFA and UEFA reached an in-principle agreement with the European Commission on 5 March. The Government support the sport's UK governing bodies in working with the international football authorities towards a new transfer framework which fully protects the interests of smaller clubs.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 37W, if the review of the Wembley Stadium project being undertaken by Mr. Patrick Carter covers the re-inclusion of an athletics facility. [1789]

  Mr. Caborn
  The terms of reference for the review published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 July 2001 specifically excluded athletics from the scope of the review of the national stadium being undertaken by Patrick Carter.

  Office of Communications
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to create a shadow office of communications prior to reform of broadcasting and media legislation. [1781]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced in the Queen's Speech on 20 June, a draft communications Bill will be published later this session. In the meantime we are looking at practical measures to ensure that the office of communications is able to assume regulatory functions as quickly as possible after that Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what will be the impact on children's hospices of the new opportunities funds. [1843]

  Mr. Caborn
  The new opportunities fund is currently developing a new grants programme for children's palliative care services. The programme, worth £48 million in England, will fund community, respite and bereavement services. It will provide grants to support new activities and to sustain existing good quality services which require a specific and time limited intervention. Children's hospices may be providers of these services, as may statutory sector providers and partnerships.

  The new opportunities fund is currently consulting on the best way to deliver the programme and is required to commit the resources to projects by 2004.

  The fund is also developing palliative care programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the split between services for children and services for adults has yet to be decided. The focus of the programme is currently the subject of consultation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jurors (Expenses)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the out-of-pocket expenses of jurors. [1418]

  Mr. Wills
  The financial loss and subsistence allowances paid to jurors are reviewed on an annual basis. The increase from the most recent review came into effect on 4 June of this year.

  "Making Decisions"
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she plans to introduce legislation to implement the proposals in "Making Decisions" (Cm 4465).[1476]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government recognise the need for a fundamental reform of mental incapacity law and will therefore introduce legislation to implement the proposals in "Making Decisions" when parliamentary time allows.

HEALTH

  NHS Trust Core Targets
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definitions he has set for green, amber and red performance for NHS trust core targets for 2001–02. [2210]

  Mr. Hutton
  The core targets for 2001–02 can be found in the NHS plan. The criteria that will be used to assess traffic light national health service performance during 2001–02 have yet to be determined.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform the law relating to medical negligence claims; and if he will make a statement. [49]

  Ms Blears
  The current system for dealing with clinical negligence claims is distressing, costly and time consuming, both for patients making claims against the National Health Service and for those defending claims, including doctors, nurses and other NHS staff involved. The need for reform—to address the spiralling costs, the length of time taken to resolve claims and the proportion of costs taken up in legal charges—is clear, and was reflected both in last year's NHS plan and in the Government's election Manifesto. We are currently considering how best to take this forward and will announce our plans in due course.

  MA specific/product name

  Licence holder/company name

  Current MA status

  MA date first granted

  PL 10592/0118 Fluarix vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham plc

  Granted

  27 February 1998

  EM 13767/0002 Triacelluvax vaccine injection—I syringe pack without needle

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0005 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-1 syringe pack with attached needle

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0006 Triacelluvax vaccine injection—I syringe pack with separate needle

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0007 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-5 syringe pack without needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0008 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-5 syringe pack with attached needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0009 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-5 syringe pack with separate needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0010 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-10 syringe pack without needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0011 Triacelluvax vaccine injection—l0 syringe pack with attached needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 13767/0012 Triacelluvax vaccine injection-10 syringe pack with separate needles

  Chiron S.P.A.

  Granted

  11 January 1999

  EM 15970/0001 Primavax vaccine injection

  Pasteur Merieux MSD

  Granted

  5 February 1998

  PL 00003/0318 Wellcome pertussis vaccine injection BP

  The Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Cancelled

  21 February 1994

  PL 00025/0295 H-B Vax II Paediatric vaccine 5ug hepatitis B surface antig

  Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd.

  Cancelled

  14 December 1993

  PL 00039/0444 Evans adsorbed tetanus vaccine BP

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Cancelled

  28 January 1994

  PL 00039/0445 Evans diphtheria and tetanus vaccine adsorbed BP'

  Evans Medical Ltd.

  Cancelled

  22 December 1993

  PL 00039/0462 Fluvirin vaccine injection EP

  Evans Medical Ltd.

  Cancelled

  25 August 1994

  PL 00039/0466 Evans diphtheria vaccine absorbed BP 601U/m1'

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Cancelled

  29 November 1994

  PL 00039/0467 Evans absorbed diphtheria and tetanus vaccine injection BP'

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Cancelled

  30 November 1994

  PL 00039/0473 Evans adsorbed tetanus vaccine BP injection 401U/0.5m1

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Cancelled

  30 November 1994

  PL 00039/0474 Evans adsorbed diphtheria tetanus and pertussis vaccine BP (Trivax-AD)'

  Evans Medical Ltd.

  Cancelled

  14 September 1994

  PL 00039/0486 Fluvirin vaccine injection

  Evans Medical Ltd.

  Cancelled

  25 August 1995

  PL 00039/0489 Trivax-AD vaccine injection'

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Cancelled

  29 January 1997

  PL 00039/0490 Fluvirin vaccine injection

  Evans Medical Ltd.

  Cancelled

  23 August 1996

  PL 00095/0292 Pnu-imune polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine injection 25mg/antigen/ 0.5ml

  Cyanamid of Great Britain Ltd

  Granted

  6 January 1997

  PL 00095/0321 Pnu-imune polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine injection

  Cyanamid of Great Britain Ltd.

  Granted

  28 September 2000

  Pl. 00512/0109 Intluvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Duphar Laboratories Ltd.

  Cancelled

  16 August 1993

  PL 00512/0112 Intluvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Duphar Laboratories Ltd.

  Cancelled

  2 August 1993

  PL 00512/0116 Influvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Duphar Laboratories Ltd.

  Cancelled

  22 August 1994

  PL 00512/0125 Influvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Cancelled

  25 August 1995

  PL 00512/0142 Intluvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Cancelled

  15 August 1996

  PL 00512/0146 Influvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Cancelled

  14 August 1997

  PL 00512/0156 Influvac sub-unit vaccine injection

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Granted

  16 March 1998

  PL 00512/(1170 Batrevac vaccine injection

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Granted

  14 June 2000

  PL 01511/0058 Anthrax vaccine (Alum precipitated sterile filtrate)

  Department of Health

  Granted

  6 January 1994

  PL 04788/0013 Connaught labs tetanus vaccine adsorbed injection (at least) 401U

  Connaught Laboratories Ltd.

  Cancelled

  2 November 1994

  PL 04788/0019 Connaught laboratorie, influenza inactivated vaccine prefilled dose syringe 0.5ml

  Connaught Laboratories Ltd.

  Cancelled

  1 September 1994

  PL 06745/0043 Pasteur merieux adsorbed diphtheria tetanus and pertussus vaccine BP pasteur'

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  5 October 1993

  PL 06745/(1046 Dip-Tet vax (adsorbed diphtheria and tetanus vacc BP pasteur M)'

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  3 December 1993

  PL 06745/0055 Diftavax vaccine injection'

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  10 November 1993

  PL 06745/0056 Act-Hib DTP injection 0.5m1 dose'

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  28 July 1995

  PL 06745/0067 MFV-Ject injection

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  25 August 1995

  PL 06745/0068 Merieux inactivated influenza vaccine injection BP

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  25 August 1995

  PL 06745/0080 Merieux inactivated influenza vaccine

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  23 September 1996

  PL 06745/0081 Pasteur Merieux inactivated influenza vaccine injection BP

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  28 August 1996

  PL 06745/0083 Pasteur Merieux MSD adsorbed tetanus vaccine injection

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  1 January 1997

  PL 06745/0085 Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd. inactivated influenza vaccine split virion BP injection

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  8 September 1997

  PL 06745/0086 Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd. inactivated influenza vaccine split virion BP injection

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  8 September 1997

  PL 06745/0097 H-B-Vax II paediatric vaccine injection 5mcg/0.5m1

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  1 January 1999

  PL 10592/0015 Engerix B vaccine injection 20mcg/m1

  Smithkline Beecham plc

  Granted

  10 November 1993

  PL 10592/0038 Fluarix 15ug vaccine 0.5ml (containing 15ug Haemagglutinin)

  Smithkline Beecham plc

  Cancelled

  9 May 1994

  PL 10592/0052 Fluarix vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham plc

  Cancelled

  19 August 1994

  PL 10592/0065 Fluarix vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham plc

  Cancelled

  25 August 1995

  Vaccines
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the vaccines and their manufacturers licensed since 1986 which contain thiomersal(a) which were administered in the routine vaccination programme for children and (b) which were available for non-routine vaccination for children. [784]

  Ms Blears
  All childhood vaccines licensed since 1986 which have ever contained thiomersal as an excipient are listed in the table. Some of these vaccines no longer contain thiomersal as an excipient because it has been removed from the finished vaccines. The table is annotated to identify which vaccines have been used or are used as part of the childhood immunisation schedule and have been centrally purchased by the Department of Health.
  147W

  MA specific/product name

  Licence holder/company name

  Current MA status

  MA date first granted

  PL 10592/0094 Fluarix vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham pic

  Cancelled

  10 September 1996

  PL 10592/0111 Fluarix vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham pic

  Cancelled

  18 August 1997

  PL 13767/0004 Agrippal vaccine injection

  Chirson S.P.A.

  Granted

  8 March 1999

  PL 18532/0017 Evans vaccines absorbed tetanus vaccine 40IU

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 February 2001

  PL 18532/0018 Evans vaccines adsorbed tetanus vaccine 80IU/ml

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 January 2001

  PL 18532/0019 Evans vaccines adsorbed diphtheria vaccine 60IU'

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 February 2001

  PL 18532/0020 Evans vaccines absorbed diphtheria and tetanus injection'

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 January 2001

  PL 18532/0021 Evans vaccines absorbed diphtheria and tetanus injection1

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 January 2001

  PL 18532/0022 Trivax-AD vaccine injection'

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 February 2001

  PL 18532/0023 Trivax-AD vaccine injection'

  Evans Vaccines Ltd.

  Granted

  1 February 2001

  PL 10592/0153 Triplerix-HIB vaccine injection

  Smithkline Beecham pic

  Granted

  27 August 1999

  PL 16033/0002 Chiron Behring Begrivac vaccine injection

  Chiron Behring Gmbh and Co.

  Cancelled

  19 September 1997

  PL 16033/0001 Behring DTP vaccine injection'

  Chiron Behring Gmbh and Co.

  Granted

  13 August 1997

  PL 16033/0004 Chiron Behring adsorbed tetanus vaccine

  Chiron Behring Gmbh and Co.

  Granted

  21 January 1998

  PL 16033/0005 Chiron Behring adsorbed diphtheria and tetanus vaccine'

  Chiron Behring Gmbh and Co.

  Granted

  21 January 1998

  PL 06745/0079 ACT-H1B DTP D.C. vaccine injection'

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  17 January 1997

  EM 04560/0009 Tritanrix-HB vaccine injection-3ml monodose vial

  Smithkline Beecham Biological SA

  Granted

  19 July 1996

  EM 04560/0010 Tritanrix HEPB vaccine injection-10ml multidose vial

  Smithkline Beecham Biological SA

  Granted

  19 July 1996

  PL 15747/0003 Epaxal berna injection 500 RIA

  Istituto Sieroterapico Berna

  Granted

  14 December 1999

  PL 06745/0095 Pasteur Merieux MSD inactivated influenza vaccine split virion injection

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  23 March 1998

  PL 06745/0105 Pasteur Merieux MSD inactivated split virion influenza vaccine

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  11 June 1999

  PL 0003/0312 tetanus vaccine BP in simple solution TET/VAC

  The Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Cancelled

  21 February 1994

  PL 00025/0295 H-B Vax II Paediatric vaccine 5ug hepatitis B surface antig

  Merck Sharp and Dohme Lid.

  Cancelled

  14 December 1993

  PL 00025/0320 HB-VAX II vaccine injection 40mcg/ml

  Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd.

  Cancelled

  23 October 1997

  PL 06745/0045 TETAVAX vaccine BP Pasteur Merieux

  Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd.

  Granted

  30 November 1993

  PL 06745/0057 MFV-JECT vaccine injection

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  10 August 1993

  PL 06745/0060 MFV-JECT

  Pasteur Merieux MSD Ltd.

  Cancelled

  8 August 1994

  1 Has been/is used as part of the childhood immunisation schedule and the vaccine has been centrally purchased by Department of Health.

  Note:

  All other vaccines are non-routine

  Dudley Group of Hospitals
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the periods of time patients have to wait for beds in the accident and emergency department and medical assessment unit of the Dudley Group of Hospitals. [9271

  Yvette Cooper
  The data for most recent period, March to May 2001, show that patients in the accident and emergency department waited for the following periods for admission in percentage terms:

  percentage

  Admitted within two hours

  85.9

  Admitted two to four hours

  6.4

  Admitted over four hours

  7.7

  Source:

  The Dudley Group of Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  The Medical Assessment Unit does not record data on patients waiting for admission as patients are frequently discharged home, or to other types of care, as well as being admitted to hospital.

  A combination of continued emergency pressures, industrial action and delayed discharges have contributed to the current pressure on services, including length of wait in the accident and emergency department.

  However, the industrial action ended on 22 May 2001, and in regard to delayed discharges, Dudley Health Authority has recently identified £100,000 of non-recurrent funds to alleviate immediate pressures in the
  148W
  short term. The local health and social services agencies are involved in discussions to seek solutions for medium to longer term.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services at Chorley and South Ribble District General Hospital. [1087]

  Mr. Hutton
  The north-west region has received a capital funding allocation of £1.248 million in 2001–02, to commission 20 new haemodialysis stations and treat at least 80 additional patients. The Lancashire and South Cumbria zone has submitted a proposal to establish a 12-station facility at Chorley and South Ribble District General Hospital; this is one of three bids from across the region and a national decision is expected shortly.

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals in Reading in May 1997; how many there are now; and how many are forecast for June 2004. [1605]

  Ms Blears
  Bed statistics are collected by National Health Service trusts, not by individual hospital sites. Figures on the average daily number of beds for each NHS trust are published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy: England", copies of which are in the Library.

  Forecast figures at trust/health authority level are not collected centrally. The NHS Plan states an increase of 2,100 general and acute beds for England by 2004.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds were available in the NHS in England in(a) May 1997 and (b) June 2001; and how many are forecast for June 2004.[1607]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the format requested. We do not have bed availability data for specific dates as the returns are made on a financial year basis.

  The latest released figures are for the year 1999–2000. Figures on the average daily number of available acute beds in England are available in the annual publication "Bed availability and occupancy—England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The National Health Service Plan states an increase of 2,100 general and acute beds for England by 2004.

  NHS Trusts (Discretionary Capital)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allocation has been made for discretionary capital for each NHS trust in the eastern region in(a) the current financial year and (b) in 1999–2000. [1481]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Approved capital schemes for trusts in eastern region

  £000

  Trust

  1999–2000

  2001–02

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  9,513

  1,369

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  462

  14,111

  Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1,860

  Bedford and Luton Community NHS Trust

  —

  1,198

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  568

  —

  Lifespan Healthcare NHS Trust

  848

  —

  Local Health Partnerships NHS Trust

  400

  —

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,361

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,135

  New Possibilities NHS Trust

  1,620

  2,290

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1,825

  Mid Essex Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  18

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  —

  1,764

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  3,272

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  900

  Southend Community NHS Trust

  1,710

  —

  West Hens Community Health NHS Trust

  1,200

  —

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  567

  2,175

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  1,432

  Source:

  NHS Executive Eastern Figures

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision of convalescent and respite beds and the maintenance of cottage hospitals; and to what extent his policy is expressed by targets and guidance to health authorities. [1650]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: Intermediate care is a key part of the Government's programme to promote independence, particularly for older people. The NHS Plan set a target of 5,000 extra intermediate care beds by 2003–04, some of which will
  150W
  be in community hospitals. The Plan also set a target for extending carers' respite services, benefiting a further 75,000 carers, and those they care for, by 2003–04.

  National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 75W, how much time will be allowed for public consultation following the publication of the Government's proposals for the future of the national cardiothoracic transplant service; and what period of time he estimates will be needed between a final decision on the location of the national transplant units and implementation in April 2002. [1848]

  Mr. Hutton
  People and organisations will be allowed 12 weeks to comment on the document setting out our proposals for the future of the national cardiothoracic transplant service. Once the final decision on the site of the fourth centre has been taken, all reasonable steps will be taken to make the necessary changes to the service by April 2002.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate the role of health visitors. [1360]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to include health visitors on the Nursing and Midwifery Council; and if he will make a statement. [1854]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health visitors will continue to be regulated as part of the nursing and midwifery professions. The draft legislation establishing the new Nursing and Midwifery Council recognises their special contribution to public health and contains several safeguards for health visiting. Health visitors will have a separate register, protection of their professional title and be guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and midwives, and from each United Kingdom country.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review of student nurse methods of support, including bursaries, is expected to be completed and reported. [1356]

  Mr. Hutton
  Officials undertook a review of support arrangements for National Health Service funded students last year. As a result Ministers considered a range of options for change to the existing arrangements, taking full account of representations received from students, their representative bodies and others. The 10.4 per cent. across-the-board increase in the basic rate of bursary, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced shortly after the Budget, was one of the outcomes of the review of student support. It is the biggest increase in bursaries since their introduction in the late 1980s and provides diploma level students (who make up the majority of the student nurse population) with an extra £500 per year.
  151W
  Further bursary changes will come into effect in September providing extra help with accommodation and travel expenses for students attending practice placements.

  Ministers continue to take a close interest in the effective operation of student support arrangements.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his discussions with care providers regarding the proposals contained in "Fit for the Future?". [1358]

  Jacqui Smith
  The "Fit for the Future?" consultation exercise finished on 21 January 2000 and the finalised National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People were published on 2 March this year. These standards were extensively consulted on and my hon. Friend the Minister of State met with providers and their representatives on several occasions to discuss the proposals, in addition to the meetings and correspondence dealt with by officials.

  In setting these standards we listened to the concerns of providers and produced a sensible set of standards that give providers a reasonable time to adapt, and achieved the support of national organisations representing consumers and providers. We made a number of specific changes to the proposed standards in response to the concerns raised in the comments we received. I am confident that these decisions will ensure that any improvements in the quality of care homes necessary will be achieved smoothly, and that stability in the care homes sector and sufficient capacity is maintained while changes are made.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of care homes that have closed over the last year, by health authority area, and estimate the reduction in care places accordingly. [1357]

  Jacqui Smith
  Around 1,500 residential care homes for adults and 360 private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics in England closed during the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. However, it should be noted that during the same period, there were around 1,900 new registrations of residential care homes and 350 of nursing care homes. Information is not available centrally on the number of care places associated with closures or new registrations. Details of closures or new registrations by local and health authority area are available in the report entitled 'Activity, workload and resources of local authority, health authority and joint inspection units: summary results of a survey in England 1999ߝ2000' which was published on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/regandinspect2.htm.

  Medical Careers (Women)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the career structures of women in medicine. [1782]

  Mr. Hutton
  We value highly the contribution women make to medicine, and are already committed to providing the necessary support to assist them in combining work with home life. The Improved Working Lives Standard sets a model of supportive and flexible employment practice. National Health Service organisations will be 152W
  required to achieve accreditation against the Standard by April 2003, demonstrating that they are improving the working lives of staff.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are taking to(a) improve hospital hygiene and (b) reduce hospital-acquired infection. [1788]

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving hygiene in hospitals; and how many hospitals have been visited by the Commission for Health Improvement in 2001. [2018]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan set out how we intended to improve standards of cleanliness and hygiene in National Health Service hospitals. A clean hospitals programme was launched in 2000, when £31.9 million was allocated directly to NHS trusts to begin a series of sustainable improvements to hospital cleanliness and the broader patient environment. Patient environment action teams (PEAT) were established to assess NHS trusts against 19 elements which define the patient environment. These elements include entrances and reception areas, visitors' and ward toilets, and cleanliness and decoration throughout the hospital. PEAT teams made two assessment visits. The first was to "spot check" the quality of the patient environment and to assess what needed to be done to raise standards; the second was to evaluate the improvements made and to determine whether the hospital had been successful in bringing standards to a higher level.

  The NHS has made substantial progress since the assessments were completed, and major improvements in levels of cleanliness have been made in a relatively short space of time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the results of the clean hospitals programme in a press release on 10 April 2001. The official report has now been published, showing that the percentage of hospitals now showing a good or acceptable standard of cleanliness is over 93 per cent. The tangible improvements that the NHS has achieved in the short-term are the basis for sustainable year-on-year improvements in the future. We will continue to support NHS trusts in raising standards further. A further allocation of £30 million has been provided to allow NHS trusts to build upon the positive outcomes achieved to date, and ensure a clean hospital environment in the future.

  The NHS Plan states that the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) will monitor and report on standards of cleanliness in hospitals. CHI and NHS Estates are currently discussing how best to monitor progress and ensure that hospitals continue to maintain acceptable standards of cleanliness.

  Trust chief executives are responsible for ensuring that there are high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals. From April 2001, all NHS trusts are required to comply with the new National Standards of Cleanliness for the NHS. These new standards form part of the Performance Assessment Framework and will ensure that higher standards are achieved and maintained in the future.
  153W
  It is a core requirement for NHS organisations to have effective systems in place to prevent and control hospital acquired infection (HAI). Evidence-based multi-professional guidelines for the prevention of HAI, commissioned by the Department, were published in January 2001. Additionally, all hospitals have been required to take part in national surveillance of HAI from April 2001 and data will be published from April 2002.

  The Commission for Health Improvement has visited 34 hospitals between 1 January and 29 June 2001.

  PFI Schemes (NHS)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS Private Finance Initiative schemes have been selected to pilot the management of NHS ancillary staff from the private sector. [2213]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pilot schemes, whereby ancillary services staff could retain their National Health Service employment terms but be managed by the private sector, are being conducted at three private finance initiative projects currently in procurement. These are at Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust, South West London Community NHS Trust (Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton) and Havering Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Prozac
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the development of suicidal tendencies in patients taking Prozac; if he will instruct the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines to review this matter; and if he will make a statement. [1853]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not commissioned any recent research into the area of suicidal tendencies with Prozac.

  As with all medicines the safety of Prozac is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent expert advisory body, the
  154W
  Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). In June 2001, the CSM considered the available data, including recent research on the issue, and concluded that study data do not support an association between fluoxetine and suicidal behaviour. However, due to the anecdotal reports of suicidal behaviour associated with fluoxetine, the CSM recommended that the issue should be kept under review and doctors and patients should be warned to be vigilant for suicidal thoughts and behaviour in the early stages of treatment. Patient information for Prozac, and that of other medicines in this class has been amended to include wording to this effect.

  This issue is being closely monitored by the MCA and will be further reviewed by the CSM in July 2001.

  Elective Procedures
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective procedures have been cancelled by each hospital trust in the south-east region since 1 January 2000. [1653]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect information in the format requested. The Department collects information on the number of elective operations cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons, and breaches of the standard to admit patients within one month following such cancellations. Figures are collected on a quarterly basis at health authority level and routinely placed in the Library. The latest figures cover the five quarters up to Quarter 4 (January to March 2001) of the 2000–01 financial year.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the children's hospices in England indicating for each the(a) level of Government money provided for running costs and (b) proportion of each hospice's total annual running costs the Government grant represents. [1842]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

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

Lord Temple-Morris
Peter Temple-Morris, Esquire, having been created Baron Temple-Morris, of Llandaff in the County of South Glamorgan and of Leominster in the County of Herefordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Mostyn and the Lord Richard.

Lord Grocott
Bruce Joseph Grocott, Esquire, having been created Baron Grocott, of Telford in the County of Shropshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Evans of Parkside and the Baroness Boothroyd.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Turkey: Human Rights
2.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the Turkey Accession Partnership formally agreed between Turkey and the European Union, what commitment is required of Turkey to improve its human rights record and, in particular, its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the EU/Turkey Accession Partnership is an important step forward in Turkey's EU candidature. It makes clear the wide range of political and human rights reforms that Turkey will have to carry out in order to meet the Copenhagen political criteria, including reforms related to freedom of conscience and of expression. We fully support Turkey's EU candidature and look forward to early implementation of the reforms set out in the accession partnership and in Turkey's own national programme.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the ancient Christian communities of Tur Abdin and of the Phanar, as well as the newer communities of Izmir and Istanbul, are faring? Is there any improvement in their condition?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, officials from our embassy are in touch with all the Christian communities which the right reverend Prelate has mentioned. They are not only in touch; they have visited them all. We have raised individual
766
cases where we have felt that there has been harassment of those communities in the past. We welcome the Turkish Prime Minister's recent statement instructing public bodies to ensure that the Syrian Orthodox communities' rights are respected. We look forward to continued progress by the Turkish authorities in bringing about the necessary reforms to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria.
I am assured that our officials stand ready co take up particular cases which are brought to their attention. We have done so in the past with a measure of modest success.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that in the European Court of Human Rights there have been 160 findings against Turkey, plus 30 friendly settlements; and that a further 2,700 cases are pending consideration by the court? Is it the requirement of the European Union that Turkey will comply fully with the judgments of the European Court, including the return of 300,000 people who were displaced from their villages in the south-east? Has the noble Baroness also noted the pending case of the Kurdish MPs who were sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for thought crime? Is it not essential that those MPs should be released if Turkey is to bear any resemblance to a genuine parliamentary democracy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, on the latter point, those who have been properly, democratically elected should expect to enjoy the freedoms that we would expect elsewhere in the European Union if a candidature is to go forward. Of course, we expect compliance with the courts.
It is worth pointing out that under the Copenhagen criteria we are talking about a wide spectrum of issues. The right reverend Prelate concentrated on freedom of religion and of expression. But there are issues about prison conditions and freedom of expression and association which we might associate rather more with political life in Turkey. We expect Turkey to make progress on these issues. We shall have a further opportunity of assessing the progress made when the European Commission is able to consider what has happened this year in Turkey's progress on these matters. It is due to do so in November.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Turkish Government are currently in the process of considering a large number of constitutional and legal changes? Will the noble Baroness join me in congratulating the Turkish Government and in encouraging them to press ahead with those reforms?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important that we look not only at the demands made on Turkey by the accession partnership, but also at Turkey's response, contained in its national programme for the adoption of the acquis, which I mentioned in my initial Answer to the right reverend Prelate. Turkey is making some of the reforms that the noble Lord referred to. The issue is whether those

767
reforms are making a real difference on the ground. That difference will have to be assessed when the opportunity arises in November this year.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the defence of Europe depends to some extent on Turkey, which is surrounded by most of the world's potential crisis points. Will the Minister assure us that Turkey will have a proper part to play in the new rapid reaction force and the new defence arrangements for Europe and will not feel excluded or humiliated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord says about Turkey's contribution to the security of the region. I also join him in the emphasis that he puts on Turkey's value as a partner in NATO. Together with all the other NATO allies, Turkey signed up to supporting the ESDP at the alliance's 1999 Washington summit. To that end, we are working with Turkey to gain agreement to proceed with the detailed implementation of the Washington summit decisions. We believe that the ESDP will enable Turkey to work effectively with the EU on defence matters, but the noble Lord is right—and I do not disguise the fact—that there is a great deal still to discuss. Those discussions are progressing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned prisons. Does she accept that there are 10,000 political prisoners in Turkey, many of whom were convicted before military tribunals? Will the Government do their best to ensure that there is detailed monitoring of the change from communal cells to individual cells because of the strong fears of victimisation as a result of the change of regime?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we remain concerned about the conditions in Turkey's prisons. We are concerned, for example, about the recent arrest of 18 women and one man for making allegations about torture, and particularly about rape, during periods when they were in custody. That has worrying implications. We continue to monitor that case and other cases of alleged abuse in Turkish prisons. The noble Lord makes a point about military courts. It is important to note that the accession partnership urges Turkey to align the constitutional role of the national security council as an advisory body to the government in accordance with the practice of other EU member states. By pressing forward on that point, we are looking at the role of the military in Turkish courts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, who decides whether Turkey has met the Copenhagen requirements and by what means will this country be able to ensure that they are met?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is an annual assessment of how Turkey is complying with the detailed specifications put forward
768
in the partnership agreement. That is done every year in November. It will be done again this November. It will be a matter for the Commission in the first place—I look to my officials on that point—which will then advise member states. It is important to remember that the Copenhagen political criteria are the starting point for all the candidates for EU membership. In that respect, Turkey is no different. Turkey is not being asked to cross any particular hurdle that current EU members or other states currently going through the acquis process have not had to cross. The annual assessment is the important point.

Agriculture
2.57 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means they intend to restore profitability to British agriculture.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, these are difficult times for British agriculture and the Government are working hard to help the industry tackle the challenges that it faces. We have already introduced measures worth £1.35 billion. However, in addition to the difficult process of recovery from foot and mouth disease, further changes will be necessary in farming and the food chain and on the framework of the CAP to achieve a sustainable long-term future. The Government will shortly announce a policy commission on the future of food and farming.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that I have an interest in this matter as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. I thank the Minister for that reasonably frank Answer. What hope can he give us that his new department, which brings together the interests of agriculture and the environment in a specific way, will be more successful than the previous two departments in producing initiatives that are friendly to agriculture and the environment? Does he accept that, with the current crisis in the farming industry, there is a real need to sell to farmers the importance of biodiversity and environmental improvement as part of agriculture moving forward? Finally, I remind the Minister that the acronym of his new department is DEFRA, which in Welsh means "wake up"—a good motto for the new department.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have taken linguistic advice from my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who tells me that that is not an entirely correct transposition from the Welsh. However, for those who wish to think that it is, I believe that DEFRA will provide a clarion call for a change in our approach to rural development and the role of agriculture within that. The department places agriculture and food production within the totality of

769
the food chain and horizontally within the whole remit of rural development. In addition, it places it clearly in the areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred.
There is a requirement for agriculture to observe more broadly the needs of the environment and, in particular, the interests of biodiversity and, therefore, the future prosperity and beauty of our countryside. I believe that the creation of our department makes for a new departure in that respect.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a serious negative cost to British agriculture arises from this country remaining outside the European single currency? Will he therefore suggest to our mutual right honourable friend Mr Gordon Brown that he bears that seriously in mind when he makes his evaluation of the five economic tests for membership?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor is aware of the implications for agriculture, as he is of those relating to the rest of the British economy. He would not expect me to pronounce any new policy in relation to the euro here today. However, the decline of the euro against sterling has coincided with a drop in farm incomes. There has been a 20 per cent decline in the value of the euro against the pound over the period 1995–99, which has seen a serious squeeze on farm incomes. That is undoubtedly part of the issue. Nevertheless, the industry must address longer-term structural and world price issues, quite apart from our relationship with the euro and the CAP.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one method by which to restore business viability to many small farms would be the prompt payment of compensation in respect of foot and mouth disease? Can he offer farmers any good news about the acceleration of that process, which is taking many months and causing widespread frustration, particularly to small farmers in the hill areas of this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that there is a problem, as the noble Lord indicates. However, to say that the compensation process is taking many months is an exaggeration. We have a target for the payment of compensation, both for foot and mouth disease and for the welfare disposal scheme, of 21 days. In general, we have not met that 21-day target, but the average payment has been made between 30 and 40 days. That period is reducing and the process is now speeding up substantially as the number of cases diminishes. I recognise that there has been a problem. We are doing our best administratively to tackle it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend remind your Lordships of the scale of agricultural subsidy in this country? Noble Lords opposite used to believe in the free market but no longer do so. Why remotely should the Government be responsible for restoring
770
the profitability of any one sector of the economy? In a modern market economy it is required that the sector itself should put its house in order and that it should not expect further handouts from governments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as ever, my noble friend Lord Peston has impeccable logic. However, the position of agriculture in our society and in our economy has been recognised by successive governments as being in some ways a special case. Clearly the profitability and marketability of the produce of agriculture is an important dimension. However, the Government must also take account of the role that agriculture plays in the rural economy as a whole and, indeed, in the rural landscape. It encourages, for example, visitors to the countryside and makes its contribution via tourism to the prosperity of the countryside more generally. Therefore, agriculture is perhaps in the long run no different from other industries, but the context in which it operates requires special government attention.
Earl Peel: My Lords, on that basis the long-term good of agriculture can be sorted out only if the short term is addressed, and in view of the fact that livestock markets are now closed, can the Minister tell the House how farmers are going to dispose of accumulated stock come this autumn? That will certainly have a direct effect on the cash flow and business interests of the farms in question. An animal welfare problem will also arise because, as grass begins to run out, how on earth will farmers feed their stock if they cannot use the livestock markets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that most people within the agriculture sector—I am sure that this applies to the noble Earl—recognise that the priority must be to defeat the disease. Inevitably, that means that there will continue to be some severe restrictions on movement and on livestock markets through to the autumn. I accept that that will cause significant problems, in particular for sheep farmers but also for others, which will need to be addressed by a coherent strategy. Defeating the disease is the first priority, and ensuring that there are no welfare problems is the second. But, in the long run, we must move to a market situation. Therefore, whatever action we take in relation to the dispersal and disposal of stock in the autumn must also be conducive to a long-term, more balanced market situation. We have not reached that stage yet.

Social Care for the Elderly and Disabled
3.5 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking on the 15 recommendations of the King's Fund inquiry into care and support services for old and disabled people.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we welcome the publication of the King's Fund report, Future Imperfect, which contributes to the important debate about how to improve social services. We are already working with local councils and other agencies to raise standards across social care. In addition, the Department of Health is funding a national recruitment campaign for social care staff. We have commissioned a national training strategy and are providing funding of £2 million to help to implement it this year.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. Is he aware that the increase from 3 to 3.5 per cent is welcome but that it is hopelessly inadequate because we now have new evidence about the reality? The report spells out very clearly the fact that the system of care and support for old and disabled people is in what it calls a "developing crisis". That means that many thousands, or perhaps millions, of vulnerable people are suffering, and many more will suffer unless the crisis is dealt with.
The report suggests an increase not of 3 or 3.5 per cent but of 30 per cent. It argues its case very cogently and in great documentary detail. Is it not the case that the Government have a choice: they can either rubbish the report and explain why they do so, or they can accept it and act accordingly.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we do not want to rubbish the report because we consider that it contains many sound and important points, not least the affirmation of the importance of properly restructured and funded social care services for many people in Britain. Since 1997, in real terms government have increased funding in social care services by 15 per cent, not the 3 per cent referred to. Funding will increase again in real terms for each of the next two years by 3.5 per cent. When all that investment is in place, it will amount to some £1 billion extra per annum for care services.
Money alone is necessary but not sufficient. Therefore, in addition, the Department of Health has established a major programme of service modification to try to improve the way in which that funding is best used to deliver the outcomes that the public want.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister agree that person-centred services for people with learning disabilities will be possible only if they are actively supported by staff who have been well trained under the new learning disability active framework, along the lines emphasised in the King's Fund inquiry?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord's point about the crucial place that training plays in the improvement of social care services. More than 1 million individuals, together, of course, with the carers, provide unpaid support to those in need. Therefore, the department understands that the development of a comprehensive improvement in training and support for staff is critical. A better induction programme is being introduced; the development of care NVQs is taking place; £2 million
772
is being put in place this year to implement a training strategy; and, as noble Lords will be aware, some £47 million is already made available each year through social services grant to support training. Over and above that, the progressive registration of all social care staff will take place to try to ensure that not only does the training take place but that it has the effect and impact that we hope for.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a devastating report and that the King's Fund does not lightly speak of impending catastrophe? Does he also accept that this sector is dangerously under-funded? It cannot be right that two-thirds of paid carers have inadequate or no qualifications relating to their work. If the new care trusts, which we discussed before the general election, are to work, is it not vital that they are adequately funded with parity between the health sector and the social services side, so that the elderly and disabled do not lose out yet again?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I re-emphasise that the report is not a devastating indictment of where we are; it is a statement of where we want to be and it stresses the importance of getting there. In many respects, the report's recommendations mirror what the Government are already putting into practice. It acknowledges that nobody knows for certain the exact level of financial resources that is needed in this sector. The level of funding that the Government have already contributed has to be put to good use and an eye has to be kept on the possibility that further gaps may open in future.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness's second point, which was about qualifications. The workforce has often been undervalued, under-trained and under-supported, although it provides some of the most important social care functions in society. It should receive the priority and attention that it needs. The situation has been neglected for too long. The Government stand four-square with the noble Baroness on that matter.
With regard to health and social services, the Government strongly concur that it is crucial that the two arms of government continue to focus their efforts so that the public do not suffer from the difficulties that are associated with making separate agencies work. I am certain that the Government will continue to emphasise that in the coming months and years.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I warmly endorse the well-merited welcome for the appointment of my noble friend to the Front Bench. Can he say any more today on direct payments, especially for older and severely disabled people; or about expanding the training of the workforce for providing social care for them?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I shall be brief. The Government strongly support the extension of direct payments. In many cases people themselves know what is best for

773
them. The principle of trying to put more power in the hands of the public in relation to the support that they need seems to be right. That is why the provisions were extended also to cover Children's Act services; that is also why, from 2002, local authorities will be obliged to offer greater freedom to people who wish to take direct payments. The evidence so far is that direct payments are a success story. They are popular with the public and research evidence seems to demonstrate that they are highly effective.

Manufacturing Industry
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they think necessary to reverse the contraction in output of the manufacturing sector of industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the recent weakening in manufacturing output reflects the world economic slowdown and follows a previous period of growth. The platform of economic stability that the Government have established, together with our policies to foster enterprise and to help firms to innovate and grow, are the best way to secure the long-term success of the UK's manufacturing sector.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Have the Government been worried by the falling index of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply—a reliable guide—which has been recording this contraction? Will they seek to alleviate the difficulties by, for example, reducing further the burden that is imposed on energy-intensive firms through the climate change levy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the current pattern of manufacturing is not confined to the UK. The US has experienced seven consecutive months of decline in manufacturing output and there are signs in France and Germany of stagnation. It will be very difficult for our manufacturing industry to be totally removed from that. We also need to be clear about what the exact position is. Although we are possibly dealing with a worsening situation, and although manufacturing output fell by 1.1 per cent in the three months to April, the figure was up by 0.6 per cent compared with the previous year. It is not totally an unfortunate situation. We are worried whenever there is a decline in manufacturing output and we are trying to create all the conditions to make it possible for companies to grow and innovate.
The climate change levy is a key element in our national climate change programme. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the industry's competitiveness is protected through the recycling of all revenues to business via reduced employer national
774
insurance contributions and the 80 per cent discount for energy-intensive sectors that sign up to or deliver energy savings targets. Although there may be specific cases in which there are difficulties, overall the climate change levy is neutral so far as industry is concerned.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, given the huge international problems in manufacturing industry, does the Minister accept that it would be more sensible to concede that there is virtually nothing that the UK Government can do on their own to reverse the contraction in the UK's manufacturing sector?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in relation to manufacturing world-wide, the figures for all developed countries have declined during the past 10 years from about 30 per cent of GDP to 20 per cent. There are good reasons for that, and I am sure that all noble Lords are well aware of them. However, questions are raised when output increases, as it has done in this country, and there is a decline in the employment of labour because productivity has been increasing. There are sections of industry that are continuing to expand and to do extremely well. In the period 1995–2000, the engineering and allied industries increased their output by some 15 per cent. As in many other parts of industry, the high-tech end is doing well but the low-tech part, which is in competition with low-wage countries, is in difficulty. We need to create an environment in which all companies can innovate and deal with competition.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the climate change levy is indeed causing difficulty for some of our industries, particularly the horticultural industry? In view of the earlier response by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the profitability of our farmers, does the Minister also accept that if we insist on creating extra costs and burdens, the question is not whether farmers will be profitable but whether they will continue to exist?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I made it clear earlier that all the money that is raised through the climate change levy is recycled to industry. Overall, therefore, the levy does not affect competitiveness.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in reality the Government have three options in this context? The first option—I suspect that after this afternoon's Question Time we should call it "Lord Peston's option"—is to do nothing on the grounds that the decline in manufacturing industry is nothing to do with Her Majesty's Government. The second option is to take the view that one might do something to try to encourage growth in the US and European economies, and thereby take up the slack in the UK's manufacturing output. The third option is to manufacture the exchange rate down, particularly against the European currencies. If the Minister agrees that those are the three options, which one will the Government follow? If he thinks that there is another option, what is it, and what will he do about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are trying to create the right conditions for manufacturing industry to innovate and grow. They will do all that they can in terms of macroeconomic stability and the encouragement and application of science and technology. They will not return to the policies of boom and bust or pretend that they can determine the level of manufacturing in the economy. They cannot and will not do that in these circumstances. They will continue to do all that they can to create the conditions, in terms of macroeconomic stability, in which industry can grow and innovate. Of the noble Lord's three options, it is the second, rather than the third or the first, that is relevant.

Human Rights: Select Committee
3.20 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
To consider:
(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);
To report to the House:
(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;
and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:
(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved.
and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Lester of Herne Hill,

L. Parekh,

776

B. Perry of Southwark,

B. Prashar,

B. Whitaker;

That the committee have power to agree with any committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out. —(The Chairman of Committees. )
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Law Commission, whose work—in a special joint project with the Land Registry—has led to this Bill, considers it the single largest project of law reform which it has ever undertaken. It is also one of the finest. For me it is a privilege to bring it before this House.
The Bill will have a direct impact on the lives of the millions of people who buy and sell property in England and Wales each year. It represents the culmination of the long process through which land registration has become the primary means of recording and guaranteeing title to land in England and Wales. It also marks a new departure, providing a framework for electronic conveyancing which, through comparatively minor alterations in the law, will change the way in which conveyancing services are provided and make a major contribution to the Government's determination to improve the house buying process.
The Bill will wholly replace the Land Registration Act 1925. It will lead to more land and more interests in land being protected by registration. Some valuable interests will for the first time be registrable voluntarily. The scope of compulsory registration will also be increased, in particular by bringing most leases, and therefore most commercial property transactions, within its reach. Commercial conveyancing must now use the cumbersome and complex unregistered law, and is excluded from the benefits and protections of registration, now and as they will be developed by the Bill. Extending registration will also enable the registry to improve the transparency of the property market by

777
publishing accurate and neutral information on prices and market trends. Such information will undoubtedly be widely welcomed.
For the first time, all land belonging to the Crown will become registrable, including land underlying territorial waters. What the register tells us about the land will be extended and improved, most notably by reducing the number and scope of interests which can impose burdens without appearing on the register. The benefits of the registered system will be extended. The procedures protecting the rights of third parties over land will be simplified and strengthened. The protection which registration offers to registered owners against squatters will be improved.
Those reforms and improvements alone would represent a formidable achievement. But in a few clauses, the Bill will also hugely increase the attractions of registration. It will open the way for radical changes in the way in which the formal documents required in conveyancing are prepared, in the quality and speed of the services which conveyancers are able to provide, and in the relationship between conveyancers and the Land Registry. That process will complete an IT evolution in which the Land Registry has been engaged for over a decade.
All registered titles and all the millions of supporting documents will be in computerised form by the end of 2003. Since 1992, the registry's customers have become increasingly used to on-line services. The registry now deals with approximately 400,000 transactions every month in this way. The latest significant development will come in the autumn, when the new National Land Information Service will provide a single electronic point of access to almost all the information, from a wide variety of sources, which conveyancers need.
The Bill will crown those developments by making it possible to execute and deliver the formal documents effecting dispositions of land or interests in land by electronic means. For buyers, that means transactions which are quicker, cheaper, and so less stressful.
Those two themes, of improving the register and developing electronic conveyancing, produce a single fundamental objective for the Bill; that is, that the register should be as complete and accurate a reflection of the state of the title of the land at any given time as is reasonably practical, so that it is possible to investigate title to land on-line, with the absolute minimum of additional inquiries and inspections.
Part 1 continues the register of titles. The main measures to improve the inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of the register are in Parts 2 and 3, dealing with the first entry of land, or an interest in land, on to the register, and with subsequent transactions, respectively. Together they tackle the problem that the Land Registry is currently not complete, either geographically or in terms of the interests it records.
Part 2 describes when unregistered land can or must be registered, and offers better protection for people with legitimate interests in knowing when land will be
778
added to the register. The most important change to the provisions governing compulsory first registration is that the length of leases subject to compulsory registration will be reduced, from leases granted for over 21 years to those granted for over seven years. The Lord Chancellor also is given powers to change the triggers for compulsory registration. The most likely use of that power is to reduce further the length of leases required to be registered.
Overriding interests are a problematic aspect of the current law. They bind any person who acquires an interest in registered land, whether on first registration or on a subsequent registrable disposition, but do riot need to be—and in some cases cannot be—registered. They cover a significant range of interests, including many easements, leases granted for 21 years or less, and an array of other interests such as manorial rights, which may be both obscure and onerous. They are a serious obstacle to the objective of making the register as complete a record of the title as can be.
The Bill reshapes the law, seeking to restrict such interests as far as possible, in relation to first registration, and to subsequent dealings with the land. Interests should override only when it is unreasonable to expect them to be protected in the register. Such interests are defined more narrowly in the Bill. Others are excluded. Some of the more obscure interests will cease to be automatically protected if not registered within 10 years.
Part 3 deals with land which is already on the register. It lists the transactions with registered land which transfer or create a legal estate and which should be completed by registration. As with first registration, a new requirement to register leases granted for more than seven years is introduced, with a power to reduce that period still further. Parts 4, 5 and 6 improve and strengthen the procedures of registration.
Part 7 makes provision for some important special cases for registration. The most novel relate to Crown lands, enabling the Crown to register all of its land, so that all of it has the benefits of appearing in the register.
Part 8 of the Bill is one of the shortest parts, but is undoubtedly the one which will effect the greatest changes. The Bill does not, and should not, aim to set out in detail how full electronic conveyancing should work. Instead, it provides a framework for a system which will meet the needs of customers, conveyancers and the registry; but which will be capable of being adapted and modernised quickly as electronic conveyancing and electronic commerce generally develop.
The Land Registry has now begun an intensive campaign of consultation with conveyancers, and with all the other people involved in buying and selling property. That is necessary because conveyancers themselves must work with the systems. They must therefore not only meet the registry's requirements, but those of a modern conveyancing practice. Conveyancers will be authorised to make direct changes in the register itself. The use of special computer systems to prepare documents will itself be

779
quicker and cheaper than paper systems. It will also permit automatic checks with the Land Registry so that possible errors can be identified at an early stage, not, as all too often now, only at the end.
Documents will also be approved and take effect simultaneously. The new arrangements will wholly eliminate the delay which now inevitably occurs between the conveyancer sending paper documents to the registry and their entry in the register, and the problems that delay creates.
Electronic conveyancing will also foster the development of a system of electronic fund transfer that will help those involved to tackle the problems of delay and uncertainty in that part of the process. Legislative provision for that system is not necessary.
The introduction of electronic conveyancing will be progressive, starting with the simpler conveyancing transactions, and adding more complex ones as conveyancers become used to the network. The Bill provides, however, a power for its use eventually to be made compulsory for some or all transactions, because some of the advantages of electronic conveyancing will only be maximised when conveyancing is exclusively electronic.
The example which is perhaps of most immediate interest to home buyers and sellers will be that an electronic network for land registration would make chains of transactions transparent, identifying which participants are falling behind the rest so that they can be encouraged to catch up. Chain delays produce much of the slowness and stressfulness now inherent in house buying. Anything which reduces that must obviously be welcome. Equally obviously, if only one transaction in a chain is being managed on paper rather than electronically, the transparency is muddied and the advantages of the new capacity diminished.
There are therefore real practical advantages in making electronic conveyancing universal. That cannot be a realistic option until it has become the usual method of registered conveyancing. The Bill requires the Lord Chancellor to consult before making electronic conveyancing compulsory, and I would wish to do so on a very wide basis. The Land Registry must ensure that those who wish to undertake their own conveyancing without employing a solicitor or licensed conveyancer are able to undertake transactions in electronic form.
Part 9 extends the protection against adverse possession given to owners by registration. The principle should be that where title is registered the basis of title should primarily be the fact of registration. Currently title rests ultimately on possession. Put at its shortest, anyone who takes possession of land acquires a possessory title. If that individual holds on to it for the length of the relevant limitation period, currently 12 years, he cannot be shifted. That may be appropriate within the inherently relative titles of unregistered conveyancing but seriously undermines the certainty which registration aims to provide.
780
The current law has undoubtedly given rise to a number of abuses and straightforward land theft. It does, however, enable some of the problems that occur with land to be managed. The public interest benefits if land held by an owner who takes no interest in it can be returned to economic use. Even within the registered system there is scope for reasonable doubt as to where boundaries lie. For example, it is by no means uncommon for the fences and other partitions in a newly developed estate to be put up in places which differ from those shown on the register. Due account has to be taken of those who have perfectly reasonably occupied and spent money on land which they thought was theirs. Part 9 sets out a package which balances the competing interests involved.
Parts 10 and 11 complete the provisions relating to the administration of the Land Registry. The most significant change from the current arrangements is the establishment of a new and independent judicial officer to determine registration disputes between individuals ensuring that the arrangements are wholly compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Part 12 of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous and general provisions to ensure the effective operation of the Bill.
I began by referring to the scale of the project which the Law Commission and the Land Registry had undertaken. Their proposals were considerably refined and improved in the light of the responses to the major consultation paper published in 1998 and in the discussions and seminars which followed. They represent an achievement of the highest order. It is only right to place on record my gratitude for that achievement to the Law Commissioner responsible for it, Mr Charles Harpum, whose period at the commission has recently concluded, and the distinguished parliamentary counsel seconded to the commission with whom Mr Harpum has worked throughout.
Along with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, the Bill forms part of a comprehensive programme for the delivery of a thoroughgoing modernisation in registration law and in conveyancing services. It is the best kind of law reform: clarifying principles, reforming practices and making the law simpler and more accessible. But above all this is a practical Bill. It will make home buying and selling quicker, simpler and cheaper and will make a real difference to people's lives.
I have praised the quality of the Bill and the work of the Law Commission and Land Registry that lies behind it. In doing so, I do not imply that the Bill is beyond improvement. We on the Government side will welcome and consider with an open mind any recommendations by way of amendment or otherwise that are made for the improvement of this high quality Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have come to expect nothing less than a clear exposition of a Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Today is no exception. We must all be grateful for the clear way in which he took us through this useful measure. I give the Bill a warm welcome.
First, I must declare my interest as a surveyor. I declare the interests of all my various friends who are surveyors or property developers and those who have an interest in land as farmers or estate owners. I hereby declare any other interests that could be remotely connected to my interest in land and property. I hope I have covered that point.
I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Bill will be a major benefit to all those involved either professionally, as I am, in the buying and selling of commercial and residential property, or those who are the clients buying and selling their properties through agents. The Bill will undoubtedly speed up that process and is a constructive way to improve it. The Bill is much more constructive than the seriously flawed Homes Bill, which I am glad to say did not reach the statute book in the last Session. That Bill had some good points. However, had it been enacted, the situation would have been made considerably worse.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Bill really covered two points: that is; the modernisation of the system of land registration—about 80 per cent of the land in England and Wales is already registered—and the introduction of electronic conveyancing. Before continuing, I, too, add my thanks to the Land Registry. I have benefited from its good offices for the past 30 years, ever since I have been in property. One has come to expect a high standard from it and I do not think that I have ever been let down. The Land Registry has been extremely helpful and the solicitors whom one has used have undoubtedly benefited too.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor skipped over Clause 4, which is perhaps one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill, and refers to leases. A lease will now be compulsorily registrable if it is over seven years rather than if it is over 21 years. That is a fundamental change. There will be more bureaucracy and much extra work for those who benefit from such leases. Much extra cost will be involved. There will be more registration and that will open the scope for more areas.
That must be balanced against what the noble and learned Lord described as the need for greater transparency. I agree with that. The move is in the right direction but is by no means universally welcomed outside. The noble and learned Lord also referred to a trigger mechanism whereby the seven-year period could be reduced. If it is reduced to, say, three years, a number of agricultural tenancies could be brought within the ambit of the Bill. That will produce a great deal of extra work and complication for people in the agricultural sector. Much of the agricultural conveyancing and the leases are based on Ordnance Survey maps.
782
I welcome the appointment of the adjudicator. It is a novel and sensible idea. However, will the adjudicator decide the boundary disputes? If there is a boundary dispute in the Land Registry—if the two sides are firmly opposed and whatever mechanism is in place fails to resolve the matter—will the adjudicator determine it?
The next important point relates to Part 8, which deals with electronic conveyancing. I reiterate my welcome for it but would like to know the timescale for its introduction. I was pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord had to say, but the two schemes run in parallel. We are all used to the existing paper scheme and are increasingly becoming used to the electronic means. However, in order that there is complete fairness and no social exclusion for those who do not benefit from the e-commerce world, I hope that there will be a considerable period of overlap so that the two schemes can run in tandem.
Will the Government consider running a pilot project? There was a pilot project of the seller's pack, provided for in the Homes Bill, in Bristol. I criticised it because I did not believe that it was a good pilot project. The Government have carried out far better ones and I wonder whether, in case there are unforeseen glitches, a pilot scheme might he a good way forward. However, I agree that the legislation is the right way forward and that at the end of the day we should be using e-conveyancing and nothing else.
Also in relation to electronic conveyancing, there is no reference in the Bill to online auctioneering. That is an important issue for surveyors and I wonder how the Government propose to deal with it. We shall all be concerned to ensure that the appropriate security and authenticity measures are in place as regards electronic conveyancing and that false documents do not appear in the register.
My final point of concern relates to the Ordnance Survey maps which have always played an important part in transactions. We have always been able to rely on the maps which are attached to leases and conveyances. Will that be the case in the future? How will we work with the Ordnance Survey maps and the e-conveyancing?
The noble and learned Lord spoke of trying to speed up the process of house buying and referred to the question of chains. I agree that greater transparency of leases and conveyances by electronic means will achieve that. However, much of the slowness is due to the fact that people who are in chains are not honest about it. People have come to me and said, "I have sold my house", but they have not done so. They believe that they have and that they are cash purchasers, but they have sold it subject to contract or it is merely under offer. They are in a chain and perhaps have been told by the people buying their property that they too are cash buyers. A little more honesty would speed up the process.
I give the Bill a warm welcome. I want to explore certain matters in Committee, but I believe that it is a good step in the right direction.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's clear exposition of the Bill. In supporting it, I need to declare not exactly an interest in the terms your Lordships' House was debating yesterday but perhaps a particular axe which I am grinding. I was once a practising solicitor and now I am a mother trying to support two children in their 20s through the purchase of flats and houses of their own. I welcome the Bill, but then I would welcome anything which made the horrors of buying property easier. I know that the sellers' lot will also be eased but I am naturally somewhat obsessed by the problems of the buyers.
The introduction of registration was a giant blessing. I can remember as a young solicitor dealing with titles which were not registered. Indeed, in reading the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, I was surprised to discover that registration finally became compulsory over the whole of England and Wales only in 1990. The final extension to Crown property and to the various interests which can be registered are most welcome.
To be able to work electronically to examine titles and to record interests in land will be a huge blessing for solicitors and conveyancers and therefore a great help to the general house-buying public. Indeed, it will be possible to make the fullest use of the system only when it is compulsory to deal electronically. I well remember how long it took us and how totally incompetent we were in the 1960s when we met an unregistered title. We had all forgotten how to deal with it and it took for ever. I imagine that tomorrow's solicitors will be brought up with electronic conveyancing and will be equally disabled if they come across a title which requires them to revert to bits of paper.
Welcome though the Bill is, it seems to address a bit of the system which does not work too badly already and does not address the bits of the system which work atrociously. The Land Registry is the least of the troubles which beset those selling or buying property. What we need and what I hope we will get is a reform of the whole ghastly process. The Bill we need and seem to have lost is that which introduces a compulsory seller's package. It seems to me that at present people can decide to place their property, complete with leaking roof, dodgy tenancy, two bathrooms and a conservatory installed without benefit of planning permission, on the market. They then meet with outrage or distress according to temperament—and weeks of delay no matter what their temperament—to gentle demands for proof of compliance with London building Acts, letters from tenants confirming that they are indeed leaving or proof that the person whose name is on the title but who is not signing the contract really died many years ago.
Some of those problems will be improved by the extension of registration, but were a seller's package compulsory, all those questions would have to have
784
been addressed and surveyors put on warning, leaving only the remaining horrors of getting out of the chain and getting the mortgage offer.
I do not want to sound too virtuous. Three years ago we sold a house after living there for 20 years and from time to time converting bits of it. We, too, were pretty slow and incompetent about the whole process of getting the papers in order. If we had known that that would be required of us, we would, to the greater ease of doing business and the reduction of tension, have done so before putting the property on the market.
Let me not be ungrateful for the considerable mercies made possible by this Bill, which I welcome, but oh for the further blessings that would flow from a Bill making a seller's package mandatory.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Cohen of Pimlico I am a very strong supporter of the principle of a seller's package. Perhaps noble Lords can be provided with some illumination as to what has happened to it.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I warmly welcome the Land Registration Bill. Although I have no professional knowledge of the issues involved, like the vast majority of the population I am affected by land registration as both a house owner and former user of commercial offices in the fair city of Chester. In passing, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be interested to know that the new law courts in the heart of that city have been built, and are blooming, on the site of a former amphitheatre. A photograph of those courts is quietly tucked away on page 9 of this week's Chester Chronicle. I wholly absolve my noble and learned friend of any blame for the local and national controversy, but I speculate as to what Roman law might have said about the registration of land devoted to a Roman amphitheatre on which law courts are built. Whatever the case, I can assure my noble and learned friend a warm and friendly reception if and when he comes to Chester to view his commission.
It is said that buying one's own house is the second most important decision that one makes in life. I can well believe it. The news today that house prices rose by 1.9 per cent in the past month, so that the average cost of a house now stands at £90,000, demonstrates the continuing financial importance of such a decision to people and their families in modern Britain. A proper, transparent and easy-to-use system of land registration is vital to maintain a healthy housing market. Similarly, the commercial life of our country is underpinned by an efficient system of land registration which promotes, or at least does not inhibit, commercial decisions involving property and helps to develop British business.
At the heart of the Bill is the promotion of electronic conveyancing which it is hoped will cover the whole process of property transactions. For too long conveyancing has been cobwebbed in a Dickensian world of scratching pens on yellowing parchment. It is time to modernise. Again in passing, I note today's

785
jeremiad from the Engineering Council which regrets the slow-down in the world of electronic technology enterprise. Perhaps another ancillary benefit of this Bill will be to rejuvenate that particular hesitating industry.
This Bill cuts red tape and ensures that the transacting of property among the 14 million freehold and 3 million leasehold owners in England and Wales is simplified, rendered transparent and made more comprehensive by providing a more complete record of land than hitherto. As my noble and learned friend has pointed out, electronic conveyancing will, for example, enable the registration of an interest, right or disposition to be implemented simultaneously, thereby closing the so-called "registration gap". This front-loading of the role of the Land Registry should ensure that the conveyancing process is made more accurate and efficient. Undoubtedly, it will enormously reduce the current punishing 50 per cent of applications to the Land Registry which must be remitted because of error-ridden submission.
With the flux of time the Land Registration Act 1925 has become outdated and, not surprisingly, unfit for our modern, electronic age. I congratulate the Government on following up and modifying the proposals set out in the Law Commission's and Land Registry's consultative document Land Registration for the 21st Century published in 1998. With this Bill the Government are following their election pledge to deliver top quality modern services.
I pass to a number of specific points on the Bill. First, as to short leases the Bill requires leases of fewer than 21, but more than seven, years to be compulsorily registered. The Government hold out the prospect of extending in due course the law to leases of fixed terms of three years or more. I listened very carefully to the observations on this matter by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Perhaps we can have an explanation as to why we should not proceed further at this stage. Why is there no compulsory registration of leases of three years under the present Bill?
Secondly, the Bill proposes to rationalise but not abolish the number of applicable overriding interests. It is further suggested that the Bill would encourage registration of known overriding interests, but why should there not be an obligation to register such interests? Surely, that is in the best interests of transparency and the avoidance of unwelcome discoveries during the process of any transaction.
Thirdly, it is suggested that the improvement in the conditions and system of registration will encourage the creation of a situation in which all land is publicly registered, thereby doing away with the current bifurcation of registered/unregistered land. Since this is a long-standing public policy objective of the Government, why not do it now, or at least set a limit of, say, 10 years for the registration of all land?
Fourthly, the notes to the Bill foresee the introduction of electronic registration as being incremental, with the entire process being completed by 2010. Why is there a delay? Nine years seems an age away. Cannot it be telescoped?
786
Fifthly, as to adverse possession I have heard the criticism that the Bill favours big landowners and discriminates against squatters, especially those who purportedly perform the worthy job of utilising assets which are otherwise often neglected by absent landlords. We face the problem of the land's natural assets being squandered or neglected, but surely the solution is not squatters. Do the Government have other ideas about tackling this problem, which I accept may be beyond the ambit of the Bill?
Finally, the Bill applies to England and Wales, but it would be interesting to know to what degree it is compatible with the practice in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I also refer to the European Union. Noble Lords will recall that at the Lisbon summit the Prime Minister was involved in the move to encourage electronic communication technology as part and parcel of forming a modern, single European market. I hope that the process of moving to electronic commerce will help in that respect. However. I looked at the document drawn up jointly by HM Land Registry and the Law Commission in 1998. The only reference to Europe that I could find in that document was the European Convention on Human Rights. We are talking about a modern world in which there is free movement of citizens and workers. We want to encourage the creation of a single market and make sure that it works. I believe that each requires an efficient and transparent system of land registration throughout the European Union. The European Union has no jurisdiction in this matter, but I would have thought that a nod in the direction of ensuring that there is some compatibility between the practices in the United Kingdom and those in the European Union would be helpful in the desirable process of making the single market work and facilitating the free movement of citizens and workers.
In conclusion, this is a very welcome Bill. It is already apparent that this measure will receive a fair wind from all parts of the House. The sooner it is on the statute book the better.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I, too, am happy to join in the general welcome for the Bill. I agree generally with everything that has been said so far. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear exposition of the totality of the package. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for an additional reason, since I must assume that he had the responsibility for briefing the counsel who drafted the Bill. Early in my reading I was pleased to find in paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes the expression:
"The Bill also restates the law in modern and simple language".
Complex though the Bill is in many ways, it is expressed in terms that are much easier to understand than many previous Bills I have dealt with in this House. I am particularly grateful for that fact.

787
That said, unfortunately, in Schedule 10, I came across a paragraph that deals with something called "Residual power". There I found another very clear statement which said:
"Rules may make any other provision which it is expedient to make for the purposes of carrying this Act into effect".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has gone a great way to put my mind at rest and in explaining the need for rules and regulations to make the system work after the Bill is enacted. However, when I read that paragraph there was a little red warning light in my mind because it made me wonder whether the Bill is telling the whole story and what it is that we do not know.
My conclusion is that the Bill is written in clear language, but because, in a sense, the seventh veil is still on, I am a little unsure about whether I can give it complete and total approbation.
My concern was also raised at the start of the Explanatory Notes. The notes discuss the origins of the Bill and the work done by the Law Commission and HM Land Registry joint study. Again the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fully set out that matter. There is no question that the Bill—the result of that work—is very worthwhile. The Explanatory Notes go on to state:
"Revised recommendations, amended in the light of the consultation response are to be published … on 10 July".
Today is 3rd July. If we have the possibility of revised recommendations from the body that led to the Bill, why is the Bill before us before we have had the benefit of knowing its suggested revisions? I put the matter no higher than that. I accept that those recommendations will be made available before the House goes into Committee on the Bill, but it would have been nice, perhaps, to have known at this stage what was likely to come. I cannot help but wonder if we are legislating in haste. Perhaps the Minister in her reply can indicate whether—because they, so to speak, have the inside track on this matter, and rightly so—the Government have been able to take the possibility of those revised recommendations into account in their original drafting.
Unlike the Homes Bill, which has been mentioned indirectly and on which the relevant professions that deal with property transactions were extremely divided, it is pleasing to report from my contacts with those professions that there is a general welcome for the Bill. That is quite unusual.
However, there are points of concern. In particular, concern has been raised about the access to and security of electronic information. I illustrate that concern by a tale from my past. Many years ago I was nominally responsible for the mainframe computer in County Hall. The manufacturer who had supplied it came to us one day and said that he wanted to bring some Italians to see the installation because they were thinking of buying this wonderful piece of equipment. Five swarthy men with sharply cut suits, which appeared to be somewhat loose below the shoulder, arrived. The manufacturer was present. There was a
788
long and detailed discussion of the potential of the machine. I played no part in what was going on, since, as I say, I was only nominal head. However, towards the end of the discussion the leader of the party turned to me, looked me straight in the eye and said: "Well, Mr Dixon-Smith, we have heard everything from the manufacturer. We understand the potential of the machine. We have also heard everything from your treasurer's staff. They have explained how the machine works. We are very grateful for that. But is it a source of power?" That was the significant question that they wanted answered. I failed the manufacturer because I had to explain that we did not use it in that way.
We need to recognise that if knowledge and information are power, there is potential for abuse. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness in winding-up will assure me that sufficient safeguards will be in place so that the kind of abuse implied by that question cannot take place. But it is a very important matter.
The Bill provides for regulations. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained exactly why that is so. The noble and learned Lord also dealt with the question of rules which will be required to make the system work, and work well. I am not sure about the status of the rules and whether they will be introduced in the form of regulations on which we have a modicum of influence or whether, as the Bill says, the rules will be "laid before Parliament". Therefore, rather like someone going around a museum we can look at them but we cannot touch them. It is important. So much of the detail of modern legislation is dealt with by secondary legislation. I am not sure what the status is of the rules within the context of secondary legislation. Again I ask the noble Baroness in winding-up to put my mind at rest and clarify that particular situation.
There is one final aspect of the matter that is worth touching on. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his introduction, part of the purpose of this legislation is to give clear and accurate information as to prices. That is one thing; and that is fine. However, I am concerned about the use to which that information might be put. If one thinks of the property business as a market, it is not a market in the conventional sense in which stocks and shares are constantly traded backwards and forwards in a market. Nor is it a market in the sense of commodities which are constantly traded backwards and forwards over very short timescales. The housing market is very slow. Knowledge of what a potential vendor might have paid for his property three, five or 10 years ago might influence the price that one is prepared to offer. Equally, if one is a vendor and happens to know that one's potential purchaser has just sold his property and for how much money, that might influence one's decision as to price.
We need to be aware of those matters. Perhaps it would be appropriate if prices were on a separate register from the registration of the land so that they were not automatically collated. Perhaps it would also be appropriate if price information could drop off the

789
register after a certain period of time, as history, inflation and all kinds of other factors made it increasingly less relevant.
I am happy to add my welcome to the Bill. I am sorry if I have introduced what appears to be the only slightly carping tone to the debate but I think that the matters I have raised are important. This is a welcome Bill but I am just a little concerned that we are, to use a racing phrase, rushing our fences just a little.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill before us this afternoon because, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, it provides a truly modern basis for land registration in the 21st century in England and Wales and will implement the single largest item of law reform ever undertaken by the Law Commission.
The Bill will make it possible to conduct investigations into the ownership of land and the registered rights affecting that land almost entirely online. That makes it revolutionary. As Sara McConnell said in her excellent piece in the Sunday Telegraph of 25th March:
"Click for Slick Conveyancing".
In addition, the new system will be based on registration of title, not possession.
This is a good news story for millions of British people who are frustrated, stressed out and fed up to the back teeth with the delays and obfuscation of much of the present system. If we look at the Bill's potential for improving conveyancing and enabling electronic conveyancing to he fully realised, we see that such a step would affect almost 70 per cent of the population of England and Wales who live in owner-occupied accommodation and would improve the progress of the 1 million-plus residential sales that are registered at Her Majesty's Land Registry each year. Electronic conveyancing could dramatically accelerate the present long-winded house buying process. It could cut costs and reduce the number of deals that fail before exchange of contracts. At the moment, one in four fails to complete.
As my honourable friend Mr David Lock, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, said in another place before the election:
"The real benefit of e-conveyancing will be to reduce delays, saving money and also heartache when people cannot move house".
The benefits, he said, would be both financial and emotional. Given that house moving comes third in the great stress and trauma charts, after bereavement and divorce, the Bill's passage cannot be soon enough in coming.
As I see it, the Bill should not only improve conveyancing but should improve the law, making it clearer and simpler, enabling people to understand their rights and their responsibilities, with less recourse to expensive legal advice. It is designed to incorporate the best of the present system while removing the flaws, uncertainties and anomalies that have developed in the past 76 years. The last Land
790
Registration Act was way back in 1925. That was when the Charleston was all the rage and civil aviation was still in its infancy. After all these years, the legislation is cumbersome and needs substantive reform in a number of areas to provide clear, modern law on land registration.
It is also hoped that the Bill will improve the quality of registered title, making title to registered land better than title to unregistered land—we heard of the problems with unregistered title faced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, as a young solicitor—thus encouraging registration and bringing much information about land ownership into the public domain.
For those fearful that more information being brought on to the register and into the public domain would reduce commercial confidentiality and perhaps lead to abuse, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I would assume that the data protection legislation and the freedom of information principles will apply. Perhaps that could be confirmed when my noble friend Lady Scotland comes to sum up.
In conclusion, the promotion of housing choice, faster and cheaper conveyancing and making it easier for people to buy and sell homes is a strong ambition of my party in government. I look forward to seeing the Bill go a long way towards realising that ambition.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this has been a short debate. All the Back-Bench speakers have been commendably brief and to the point. I hope that I shall be at least reasonably brief and reasonably to the point as well. I am particularly pleased that it has been a short debate because it will enable me to attend a dinner in Lincoln's Inn tonight to celebrate the 90th birthday of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who was present in the Chamber at an earlier stage of the debate.
As I am going to be almost entirely positive about the Bill itself, perhaps I may start with one negative comment. The point has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The Law Commission report on which the Bill is based is not being published until 10th July—a week today. That has caused a considerable problem with the preparation of speeches for Second Reading. Worse than that, the Committee stage starts on 17th July, which means that amendments are supposed to be put down by Friday 13th July. That will be extremely difficult, particularly in the case of a highly technical Bill such as this, where we are heavily reliant on briefing by experts. It is true that we now have the Bill itself and the Explanatory Notes, but the report will be extremely important in explaining the reasoning behind the Law Commission's proposals. I have no intention of boycotting the Committee stage but it may well be that a substantial number of amendments will be put down for Report which will not have been tested by debates at the Committee stage.
Land registration has proved to be extremely beneficial. I started practice—some time, I suspect, before the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen—when

791
the number of areas where registration was compulsory was limited. Unregistered conveyancing was complicated, slow and lacked certainty. It increased the cost and time of conveyancing greatly. Deeds could disappear. When land was split up the original title deeds could be in the possession of only one of the successors, but they had to be made available to all the other successors on subsequent sales. There was a long and tiresome document called an abstract of title, which fortunately one does not now see. I remember one case in which I was acting for a City livery company that wanted to sell part of its land. There was a serious problem with the sale because the company's title deeds had been destroyed in the Great Fire of London.
Compulsory registration of land was started in London with the Land Transfer Act 1897. Compulsory registration was extended to the rest of the country on a rolling basis by the Land Registration Act 1925, though the rolling was extremely slow until the 1960s and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, pointed out, did not finish until 1990. But the advantages of compulsory registration are enormous.
However, the 1925 Act is now showing its age and it has become encrusted with barnacles. Undoubtedly it is time for a major overhaul. Furthermore, the prospect of electronic conveyancing opens up new opportunities for the speeding up of the sale of land. I should like to congratulate the Law Commission, and in particular Mr Charles Harpum, on what appears to have been a superb job. The Bill reforms the registration procedure and simplifies it considerably. Under the existing system various mechanisms are in place for limiting the powers of a registered owner to deal with the land. These are variously cautions, notices, restrictions and inhibitions. The new Bill simplifies these. It keeps notices and restrictions, but throws caution to the winds and abandons all inhibitions. Does this mean that, when the Bill is enacted, there will be Bacchanalian riots in the Land Registry—and can I have an invitation?
The Bill proposes a tightening of the rules for overriding interests; that is, interests in land which will bind purchase of the land even though it has not been entered on the register. That is undoubtedly welcome. Certainty is extremely important for land transactions and overriding interests have been a major source of uncertainty. The creation of new overriding interests by judicial decision has weakened the certainty of the 1925 Act. I welcome the proposal that some interests which are now overriding interests, but could be registered, will cease to be overriding unless they have been registered within a 10-year period.
I have to say that I am not sure what has happened to my old friend the liability attached to a particular piece of land to pay for repairs to the chancel of the parish church. That is an obscure and fortunately rare problem, but very unpleasant when it happens. It is true that a few weeks ago it was held by the Court of Appeal that that was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I found that decision rather surprising and obviously it could be overturned
792
by an appeal either in that or in another case. I shall be interested to know in due course whether that has ceased to be an overriding interest and, if so, what is its status.
The proposal to require leases to be registered if the term of the lease is more than seven years rather than more than 21 years is desirable because it will increase the informative value of the register and ease the transfer of longer leases. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that a reduction in the minimum period for registrable leases to below seven years may be of more questionable value. That is obviously something which will have to be looked into if and when proposals are put forward so to do.
The 1925 Act was designed so as to minimise differences of substantive law between registered and unregistered land. I believe that that was the right decision to take at the time, but now that the great majority of land is registered, it is time to abandon that particular principle, which the Bill sets out to do. I therefore welcome the new system to be put in place under Clause 49 to allow an existing charge to be treated as security for a further advance.
The most important difference in substantive law is in relation to adverse possession. The Bill proposes new rules for adverse possession which will make it harder to acquire title by that means. Possessory title was very important in cases of unregistered conveyancing where the loss of title deeds or an uncertain description of the land might make long and undisputed occupation the only way of showing title. However, this does not apply to registered land. The new procedure for acquiring title by adverse possession under Schedule 6 is reasonable, although I should like to raise one or two points of detail when we reach the Committee stage. However, perhaps I may say that, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, this change will help rather than hinder squatters because unless and until squatters in a particular building serve an application for title to that building under Schedule 6, the owner will not be under any pressure to remove them.
I greatly welcome the proposal for a new independent adjudicator to decide disputes under the Bill. I strongly support this development. I would prefer to see disputes dealt with by adjudicators rather than by the courts, but the question does arise whether an adjudicator will be given power under Clause 60 of the Bill to fix boundaries. It is desirable that he or she should have a power to do so. Indeed, from the notes that have been submitted to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which will consider the Bill tomorrow morning, it appears to be the Government's intention that the adjudicator should be given that power. But it does not appear to have been included in the adjudicator's jurisdiction under Clause 106.
I welcome the provisions in Clause 124 widening the membership of the Rule Committee by the addition of representatives from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. However, I should like to ask why there should not also be a representative from the Royal Institute of Chartered

793
Surveyors, who would appear to have a clear interest in this matter. Furthermore, should we have a representative from the Consumers' Association or some other consumer group?
Finally I turn to what in the long run will be the most important element in the Bill; that is, the framework for electronic conveyancing. Of course it is only a framework which will have to be fleshed out by future rules. I do not in any way object to that; it is the obvious and sensible way of dealing with issues as complicated, detailed and subject to periodic variation as these rules will need to be.
I believe that these changes offer a real chance to speed up and simplify conveyancing and to reduce costs. I have always thought that electronic conveyancing would be a better way forward than the seller's pack provisions set out in Part I of the Homes Bill. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, that the seller's pack—or at least in the form in which it appeared in that Bill—was a good idea. Now that Part II of the Homes Bill has been reintroduced as a separate homelessness measure in the other place, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that Part I has been consigned to the dustbin?
Undoubtedly electronic conveyancing will need careful study. The Law Society has concerns about the authentication of documents by agents under Clause 91 Furthermore, I know that the RICS also has concerns about the security of e-conveyancing. Overall, however, the Bill plainly represents a major step forward which, I believe, could be of real benefit to everyone in the property market, in particular to ordinary people who are buying and selling their homes. For that reason, I have great pleasure in giving the Bill a warm welcome.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for not being present to hear the opening passages of his speech. So mesmerised was my television screen by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to the third Starred Question that it totally failed to move on to the fourth Question, let alone to turn to the dulcet tones of the noble and learned Lord. That should serve as a warning to those of us tempted to throw ourselves entirely on the mercy of electronic means.
Nevertheless, from the Opposition Benches I warmly welcome this Bill. In particular, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on bringing forward a Law Commission proposal. I know that he is keen to take every opportunity to do so and I hope that this will not be the last such Bill in this parliamentary Session. I should also like to congratulate, as have several other noble Lords, Mr Charles Harpum, together with the parliamentary draftsmen involved, on what has been a remarkable achievement. Any hesitations that I am about to express about the Bill should be seen in that overall context.
794
Residential property is the single most important asset held by the majority of the citizens of this country. Our predominating preoccupation therefore is with the security of transactions, in general, and, in particular, with the dangers or risks of tampering with electronic signatures. In that context, I should like to ask a number of questions.
How can these signatures be kept secure? If a so-called smartcard is stolen, can it be used by a thief? How can the user be confident that the certifying authority's certification is genuine and not the creation of a hacker? Who certifies the certifying authority? Is there a risk of impersonation to obtain certification for signatures? Is it possible to prevent the time of signature of a contract being tampered with?
I say at once that I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer all these questions in her closing speech. But, nevertheless, I submit that they are important questions. I hope that at least in the course of the committee stage we can return to them for some reassurance.
As a number of noble Lords have said, in particular my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, the Bill abounds with rule-making powers. My noble friend said that the Bill was much easier to understand, but I suspect that there is much more to the Bill than is on its face. Indeed, your Lordships can open the Bill at almost any page and find a rule-making power. Even Clause 1 of the Bill has a rule-making power.
I wonder whether this is at the insistence of Ministers or of parliamentary draftsmen, or are these rule-making powers a function of the fact that, although we have had the Quinquennial Review, the plan that will flow from that review is not yet complete? These perhaps are also questions that the noble Baroness may be tempted to address, either later today or in the course of the Committee stage.
It appears to us that in some circumstances such rules could restrict, or even extinguish, the very rights granted. Consider, for example, Clauses 66 and 73, which refer to rights expressed to be "subject to rules". Here the rule-making power does not merely regulate the manner in which the rights are to be exercised; it makes the right itself subject to the rules. The rules restrict, or appear to restrict, the right.
Moreover, there are some rule-making provisions which are, in my submission, inexcusable. In Clause 89, for example, it is provided that rules may make provision for enactments relating to settlements under the Settled Land Act 1925. Why on earth cannot such rules appear on the face of the Bill? We all know what they will contain.
There are also some puzzling anomalies in the Bill. For example, Schedule 1 deals with unregistered interests which override first registration. On first registration, almost all occupiers' rights, easements and profits à prendre are binding. Schedule 3 deals with unregistered interests which override registered dispositions.
Under this schedule, occupiers are deprived, on completion, of registered dispositions if they do not respond to inquiries or if their occupation is not

795
obvious on inspection. Again, the dominant owner in respect of all legal easements and profits à prendre is deprived unless the person to whom the serviant land is transferred actually knows of the right, or it would be obvious on inspection of the serviant land, or it has been exercised in the previous year.
Thus a right which survives first registration can be overridden by an immediate disposition, which will, on the face of it, inevitably defeat the purpose of the special treatment of occupiers on first registration.
Another change which we, on these Benches, find surprising is the new test for "actual occupation" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. This provides that,
"a person is only to be regarded as in actual occupation of the land if he, or his agent or employee, is physically present there".
As the usual issue is at what times or during what periods the occupier is or was present, this definition does not grapple with the issue of the degree of continuity or permanence which may be required. What happens if the occupier is on holiday? What happens if the occupier is at work at the time of the disposition? Is it enough for the occupier's furniture to be physically present? Presumably not because the provision requires the occupier or his agent or employee to be physically present. Must a solicitor or conveyancer attend on completion to carry out a reasonably careful inspection? It also does not appear to deal with cases where the occupier has taken steps to exclude anyone from occupation but is neither there himself nor by his agent, employee or otherwise. In my submission, the new provision is manifestly defective.
The existing law, by contrast, is clear. It has been considered most recently in Williams & Glyns Bank v. Boland and City of London Building Society v. Flegg. We cannot understand why it has been necessary to introduce a new provision which itself does not deal with the usual issue that arises.
The Bill also creates surprising differences between the law relating to registered land and unregistered land. Part 9 and Schedule 6 to the Bill introduce a new regime for dealing with adverse possession in relation to registered land. Clause 95 provides that no period of limitation under Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 runs against any person, other than a chargee, in relation to registered land.
Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, a person who has been in adverse possession can apply to be registered. Paragraph 5 of the schedule provides that if the applicant can show that one or more of three conditions apply, he or she is entitled to be registered as the new proprietor of the estate. Paragraph 6 of the same schedule provides that if the applicant's application for registration is refused but he or she remains in adverse possession for two more years, he or she can apply again to be registered.
These new provisions will apply only to registered land. They will not apply to unregistered land, where Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 still prevails. We can see no good reason why the substantive law of adverse possession should be different in the case of unregistered land. If the new provisions in the Bill are
796
better than the old law, then those provisions should apply also to unregistered land. If the new law is not suitable for unregistered land, we cannot see why the new law should be suitable for registered land. In our submission, the correct approach is to amend the substantive law first, if appropriate, and then allow the Bill to deal with pure issues of land registration.
In this respect—although, of course, I have not yet seen what is contained in the document which is due to be published on 10th July—our criticisms seem to be shared by the Law Commission in its consultative document at paragraph 10.18, where it is said that there are obvious disadvantages in adopting a different system of adverse possession for registered land. Why then does the Bill provide such a system?
Finally, I turn to the question of squatters' rights. In a way, I suppose, it can be said that the Bill seeks to weaken squatters' rights. At present, after a squatter has been in adverse possession of land for 12 years, he or she can apply to be the new proprietor of the estate. The Bill allows a squatter to apply for ownership after 10 years, but ensures that the owners are informed. Of course, if the owners do not object, the squatter will be registered as proprietor of the land.
We would argue that the proposed measures against squatters should be tougher. The Library in another place cites research based on the 1986 London Housing Survey suggesting that 74 per cent of squatted properties were in the social rented sector. Indeed, there have been high profile cases in the past few years of squatters obtaining ownership of council housing due to the continued negligence of councils to manage their housing stock.
We should like see a situation in which squatters have no automatic right to ownership of property owned by social landlords or by the public sector. This property was intended for a collective social benefit and should not be seized by private individuals without appropriate compensation.
I said that my hesitations were in the context of otherwise unqualified admiration for the achievement of the parliamentary draftsmen. It is in that sense that I conclude my observations.
4.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, not least to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I was in danger of believing that we had unanimity in this House for the first time in any debate in which I have taken part. I am grateful to the noble Lord for disabusing me of that belief. I join warmly with all those who have congratulated the parliamentary draftsmen, together with Charles Harpen. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, the Bill is truly a wonderful piece of work.
I had the opportunity of delighting your Lordships with a long and detailed reply. However, with respect, bearing in mind the amount of agreement that there has been, it may be better if I seek to reply more directly to the various issues raised.

797
It is clear that we all agree that the changes and reformation that will be brought forward by this piece of legislation are momentous. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised a number of points. In welcoming the Bill—on which I commend him—the noble Earl raised the issue—also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—of the role of the adjudicator and whether the adjudicator would be able to decide in cases where there are boundary disputes. The short answer is yes. However, the Land Registry will also be looking for other, easier ways to settle land disputes.
In relation to this matter and many others we should be happy to consider any proposal that the noble Earl or other noble Lords may wish to make. One of the good things about the Bill is the consensual basis on which it is founded. It has been evident in the debate that all noble Lords wish to hone a system that will deliver transparency, efficiency and an effective means of transferring land. Speaking both for myself and on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, we very much want the Bill to be seen in that light. We shall be open to any improvement that noble Lords may feel able to bring to it.
The noble Earl turned next to the question of Ordnance Survey maps. I can reassure him that the relationship with the Ordnance Survey map will not change significantly in electronic conveyancing. On the question of whether we shall set up a pilot scheme for electronic conveyancing, the short answer is yes. Implementation will be staged. We, too, understand the thrust of the argument of those who say that compulsion should be immediate. However, we want to have the benefits assured before going down that road. The noble Earl asked about electronic auctioneering. That does not currently fall within the scope of the Bill. I can write to the noble Lord in more detail on the matter.
The noble Earl also raised what some have seen as a controversial provision in Clause 4 relating to the registration of a lease and the reduction in the period from 21 years to seven years, and the fact that it may bring about more bureaucracy. We do not believe that that will be the case. There will be more registration, but there will be a simpler system of law and quicker conveyancing which will save business money on each transaction. So, overall, the procedure will be more efficacious.
My noble friend Lady Cohen referred to the Government's commitment to the seller's pack. Neither this Bill nor the commonhold and leasehold Bill will contain provision relating to the seller's pack. However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the mischief that the seller's pack sought to cure is dealt with in material ways by this Bill. I shall say nothing about whether or not in due course there will be parliamentary time for further legislation. We shall have to wait and see. For the moment, our commitment to delivering a clear system will be dealt with in part by the passage of the Bill that is before the House.
My noble friend made the point that the registration of land already has a certain coherence which is not always present in relation to unregistered land. I say to
798
my noble friend that one has to eat an elephant in small bite-sized pieces. It will take time. We are addressing what we believe to be the most effective way of extending the system to cover it so that the general public and those who deal with it on a professional basis will be able to use it easily.
My noble friend Lord Harrison, in his usual forthright and robust way, raised a number of issues. The first related to making all overriding interests disclosable. That duty is created by Clause 71. We believe that that will help greatly.
My noble friend also exhorted us to cut red tape and asked why we did not introduce a three-year period from the outset. We want to be sure that the Land Registry and the market will cope. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can reduce the period when it appears to him to be right. During his opening remarks my noble and learned friend made it clear that he will consult, and all noble Lords know that he will adhere to that promise.
My noble friend Lord Harrison asked about the Northern Irish and Scottish systems, which are very different from our own. The Land Registry in England and Wales is working closely with registrars in Scotland to ensure that, so far as possible, the two systems will be similar from the point of view of the users.
The Bill stands alone, and its Explanatory Notes assist it. I know that noble Lords would have been "happier" if the report had been made available before Second Reading and, indeed, for a longer period before the Committee stage. Of course, that is a counsel of perfection. Bearing in mind that we have waited since 1925 for reformation of this area, I shall disclose quite frankly that we were not going to allow this opportunity to slip us by. The Bill team is ready; we shall consult, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that the legislation is as perfect as we should all wish. But time is of the essence and we are happy to have the opportunity to bring forward this Bill, which will do so much good, at the earliest possible moment. It is a matter of some pride to us that we are able to do so. I should like to pay a compliment to all those who worked before 1997 to help to bring this about; indeed, the gestation period of this Bill has been long.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also raised the issue of the rule-making power, and questioned whether it was too wide. The power referred to exactly replicates the current law. However, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will happily consider suggestions about improvement. I reiterate that position. As regards the rules procedure, the noble Lord will know that most procedural rules for the registry will be made by the Lord Chancellor on advice from the rules committee and simply laid, although the House cannot amend them. The ones that need greater scrutiny will be subject to negative resolution. But, of course, they cannot be changed; they can only be accepted or rejected.

799
My noble friend Lady Crawley asked about data protection and freedom of information. The short answer to her question is yes. This will be implemented by the detailed rule.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about price information. I can tell him that the role of price information has been widely praised. It will reduce the inflationary pressure because we shall know what the previous buyer paid. The house market should, thereby, be transparent.
I turn now to the usual sagacity of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It was with great appreciation that I listened to his words, which warmly welcomed the Bill. The noble Lord is known for his great depth of understanding of the law in this area. His assent has been most welcome. I believe that the noble Lord made a similar point in relation to the report. We are advised that chapter 2 of the report will be particularly helpful to all those who wish to consider it, because, as I understand it, it is a condensed over-view of the issues covered by the Law Commission and the changes proposed. I do not believe that it will materially affect the clauses of the Bill that your Lordships will be considering, but in its 400 pages it will outline such matters in great depth. I am sure that all speakers participating in this debate will scrutinise those pages with a great deal of acuity. Indeed, I am sure that noble Lords will find them most helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is always adept at raising the most difficult and abstruse points. Therefore, I was charmed that he should raise chancel repair liability. I can tell him that the liability has, indeed, been struck down by the Court of Appeal. It will need to be reinstated in the Bill, and this will be considered in any appeal, if successful. We have seen no indication to date that there will be such an appeal; but, should one arise, we shall consider it.
The noble Lord also made a very good point about an RICS member being on the rules committee. We shall also be happy to consider that suggestion. There is already a power to co-opt a member who may have specific expertise. The noble Lord also asked whether this provision would help squatters because the owner of the property will not try to evict the squatters until they apply to be registered. The short answer is yes. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also raised the issue of squatters' rights. I should point out to him that we shall now have clarity. There is a difference between registered and unregistered land, which is covered by the Bill. Perhaps I may sketch some of the answers that the noble Lord seeks. However, by the tempting array of issues that he covered in his speech, I know that we shall be delighted to consider such detail in Committee.
There are issues in relation to security of transaction—the tampering with signatures and whether a smartcard could be used. All those issues are valid concerns, but the detailed provisions for security can be considered in detail as rules are drawn up and changed and as the system develops. We know how rapidly technology has developed over a very short
800
period of time. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, remembers such days, but I certainly remember a very profound and detailed chambers' meeting where grave consideration was given over a period of one-and-a-half hours to whether a fax machine should be purchased, whether it would "catch on" and, indeed, whether we should buy one before anyone else had such a machine.
Things have changed, and they do so rapidly. We must be able to adapt. That is why my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made clear in his opening remarks that we must get the framework right. We know that the technology will develop rapidly and that the systems we put in place today may appear obsolete in a very short time. We must have the flexibility to respond when technology allows us to move forward in an appropriate way, after consultation.
The noble Lord asked what constitutes "occupation". The current law is seriously defective. We respectfully suggest that the new provisions are very much better. We should be more than happy to write and explain why we believe them to be better in an appropriate amount of detail, which I am sure will satisfy even the noble Lord. Indeed, if it does not satisfy him, I am sure that we can shower him with even more detail.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the rule-making regime. The regime follows that contained in the 1925 Act. Although the provisions are reduced in scope by putting some questions of principle on the face of the Bill, their important nature remains the same.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to "adverse possession" and the issue of it applying only to registered land. I have already touched a little on this, but I can tell the noble Lord that a registered title is the basis of the new proposal. We cannot have the protection that it confers without registration, so the systems are fundamentally different.
I turn to over-riding rights and whether they can be over-riding on subsequent disposition. We respectfully suggest that this does not change the current law. There are issues upon which we shall continue to work. We certainly hope that we shall have the help and assistance of all your Lordships when we come to review the finer details to make sure that the minutiae of the Bill are as good as we should like.
Many people have rightly been thanked for the hard work they have undertaken in preparing the Bill. I refer to the special provisions relating to the Crown. The underlying law relating to the Crown's ancient ownership of land and its position as an owner of last resort is among the most arcane of all the many mysteries of land law in England and Wales. The Bill will simplify the task of those who come into contact with it. The pragmatic solutions put forward in the Bill would not have been possible without the detailed and constructive consultation that took place with the Crown Estate and the legal advisers to Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We are grateful to them for their contribution.

801
Last but not least, I most warmly thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have set the tone of what is to come. I hope that the work which will be done will be given the appropriate level of applause that it deserves. This is an opportunity for us to work together for the common good. It is a matter which gives me great pleasure. I commend all the proposals to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Army Procurement
5.2 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what use they are making of the Private Finance Initiative and sponsored reserves for the procurement of heavy equipment transporters and other logistic vehicles for the Army.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I offer a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was introduced in your Lordships' House about three hours ago and is to make his maiden speech shortly. That may be a record. We have a common interest as I believe that we are both interested in industrial archaeology. The noble Lord is interested in steam railways and I am interested in vintage commercial vehicles.
The Question, which arose at short notice, constitutes an ideal opportunity to discuss this matter. I was tempted to talk about tanker aircraft but I shall resist that opportunity mainly due to lack of time. I shall ask about good news, not about something going wrong, or at least not badly wrong. I declare an interest as a serving TA officer and president of the Heavy Transport Association. The REME Museum of Technology, with which I am involved, may be given a tank transporter when it comes out of service. I make it clear beyond all peradventure that I have no financial or other arrangements with any defence contractor I do not act as a consultant, paid or otherwise.
Heavy equipment transporters are mainly used to move heavy armoured vehicles such as tanks. Your Lordships will be grateful to hear that I shall not weary you with technical details. Suffice to say that these are specialised vehicles designed to carry 60 to 70 tonnes. They are powerful in absolute terms, complex—as one would expect—and they require specialist tradesmen to operate them. High capital cost and technical risk are involved in procuring them.
The Government announced that the fast track consortium would be the preferred, or perhaps very preferred, bidder for the provision of about 90 heavy equipment transporters. Will the Minister explain why only 90 transporters are being bought? We currently have about 120 of the old tank transporters. An armoured regiment has at least 50 main battle tanks or derivatives Supporting units such as engineers have additional heavy armoured vehicles. In addition, the lines of communication in future operations will be
802
much longer than in the old days of BAOR. They can now be measured in hundreds of kilometres. Are we not spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar? How was the requirement determined? What allowance has been made for attrition that, sadly, occurs even in peacetime? Are we relying excessively on host nation support for future operations overseas?
To date no order has been placed with a contractor. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of when that will happen. The procurement project is novel and significant as it involves the PFI—that is reasonably well understood—but also the first significant use of sponsored reserves, which is perhaps not so well understood. We discussed the sponsored reserves during the passage of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is present. He was actively involved in those discussions.
At the time I had two concerns about sponsored reserves. First, I was concerned that we could end up with sponsored reserves who were, to put t bluntly, not proper soldiers; in other words, they had, joined the sponsored reserves purely to get a job. I was concerned that if they found themselves involved in a "hot" operation, their motivation might be affected. I was also worried that the sponsored reserves might constitute an attempt to privatise the TA. The purpose of the sponsored reserves was not made specific. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my fears in that regard.
However, there remains a key question; namely, how much military training will be undertaken by the sponsored reserves? I suggest that two weeks would not be enough but that six weeks would be satisfactory. How much military training does the Minister envisage for the sponsored reserves? I support these developments with the usual caveat that if things go wrong it is still the Minister's fault! I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the relevant procurement team. They will have found it difficult to get certain people to "let go" and to stop interfering with the equipment manufacturer.
For 27 years I have used military equipment bought for all the wrong reasons. It was probably expensive and turned out to be unreliable. It performed poorly and was expensive to maintain. We kept the equipment well past its sell by date as we could not extract money from the Treasury to replace it with something better. The MoD should specify the capability required of the equipment and legal and standardisation requirements. The MoD should not lay down detailed technical specifications. It should leave that to the experts—namely, the manufacturers who have to compete in the commercial environment. If a contractor supplies a defective vehicle, lie will bear the financial risk and the financial penalty. The contractor should also be heavily involved in specifying and providing technical but not military training. After all, the contractor understands the equipment far better than the MoD. The same applies to technical and spares support as the contractor has a financial incentive in making sure that the relevant vehicle can be used by the Armed Forces.
There is one important point for the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to consider. The PFI constitutes partnerships between the MoD and contractors. Partnerships work best when he who can best manage a risk carries it. In my experience the MoD is extremely bad at managing technical risk. On the other hand, contractors are very good at managing technical risk. Therefore, they are best placed to carry that risk. The problem is that contractors are poor at dealing with uncertainties, for example, the rate of utilisation of a vehicle. They work on a worst case scenario for each uncertainty. If they do not do so, they could go bust if their worst fears were realised for each uncertainty.
On the other hand, the MoD is in a good position to manage risks arising from uncertainty. I urge the Minister to take all possible steps to reduce uncertainties for defence contractors in order that the contractors can offer best value.
I have two points of caution. My first refers to third party revenue. I believe that the duty of the Minister is to provide for the defence of the realm and not to be a plant hire or heavy haulage contractor. I believe PFI to be desirable because the risks will be taken by those best placed to manage them; and it is not necessary to find the capital cost in one financial year. The PFI route, therefore, should not be rejected because there is no third party revenue.
My second point of caution is about equipment disposal. One of the advantages of going down the PFI route is that the equipment can be disposed of at the optimum point in its life cycle. That will minimise whole life costs. When equipment is not obsolete, the contractor can realise a good price for it if he offers it for sale as a fleet complete with a spare parts package, specialised tooling and so on. However, under a PFI contract, if the Minister buys the equipment at the end of its useful life, the support costs of the equipment would rise exponentially. Fortunately, neither I nor the Minister will be actively involved in disposal of equipment because that will take place in about 20 years. However, as a principle of PFI we do not want to make the mistake that we made with the Mercedes Benz transporter in about 1997 or 1998. We bought the vehicles at the end of their useful life and then had to buy engines, gear boxes and so on.
I turn to the future vehicle programme. It consists of the future cargo vehicle, the future fuel vehicle—the Minister will be aware it is desperately required—and the future recovery vehicle. Can the Minister elaborate on these programmes and explain why PFI has been rejected? Having decimated the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Chertsey, how will the Minister be able to have a technical assessment undertaken of these vehicles?
In conclusion, I support the Minister's approach on the tank transporters. I hope that he can answer my questions about that project. However, I cannot understand his rejection of PFI for further vehicle procurement.
Normally, with a maiden speech one is able to congratulate the speaker. With the procedure today, we cannot. Perhaps we may take it as read that if I were able to do so, I should congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to this Chamber. I hope that he will not find it too much of a shock to discover the exaggerated courtesy of this Chamber. He will rapidly discover that the greatest insult is to say, "I'm not sure that I entirely understood what the noble Lord said". We look forward to the noble Lord's response, and to his learning the elaborate courtesies which we bat around the Chamber.
I have three questions. First, I believe in joined-up government and a joined-up defence policy. We know that the Government are committed to it and to closer European defence co-operation. It seems odd that they have chosen on this occasion an American as opposed to a European vehicle; and that they have conducted this entire experiment without apparent consultation with our European partners with whom we are most likely to be engaged in joint operations in the coming years.
On the tanker refuelling aircraft question, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred, the same is true. It is even more the case if we are engaged in joint air operations. We are conscious that over Bosnia and Serbia the British and the Americans provided the substantial disproportion of refuelling aircraft. If one is to talk about the need for a large capacity, it is clearly sensible to do so on a joint basis rather than to pretend that we are purely on our own. In making a long-term commitment, would it not have been wise to have consulted to see whether there were efficiencies to be achieved jointly with others?
Secondly, I thought that most land armies were moving away from reliance on heavy equipment and heavy tanks. A heavy tank was the vehicle for conventional war in central Europe on the north German plain. It has also been used in the desert in the Gulf War. It is not a vehicle for peacemaking or peacekeeping. The current Bush Administration defence review in Washington raises the important question of whether equipment that is not easily air transportable is still wanted. Lighter armoured vehicles give much higher mobility. Many of us remember how long it took to get the British Army's heavy equipment from Germany to Bosnia at the start of deployment there. It was a long process. The tanks could not go through the tunnels under the Alps and had to go by sea. That took about a month. The question is how long the British Army will want to maintain the Challenger 2 force. Whether we need it over the 20-year period in which we are investing in these heavy transporters is also relevant.
Thirdly, in briefing that I have received I note a number of references to a "pathfinder" decision for the future of the private finance initiative and the concept of sponsored reserves. We know that Her Majesty's

805
Government are not committed to maintaining a divide between the public and the private sector and believe in what works. Where the private sector works better, they believe that it is fine to go along with it. I have read Adam Smith. In the 18th century many believed that the provision of armed force through private contractors was the best way forward. The British Army went to the Napoleonic wars on the basis that people raised battalions and contracted with the government. Letters of marque were issued to privateers to sink foreign ships. Even as late as the Crimean war an independent contractor proposed that, for a sum, he would contract with the British Army to lay siege to and conquer Sebastopol. Unfortunately, that contract was rejected. It might have been better achieved by a private contractor than by the grossly inefficient armed forces which fought the Crimean war.
How much further do the Government expect to go in terms of the private finance initiative in the defence field and the sponsored reserves concept? A White Paper on mercenaries exists somewhere in Whitehall. We were promised that it would be published six months ago. It was not published: I understand that there were those in Whitehall who pointed out that the definition of a mercenary is difficult. Some argue that a private contractor contracting for the Government might be considered a mercenary. Sandline, an efficient private company which has undertaken a number of useful activities in particular for the Government of Sierra Leone, is far more efficient in manpower than the large and grossly inefficient UN force. That might take us back to the use of private force following free market principles as a means of delivering supporters in war.
We could go further. We know that the Defence Medical Services are extremely short of manpower and equipment at present. Can we envisage a Private Patients Plan field hospital or a BUPA field hospital as a sponsored reserved concept; or even perhaps the Tesco Fusiliers or the Sainsbury's Light Infantry as a reserve regiment? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, worries how far the TA will in effect be privatised progressively as one goes more into the sponsored reserves concept.
I tease a little, but there is a large question about how far, in what has become one of the central issues of government—the monopoly of force by public authorities—we might go back towards the private sector. Free market principles require that when the private sector can deliver force better, we should accept that. The Government are committed to free market principles, so we need to know how far the idea is to be a pathfinder for the private finance initiative and the sponsored reserve concept and if so, how much further that might go and whether there are boundaries beyond which it will not go.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising this short debate, not just because he has chosen an intrinsically important subject, but, on a personal note, because it gives me an opportunity to make my maiden speech within three
806
hours of being introduced. That goes against all my rules of conduct, which are to spend some considerable time listening and watching whenever I enter a new environment rather than opening my mouth. I am afraid that the pressure of the Government Whips Office is so relentless and unremitting that I find myself responding to this debate today.
Speaking from the Front Bench is a great responsibility, but it is made much easier by the genuine warmth, friendship and welcome that I have encountered from so many people since my. journey a few yards down the corridor. I knew a lot of people before I came here and they gave me a nice welcome, but lots of people whom I did not know so well have also given me a nice welcome. That is heartwarming for someone preparing to make their speech.
This is described as a maiden speech, although it is my third maiden speech—if it is possible to be a maiden on three occasions. I first made one when I became the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth in 1974. In 1979, the electors of Lichfield and Tamworth decided that I should probably spend more time with my family. I spent eight years out of the House and then made another maiden speech as the Member for The Wrekin in 1987. I am now making my third maiden speech. The House will be relieved to hear that, under the terms of the Life Peerages Act, it will have to be my last maiden speech.
I mention The Wrekin and Telford in particular in this debate. We all know the enormous importance of our defence services and the debt that we owe to those involved in them. I have had the privilege to represent a constituency in which one of the major employers is still the Ministry of Defence at the Donington ordnance depot, which has more than 1,000 employees involved in storage and distribution. Another 1,000 are employed in the Avro workshops. Nearby there is also an important defence manufacturer, Alvis., which employs more than 400 people.
That has made me acutely conscious of the commitment and dedication that those employees—many of whom are friends of mine—have shown to their work. In many cases, generation after generation from the same families—father to son and mother to daughter—have worked in those shops and storage depots for more than 60 years. I am well aware of their effort, commitment and responsiveness to crises such as the recent ones in the Gulf and the Balkans.
I shall always try to be accurate and honest with the House. I would be less than frank with the House if I did not say that, important though the issue is, I am not certain that the heavy equipment transporter programme would have been my chosen subject for my maiden speech. I shall answer a number of the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, have raised.
I shall begin with some background. On 24th January this year, my noble friend Lady Symons, then Minister for Defence Procurement, announced to the House the decision to select the Fasttrax consortium, led by Brown & Root Ltd, as the preferred bidder for the private sector-financed heavy

807
equipment transporter programme. That was the first programme to seek a solution under the Government's private finance initiative for an operational combat support vehicle with a significant proportion of the operational capability being delivered by sponsored reserves.
I am very much aware of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in this area. I pay tribute to him and to other members of the Reserve Forces, which constitute a significant part of the country's Armed Forces. They make a crucial contribution to our military capability and to the United Kingdom's reputation as a force for good in the world. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for the kind remarks that he made about my speech before I had made it.
Before I speak about the heavy equipment transporter programme in particular, I shall make a few general comments about sponsored reserves, which I hope will answer some of the noble Earl's questions.
Under the sponsored reserve concept, a service normally provided in peacetime by contractor staff is provided on operations by staff drawn from the contractor's workforce who are reservist members of the Armed Forces. The sponsored reserve concept envisages letting contracts for services on condition that the contractor maintains in his workforce an agreed element who have volunteered to become members of a reserve force.
Sponsored reservists are therefore volunteers in the same way that regular members of the Armed Forces are volunteers. Just as for regulars, a sponsored reservist's decision to join the Armed Forces will be based on many reasons, including pay and conditions. That is how the Government view sponsored reserves. They are professionals in terms of the civilian skills that they obtain from their position as contractor staff and the military skills derived from their military training as members of the Armed Forces.
Sponsored reserves are legally required under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to undertake training with their parent reserve force both in peacetime and when called out. Just as for regulars, they are subject to the Service Discipline Acts and service regulations while serving with the Armed Forces. However—this is an important point—in contrast to the position of conventional reservists, sponsored reserves can be called out routinely whatever the level of crisis, under the direction of the Defence Secretary through authorised officers.
The noble Earl also asked about dates. We have always intended 2003 as the date when the programme of recruiting sponsored reserves comes into operation. I shall write to him with any further details that he requires.
In the mid-1990s, it became clear that the existing tank transporter, the Scammell Commander, would soon reach the end of its economic life. It was becoming increasingly unreliable and unable, legally, to carry the Challenger 2 main battle tank at its full training weight on UK or European roads.
808
The Defence Procurement Agency—or Procurement Executive as it was then—was tasked with the procurement of a replacement vehicle.
In line with the then Government's policy of considering all capital asset procurement for the private finance initiative, the procurement team considered how the project might be procured as a service rather than as a one-off purchase of equipment. The view was taken that, under PFI, it would be possible to transfer a greater level of risk and responsibility to a private sector service provider in order to achieve greater value for money for the taxpayer but emphatically not at the expense of operational effectiveness.
In order to facilitate that, the project asked industry to consider the employment of sponsored reserves. It received an enthusiastic response from bidders. Since then, a large amount of detailed close working between the Ministry of Defence and industry has led to the proposed PFI contract, which is now subject to final negotiation with the preferred bidder. I believe that a number of the points raised by the noble Earl about the nature of the relationship will be included in those discussions and negotiations. Indeed, as the noble Earl said, the main point that must be emphasised in relation to the PFI in these circumstances is that it is a partnership; it is on-going, considered and reviewed. That is, of course, the best security that we can offer to anyone who has concerns about the programme.
Under this contract, it is proposed that the contractor will be fully responsible for the provision of the whole transporter service, including managing the equipment, spares and manpower to deliver the service to the agreed performance levels throughout the contract period. In peacetime, the contractor is solely responsible for all movements of loads. For all operations, however, one-third of the operational capability will be provided by sponsored reserves employed by the contractor.
The sponsored reserves personnel will be trained by the Army. They will be fully integrated into the command structure and affiliated to each of the three existing tank transporter squadrons. On a day-to-day basis, the sponsored reservists will work and train with the regulars and, if necessary, they will then deploy with the squadron to support other operations. I believe that the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in relation to mercenaries—it is an important point—is dealt with. Their training, responsibility and involvement will be exactly as they would be if they were regular soldiers. It is extremely important to emphasise that point. I am afraid that I cannot deal with his point about Adam Smith—it is a little before my time.
The proposed contract offers significant advantages to the armed services and to the taxpayer. Making the contractor fully responsible for the provision of the peacetime service gives commanders the flexibility to release regulars to undertake core military activities. What is more, risks associated with the design, construction and maintenance of the vehicles have been transferred to the contractor.

809
From a financial perspective, the PFI offers significantly better value for money than does a conventionally procured solution, with much of the saving being achieved through the contractor's ability to use his workforce to generate third party revenue when his staff are not required for military purposes.
As this project has been taken forward, a key requirement has been the need to maintain appropriate levels of operational effectiveness. In particular, by integrating sponsored reserves with regular soldiers, and through their gradual introduction, the Ministry of Defence has sought to achieve continuity of military skill and capability. Moreover, the contractor intends to recruit ex-Army regulars, many of whom welcome the opportunity to continue to serve their country but as reservist members of the Armed Forces, pursuing civilian careers and developing civilian skills. That was, and is, much in evidence in Donington, where, frequently, at the end of their military career, people move into the civilian workforce using the skills that they have deployed throughout their professional life.
As a further safeguard, the Army will have the capacity to influence the contractor's selection procedure and have the right to vet personnel during their initial selection, thus ensuring that the right calibre of people is recruited.
I turn to the subject of other logistics vehicles projects, raised by the noble Earl. Although the Defence Procurement Agency considered combining the use of sponsored reserves and PFI in other vehicles, the heavy equipment transporter programme is the only project which can take forward both concepts. Although the DPA explored operating concepts for other projects within its existing logistic vehicle programme, it found little scope for the use of sponsored reserves. That is because the types of vehicle considered are driven primarily by soldiers whose principal military roles and training are not as drivers
810
but as infantry, gunners, engineers, signallers and the like. Put simply, in exploring these projects with industry, the DPA was unable to develop the type of innovative and cost-effective solution that it was able to achieve with the heavy equipment transporter.
In conclusion, our approach to the heavy equipment transporter programme is indicative of our approach in general, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. It is one of using sponsored reserves when there is a precise case for doing so in relation to a specific project. We are not pursuing the idea for its own sake. Where the sponsored reserves concept offers us potential benefits, as is the case with the heavy equipment transporter, our approach is to implement sponsored reserves only when the risk to operational effectiveness is totally manageable within the defence programme. Therefore, I commend the programme and its use of sponsored reserves to the House.
Finally, I repeat my thanks to the noble Earl for raising this issue and for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I also thank Members of the House for the patience with which they have listened to my remarks.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may breach all conventions of the House and of Unstarred Questions by congratulating him on his maiden speech. It is the pleasant convention that the following speaker always congratulates and thanks a maiden speaker. On this occasion, there is no opportunity so to do. I believe that one matter made the noble Lord's life more difficult than is normally the case for a maiden speaker: he had the Minister sitting beside him passing him notes the whole time. Therefore, I again congratulate the noble Lord and hope that we shall have the opportunity to hear him many times in the near future.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before six o'clock.

  Haemophilia Centre Nurses: Prescribing Rights
  Haemophilia Centre Nurses: Prescribing Rights
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc
  Entertainment Industry: Employment Agency Regulation
  Entertainment Industry: Employment Agency Regulation
  Democracy and the Will of the People
  Democracy and the Will of the People
  House of Lords Appointments: Interviews
  House of Lords Appointments: Interviews
  Wessex Helicopters, RAF Aldergrove
  Wessex Helicopters, RAF Aldergrove
  Chinook Mark 2 Helicopters: Flight Data Recorders
  Chinook Mark 2 Helicopters: Flight Data Recorders
  European Military Transport Aircraft
  European Military Transport Aircraft
  Eurojust: Powers
  Eurojust: Powers
  Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Appointment
  Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Appointment
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 11 June
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 11 June