Sitting of 12 July 2001

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

    World Trade Organisation
    David Taylor: If she will make a statement on the future work of the World Trade Organisation. [2032]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The next ministerial conference of the WTO will take place in Doha from 9 to 16 November. The United Kingdom Government seek a broad-based new round. We believe that that is the best way forward for a world trading system that will benefit all countries, including developing countries.
    David Taylor: Unprecedented public hostility and civil disorder have been provoked by the WTO plans for further liberalisation of trade, because they fail the basic tests concerning environmental sustainability, cultural diversity, the eradication of poverty and respect for human rights. This autumn in Doha, will our Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and dispossessed peoples of this planet against the mega-rich corporate lobbyists, so that smoke from the streets of Seattle does not drift into the conference chambers of Qatar?
    Ms Hewitt: I understand the concerns that many people have about the exploitation of workers and the environment in developing countries by some multinational companies. The answer, as I know my hon. Friend agrees, is not violent protests such as we saw on the streets of Seattle; nor is 't to cut developing countries out of world trade. The answer is to develop a rules-based system for world trade that will help developing countries—and that is what the Secretary of State for International Development and I shall work to achieve in partnership not only with our colleagues in the European Union, but with our colleagues in developing countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to support us in those endeavours.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What reassurance can the Secretary of State give the House today that the conference planned for the autumn will be conducted safe from the rioting that we have seen on other
    912
    such occasions? Mindful of the incidents during recent football matches in Copenhagen, can she reassure the House that the Government will convince their partners that the conference will be held in absolute safety and that conclusions will be reached?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that the Qatari Government are doing everything possible to ensure that the conference is indeed held in conditions of safety and security. Naturally, they are backed in those endeavours by the United Kingdom Government and our partners in the EU.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Does my right hon. Friend understand that for many of us the other side of the coin to the WTO is the International Labour Organisation? What efforts will she make to ensure that discussions at the WTO take account of the many unfulfilled obligations of this and other Governments attending the conference to commitments that we have signed up to as members of the ILO? There is a feeling in this House that under both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government insufficient attention is being given to our obligations to the workers whose interests are represented by the ILO.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Indeed, I have raised that very issue of the discussions that need to happen within the ILO with Mike Moore, the general secretary of the WTO, when I spoke to him recently. Of course we have to ensure that there are fair rules on labour standards and environmental issues as part of a framework for fair trade in the global economy. We must also ensure—this is of considerable concern to India and other developing countries—that the need for fair labour standards and environmental protection is not used as an excuse for protectionism by developed countries against the poorest countries.
    Mr. John Horam: The Secretary of State said that she would co-ordinate her approach with the Secretary of State for International Development. Will she assure me that she will also co-ordinate it with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
    Ms Hewitt: Of course.

    Manufacturing Business
    Mr. David Borrow: What steps are being taken by her Department to support exporting by small manufacturing businesses. [2033]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): Among the steps we are taking are £17.5 million of support to more than 9,000 UK businesses attending overseas trade fairs and meetings in 56 countries, £2.2 million on overseas trade missions, and a new £1.9 million pilot programme to support new exporters in each region of the UK. That is part of the Government's £66 million annual trade development and promotion programme.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When I visit small manufacturing companies in my constituency, once we have got past the lengthy discussion about the

    913
    weakness of the euro we get down to practical talks about what the Government can do to help small manufacturing companies to export. A common theme in most of those discussions is the need for more support for attending trade fairs. In particular, some existing rules restrict the number of times that a company can be supported in attending trade fairs. That should be re-examined. At a time when exporting manufacturing industries are finding things especially difficult, perhaps my hon. Friend's Department could look again at the existing rules to see whether further resources and assistance can be made available.
    Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty champion of manufacturers in his constituency and region. The existing support available is £2,300 for each trip to exhibit abroad. Exporters are entitled to up to three such grants over a set period. Indeed, the result of that spending is trade for UK firms estimated at £500 million. That represents a return of well over 25 to 1, and is money well spent. However, I shall certainly take on board the thoughtful points made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that Britain is now running the biggest deficit in traded goods since 1697, when records began? Small businesses feel completely frustrated by the extra red tape and regulation pumped out by the Government, all of which damage their competitiveness in international markets, thereby adding to that trade deficit. Is the Minister aware that the DTI's own regulation taskforce, headed by the Labour peer Lord Haskins, has now called the system unworkable and has criticised the Department's efforts—or claims—to be simplifying things as ineffective, and in some cases non-existent? What is the Minister going to do about that criticism? Will his Department simply carry on ignoring the criticism from his own side or will it finally do something about it?
    Nigel Griffiths: We certainly intend to take Lord Haskins' suggestions seriously. I note that Francis Maude, when he was a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is he still in the House? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is still with us—I apologise to him. He will be able to refresh our memory about the fact that in 1995 he used almost the same words as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wells does not pay tribute to the 170,000 new businesses of the past four years. I am also sorry that instead of going back two or three centuries, he does not go back to 1989. At present, the deficit is under 2.25 per cent. as a proportion of gross domestic product, which is much lower than the 1989 figure of 4 per cent. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Under 1973 fair trading legislation, if a multinational company makes a bid for a UK manufacturing firm, it can be referred to the Competition Commission on the grounds of loss of exports. Will the Government retain that condition? If so, will they make use of it on occasion?
    Nigel Griffiths: We will shortly be consulting on reform of the competition regime. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are noted and considered.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. David Amess: What representations she has received from business about the impact of the climate change levy on UK competitiveness. [2034]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Department has received a number of representations from business about the climate change levy, including its impact on UK competitiveness. The levy has been introduced to help the UK deliver its commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, while safeguarding UK business competitiveness.
    Mr. Amess: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box—and I now realise how old I must be getting—but can he justify placing that extra tax on manufacturing companies throughout the UK, especially when small businesses involved in manufacturing have been brought to their knees as a result of the policies of this rotten Government? Finally, will the Minister justify how those poor hard-working companies will be able to pay the extra £30 million in VAT on top of their existing liabilities?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristic grace and generosity of his introductory remarks.
    The competitiveness of UK business extends beyond the climate change levy. We have established a platform of stability in this country, with low inflation and interest rates, and we have offered incentives to the manufacturing community. On the specific issue of the climate change levy, I merely make the following points: all the revenues are recycled via reduced national insurance contributions and energy support for business; there is an 80 per cent. discount for energy-intensive sectors that deliver energy savings in negotiated agreements with the Government and modern manufacturing competitiveness requires not only labour productivity, but resource productivity.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The Minister will be aware that the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been published today, shows that global warming is increasing at double the rate that the panel predicted five years ago, with the result of failing crops throughout the world and possibly a loss of a quarter of food supplies in the poorest countries. Does he agree that the issue is not the climate change levy and its impact, but the impact of inaction on humanity in the future?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that very timely question. The latest work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the very worrying trend, and the consequences for the world if we do not tackle the problem of climate change. That reinforces the Government's determination to take action on climate change. It is noteworthy that although the Conservative party was willing to countenance international agreements when it was in government, it seems to have lost that resolve in opposition.
    Mr. Michael Jack: is the Minister aware of the impact of the climate change levy on investment in

    915
    fuel-efficient combined he at and power systems? This week I received a representation from British Sugar, advising me that its investment in combined heat and power was under threat not just from the application of the levy, but from the operation of the new electricity trading arrangements—as the Minister will learn if he can find the appropriate spot in his briefing notes. Will he give me an undertaking for British Sugar that he will carefully consider that matter and review whether, if he wants energy efficiency, turning off investment in combined heat and power is the best way to achieve it?
    Mr. Alexander: The position of individual businesses, including the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new capital allowances for energy efficiency investments, the energy support and the advice on the new carbon tax. If he wishes to write directly to me about the company that he mentioned, I shall, of course, ensure that the matter is dealt with.
    Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister consider British Sugar's representations? He will know that bringing new environmentally friendly combined heat and power systems on stream is a Government policy objective, and the present arrangements for the climate change levy on energy exports to the local network are causing very real problems.
    Mr. Alexander: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as Minister. It gives me especial pleasure, as I think that I top him by about a quarter of an inch—[Laughter]—at most.
    The climate change levy was introduced in April. As the Minister well knows, manufacturing costs rose sharply in May and output fell more sharply than at any time for a decade. Does he accept that, as a matter principle, a tax should not be levied just when the sector that it hits hardest is having the hardest time? What possible justification can he give for adding to the hardship of manufacturers? How can he say today that the tax will improve the sector's competitiveness?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic generosity concerning my arrival at the Dispatch Box—matched only by his initial comments on my appointment to the Department of Trade and Industry.
    On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, the Government have indeed worked in partnership with business to consider a range of measures, and significant changes have been made to the climate change levy since it was first introduced. That reflects the DTI's sponsorship work. We need to ensure that British businesses get ahead of the curve by improving the productivity not only of the labour in those companies, but of the resources that they use. Countries and companies throughout the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are introducing similar measures and our challenge is to ensure that we lead on an agenda of manufacturing productivity. The climate change levy makes an important contribution to that as well as to our environmental objectives.

    Small Businesses (North-West)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What steps she has taken to increase the productivity of small businesses in the north-west region. [2035]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): We have established the Small Business Service in the north-west region to help small businesses enhance their competitiveness and profitability.. It works with key partners, such as the North West development agency, to champion entrepreneurship and minimise the burden of regulation.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. He will agree that the Small Business Service is very useful. However, could we not also help productivity by cutting some of the burden of red tape? That would assist, and allow small businesses to grow into the medium-sized and large enterprises that we want in the north-west.
    Nigel Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend in hoping that the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will make it far easier to tackle outdated, overlapping and overburdensome legislation. Patrick Carter, who has considerable business experience, has been asked to recommend simplifications to the payroll system to help all businesses, especially, I hope, the 3.7 million small businesses.
    Mr. Richard Page: Further to the sensible and caring question asked by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—it was a good question—is the Minister aware that on Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce announced the result of a survey of the north-west, which painted a gloomy picture for small businesses, particularly those hit by foot and mouth? Is he aware that tens of thousands of people in the north-west have lost their jobs in the textile industry over the past four years and that that trend is continuing, mainly because of the high value of the pound? Is he further aware that the problems and cuts in companies such as BAE Systems, Marconi and Cammell Laird are resulting in further job losses for the small businesses that supply them? The list goes on and on.
    In view of that catalogue of woe, will the Minister now recognise that his response was woefully inadequate? Will he listen to the hon. Member for Chorley and come forward with measures for the north-west that will give help and encouragement for the future? Otherwise the job losses that are taking place in small businesses and manufacturing will continue.
    Nigel Griffiths: I do not want to take up more time in the House than I am due, but on two of the key issues the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The Government have given an additional £3.65 million to the north-west to ensure that small farmers directly affected by the foot and mouth epidemic have access to good business advice through business links and other help. We are doing as much as possible to support businesses in the north-west, which now employ 3.1 million people—119,000 more than in 1997.

    917
    I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is not generally accepted by workers in the north-west, especially those in manufacturing, whose average hourly earnings went up from about £8 to more than £10.50 in the most recent five years for which we have figures.

    Flexible Working
    Judy Mallaber: What action she is taking to help employees obtain flexible working arrangements. [2036]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Last month I appointed a new work and parents taskforce to consider how parents of young children and their employers can be encouraged to agree flexible hours that will suit them both. In addition, the Government's work-life balance campaign works with employers to introduce family-friendly working that meets the needs of both employees and business.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome the establishment of the working parents taskforce. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last Parliament the Select Committee on Education and Employment recommended that women returning to work after childbirth should be allowed to go part-time unless employers could show that that was impractical? Does she agree that, as a minimum, a code of guidance should be drawn up requiring employers to give reasons for rejecting any request for flexible working arrangements? Will she also highlight the areas of skilled employment, such as nursing, in which there are staff shortages and in which greater flexibility by employers could help them to deal with the shortages by making it easier for people to return to work?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes an important point about the real advantages that businesses get by extending flexible working hours. I am also conscious of the Select Committee's excellent work on the subject in the previous Parliament. We consulted specifically on how we could help mothers with new babies and parents of young children to work part-time, and we were repeatedly told, especially by mothers and groups that work with mothers, that they did not want to be in a battleground of disputes and employment tribunals.
    Parents want a sensible discussion with employers to arrive at a practical solution. They want their families' needs to be taken seriously. Our proposal ensures that parents have the right to be taken seriously, and the taskforce, under the chairmanship of Sir George Bain, will consider the practicalities of how we make that work for parents and businesses.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: In welcoming the establishment of the taskforce, may I remind the Secretary of State what the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union said about it? He commented:
    "I am amazed that in the 21st Century the government is portraying the right to ask as a major breakthrough. What if the employer says 'No'?"
    918
    Will she clarify the basic issue of principle before the taskforce gets under way? What if an employee makes a reasonable request for flexible working and the employer says no? Will the employee have legal redress?
    Ms Hewitt: As I made clear when I announced the establishment of the taskforce, the employee's right to make the request is accompanied by a duty for the employer to give that request proper and serious consideration. We are getting the issue on to the business agenda, so that employers and employees can produce solutions that suit them both. The approach has been welcomed by the TUC and the CBI, both of which are participating in the taskforce.
    Miss Anne Begg: Another group of workers who need flexible working arrangements are the disabled and sick. At the moment, employers are far too ready to pension off those people on the grounds of ill health. What is often required is a more flexible approach, such as a phased return to work, shorter working hours or a change in the working environment. Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will encourage employers to adopt those practices, and perhaps consider including groups such as disabled workers in legislation on flexible working for women?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As more businesses consider flexible working and understand the benefits that it brings to them by making it easier to recruit and retain good workers, more employers will extend flexible working hours not only to parents with young children but to people with disabilities or some level of illness.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: That is all very well, but how will it improve flexible working practices for the Government to accept the European Union directive on national works councils, which will cost industry £260 million every year? Does the Secretary of State, as the voice of industry at the heart of the Government, accept that the No. 1 concern of British business is the increasing and intolerable burden of regulation? If she is serious about wanting to tackle the problems, she will find an Opposition who are keen to assist her. However, if she simply continues to add more costs for industry, she will find resistance on both sides of the House, and in the country as a whole, as British business becomes increasingly uncompetitive and people's jobs are put in jeopardy.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the works councils directive, which applies to multinational companies that work across several EU member states. I have been struck by the number of business leaders from such companies who have said that in practice the creation of works councils has proved very useful. The hon. Gentleman may be thinking of the proposed draft directive on information and consultation. His bigotry about all matters European means that he has not bothered to check his facts. The information and consultation directive, on which we agreed a common position a few weeks ago, will not impose works councils on British companies. We have succeeded in making the directive more flexible to ensure that British businesses will be able to find solutions that suit them.

    919
    I notice that the hon. Gentleman has neither told us whether he thinks it is a good idea for employees to be consulted and given information by their employers, nor said whether he thinks that it is good to help parents to balance work and family. We support hard-working families and employees; the Conservative party does not.

    Competitiveness
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What steps are being taken to ensure that products resulting from scientific advances made in the UK are competitive internationally. [2037]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are investing nearly £2 billion in the science base and about £250 million in strengthening collaboration between universities and businesses to ensure that scientific breakthroughs are turned into commercial success.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I particularly welcome the work of the international technology service. What further steps is the Department taking to ensure that UK companies have access to worldwide knowledge and information?
    Miss Johnson: We are developing a number of initiatives that will give further momentum to entrepreneurial education for science and engineering students. A £15 million fund is available for a further round of the university challenge to enable good universities to access seed funds, which will assist in the transformation of good research into good business.
    In addition, we are doing more to make sure that scientists will be rewarded. We are working to produce a brain gain in the UK—[HON. MEMBERS: "A brain what?"] A brain gain, as opposed to the brain drain that happened under the last Conservative Government. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that my noble Friend the Minister for Science will announce later today that five scientists will be rewarded in a five-year £20 million scheme to attract and retain the best scientific talent in the UK.
    Mr. David Heath: I am not sure about the phrase "brain gain" but I support the move that has just been announced. Does the Minister agree that scientific progress can be made only if we have free exchange of the benefits of research? To that end, can she tell me what progress ha: been made in securing international agreements to prevent scientific protectionism, such as the patenting of naturally occurring genetic material or genotypes?
    Miss Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important issue, and we are in discussion with our European partners so as to make progress on it.
    Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that clustering is one of the best ways to develop scientific breakthroughs? Can she assure me that where clusters, such as the Oxford and Cambridge
    920
    technology arc, cross regional development agency and Small Business Service boundaries, artificial constraints will not inhibit technological development?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely agree that it is important to make clustering work, and I am sure that those working in science are keen that it should. We have been emphasising the role of regional development agencies in technology, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the chairmen of the RDAs earlier this week to stress their role in ensuring that business and science in the UK are successful.

    Packaging and Production Waste
    Bob Russell: What representations she has received from the labelling industry as to what constitutes packaging waste and production waste. [2038]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Department has received six letters from businesses in the UK labelling industry which refer to the Environment Agency's decision to issue guidance noting that the backing paper of labels should be treated as a packaging material.
    Bob Russell: If the Government want to be helpful to the packaging industry, may I say that that is a very unhelpful answer, and suggest a way to resolve the problem? The Minister, accompanied by a sufficient number of experts and advisers, should get out of London and go to a proper factory where labelling is going on. May I extend an invitation to her to visit Pago Ltd. in Colchester, where she can see at first hand the difference between packaging waste and production waste?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the invitation. I am aware that he has assiduously been pursuing such issues with my fellow Ministers and the Environment Agency, and I believe that they have been dealt with thoroughly to date. We have elegantly transposed the definitions from the EU directive into UK implementation with the result, I am informed, that the cost in the UK is markedly lower than in any other EU member state. We recognise the value of the industry in the UK and we shall continue to work with it to ensure that implementation is as effective as possible.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend will be aware that timber and wood products are not included under the packaging waste regulations. A recovery target only is set for wood products because of the general feeling that timber cannot be recycled. However, there are companies, including one in my constituency, that recycle waste timber products and facilitate their further use. Unfortunately, such companies cannot take advantage of packaging recovery notes to generate income to help to establish the industry and increase the amount of waste wood that is recycled. Does my hon. Friend intend to look again at the regulations with a view to including such companies?
    Miss Johnson: The Environment Agency is responsible for interpreting and producing guidance on the current directive, and now that it has done that it is

    921
    probably not possible to accommodate my hon. Friend' s suggestion. However, a requirement of the directive is that it be reviewed, so it might be helpful if he makes representations to the Department, which I shall take up through my officials during future negotiations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have already raised this case with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of my constituency company, County Labels Ltd. of Adelphi Mill, Bollington, just north of Macclesfield. I have to tell the Under—Secretary that she really needs to come down to earth and get in touch with the reality of competition from Europe and elsewhere. In Europe, the backing paper on labels is not classed as packaging owing to its functionality and the fact that it forms an integral part of the manufacturing process—article 21, section 8 can be quoted in aid of my argument. Will the hon. Lady ensure that the backing paper on labels is not the subject of an additional onerous burden on our manufacturing industry?
    Miss Johnson: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail—I congratulate him. We continue to work closely with representatives of UK paper and printing-related industries to resolve outstanding issues, but the fact is that the interpretation placed on the directive by the Environment Agency has been guided by a High Court decision and the agency is duty bound to give UK companies the best possible guidance in the light of legal decisions. May I also point out that the directive was agreed in 1994 by the then Conservative Government?

    Steel Industry
    Helen Jackson: If she will make a statement on prospects for the steel industry. [2039]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The United Kingdom steel industry has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years and many jobs have been lost as a result of restructuring and cost cutting. However, the industry has an excellent productivity record, a wide range of high-quality products and a well trained work force. All of that will help its competitive position.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he accept that there is widespread concern in the steel industry in my constituency and in south Yorkshire that very high energy prices and uncertainty about the euro are making the industry less than competitive in Europe? Is he surprised by the fact that, according to his written answer to me on 9 July, his Department does not even know or collect region by region import and export figures for steel and related industries? Will he ask the Department to sharpen up its act on behalf of the steel industry so that, as Members of Parliament, we can track properly exactly what is happening region by region with exchange rates, imports and exports in our core manufacturing industry?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has been a vigorous campaigner on behalf of steel communities, particularly in south Yorkshire. We are
    922
    aware of the problems of the steel industry, but none of them can be solved instantly. They relate to issues which we are working hard to try to resolve.
    On my hon. Friend's specific point, I fully expect not to get the award for best written answer this year. I will look at the matter again, although I have made inquiries of the United Kingdom Steel Association, and it told me that it does not keep figures other than for Customs and Excise. So, it is a mystery why its report to my hon. Friend differs from the information that it is feeding to us. We should be able to ensure that we have better figures that are based on regions, especially since, through regional development agencies and the thrust of our regional approach, we shall need them in future.
    Mr. Graham Brady: With UK energy prices already higher than those of many of our European Union competitors, is it not insane to pile the climate change levy on the UK steel industry while it is struggling to compete?
    Alan Johnson: We have already had a canter round the course on the climate change levy. Corus—and the UK steel industry in general—was very clear that the climate change levy did not lead to its recent difficulties. Indeed, we have negotiated an exemption for dual-use fuels. That is subject to a challenge because there was a complaint by a UK secondary steel manufacturer, but it was widely welcomed by the steel industry. We have struck the proper balance between pursuing environmental targets, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, and ensuring that we have a competitive steel industry in this country.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend had any recent discussions with management and unions on the situation in south Wales, where we were particularly severely hit at Newport during the most recent reorganisation of British steel, in order to find out whether the Government can do anything further with Corns management and unions to promote the industry and ensure that there are no further job reductions in south Wales and in Port Talbot especially, which has a lot of good things going for it?
    Alan Johnson: We announced a package of measures on 3 May to help steel communities throughout the country, but particularly in Wales. On my hon. Friend's specific point, I will of course be willing to talk to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and other unions, all of which have an excellent track record of taking a constructive approach to such problems. I would be delighted to talk to them to see whether we can assist further in the area that he has mentioned.

    Information and Consultation Directive
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What reasons underlay her decision to agree to the information and consultation directive. [2040]
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent discussions she has held with business organisations concerning the proposed European directive on information to and consultation with workers. [2043]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The Government have always believed that good companies inform and consult their employees. During negotiations on the proposed directive, our concern has been to avoid the rigid "one size fits all" approach. The agreement re ached in Brussels on 11 June meets that requirement. We have maintained a close dialogue with business organisations on the directive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently discussed it with the CBI.
    Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) assured the Select Committee on 4 November 1998 that he would block the directive. However, the hon. Gentleman has paid for it, albeit with a post-dated cheque. What happened to the Government's policy? Did it go to the Back Benches with the right hon. Gentleman?
    Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should lie down in a darkened room and take a couple of tablets; this is not the end of civilisation as we know it. In 1998, we opposed the directive because of its "one size fits all" approach. Perhaps the Opposition should get information and start consultation because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the European works council model appears to be confused with the directive. The directive does not introduce works councils; we have the flexibility to ensure that it can be moulded to each member state's requirements. There is a seven-year transitional period, which is only slightly shorter than the time that it takes to elect a leader of the Conservative party. We have substantially modified the European directive to benefit UK companies and their work force.
    Mr. Bercow: That was a pitiful answer. Why can the Minister not see that the directive remains flawed and inappropriate, as the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said on 18 January? Does the Minister not understand that it is opposed by all major representative business organisations, which fear the £260 million recurring costs? When will he recognise that information to and consultation with workers should be decided either by individual companies or this elected House and are not the proper business of the corporatist dirigistes of the European Union?
    Alan Johnson: I am glad to announce to the hon. Gentleman that that is what the directive now provides for; our negotiations in Brussels on 11 June provided exactly that outcome. On information and consultation, the hon. Gentleman may be on another march to the left. If I remember rightly, and to personalise this a little, when he came into the House in 1997, he was against the lowering of the age of consent, he was against the minimum wage—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters do not concern the House.
    Alan Johnson: I am only saying that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in touch with his feminine side, has read all the recommended books and, very soon, will be a great advocate of information and consultation.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve the brain gain posited by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) is to recognise the truth expressed by the managing director of a global company in my constituency, who said that the company discovered that with every pair of hands it got a free brain? Does that not underline the importance of the information and consultation directive? Will my hon. Friend ensure that nothing like Luton ever happens again?
    Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend has raised the crucial issue. I agree that you get a free brain as long as you ensure that you extract talent, imagination and energy from the work force. Some companies are better at that than others. However, the initiative will never work unless we bring employers with us. There have been two attempts at it—Whitleyism and the industrial democracy experiment in the 1970s, which did not work because both sides of industry ensured that they did not. With the directive, we are determined to ensure that there is a genuine change of culture so that workers are genuinely informed and consulted at times when that matters; there is an extraordinarily good business case for that proposition.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Following the final point in the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), can we be certain that, as a result of the directive, the kind of nonsense that took place at General Motors, when workers on the German works council were apprised of the company's plans while workers in Britain learned of them on British radio, will not happen again?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter over a number of years. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) have made that very point. I think we are all determined that what happened to the Vauxhall work force at Luton does not happen to workers anywhere else in the country in future.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Rather than trying to rewrite recent history, will the Minister confirm that the Government were opposed to the directive, and said so repeatedly in the House? They were opposed to it on the ground that it breached the subsidiarity principle because it applies only to purely domestic firms and has nothing to do with EU trade or multinational companies. That objection remains valid. However, the Government have been outvoted. That happened when the Germans changed sides on the issue shortly after the British general election.
    Why are the Government, when they and this House have recently been out-manoeuvred and outvoted on this matter, signing up in the Nice treaty to another 31 areas of policy that will be decided by majority voting, allowing

    925
    the will of the House and the Government to be out-manoeuvred and outvoted in new areas and even more often? Where is the logic in that?
    Alan Johnson: I reiterate that our aim in all the discussions from 1998, when the directive was mooted, was to avoid a rigid and legalistic framework. Our aim was to avoid the works council model that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned. It was in that sense that we argued about subsidiarity.
    On 11 June, that changed as a result of our engaging in dialogue. Incidentally, there was not a vote; it was dialogue that enabled us to join the consensus. As a result of negotiation and discussion, we believe that we have a directive that British companies, even if they do not welcome it immediately, once they have read the details will agree takes us forward. That is in sharp contrast to what happened in relation to the European works council directive, when the Conservative Government opted out. The directive was negotiated and it affected UK companies because it applied to companies that had workers in more than one member state, but they had no input and no influence. There is now a different and far more constructive way of doing things in Europe.
    Margaret Moran: As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, this is a matter of deep concern to my constituents, including Vauxhall employees and former employees who experienced sacking over their cereal without being informed by General Motors of their fate. Will he ensure that as part of the directive there is on-going information and consultation involving employees, not simply at the point of their being sacked. which is far too late a stage? Will he recognise, and perhaps advise Conservative Members who are opposed to any extension of workers' rights, that information and consultation, as the research of the Industrial Society has shown, bring increased productivity to businesses as well as benefits to workers?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I reiterate that the directive is not only about information and consultation in relation to redundancies. A collective redundancies agreement already covers that. We are talking about information and consultation on all areas where the work force have an interest, such as change of work organisation and future plans for the company.
    Every survey shows that if the work force are properly consulted and informed, there is an enormous reward for business. That is the crucial message that we need to get across over the next months and years.

    Communications White Paper
    Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to introduce legislation to implement the regulatory structure proposed in the Communications White Paper; and if she will make a statement. [2041]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I am pleased to announce that this afternoon the Government will introduce in another place the Office of Communications Bill, which will be a paving measure related to the draft communications
    926
    Bill that was announced in the Queen's Speech. The communications Bill itself will be published in draft later this Session.
    Michael Fabricant: That is good news. The introduction of the Bill is long overdue. Its delayed introduction has been holding back the development of information technology. The Minister will know that many people in the industry welcomed many parts of the White Paper, which was issued in December last year.
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House find it extraordinary that while the Government are introducing Ofcom, which will control the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, Oftel, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency, the BBC is once again to be its own judge and jury, with the BBC board of governors being responsible to itself? When will the Government grasp the nettle and finally make the BBC answerable to a third party—the people who pay the licence fee?
    Mr. Alexander: Although I am happy to acknowledge to the House that there is close joint working between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter, it is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is dealing. I shall be happy to pass her observations on to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon. Does he agree that the urgency of the matter is paramount, especially for areas such as the Rhondda, where broadband access is still denied to the whole of the constituency, and where the growing digital divide between the information-rich and the information-poor is a problem that should worry every part of the country?
    Mr. Alexander: I agree that we should strike an appropriate balance, making sure that there is the necessary consultation with the various partners who will be involved in the detailed discussions concerning the draft Bill, while maintaining the necessary momentum through the paving Bill, which I understand will be introduced in another place this afternoon.

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What action she is taking to increase the payment of compensation to former mineworkers; and if she will make a statement. [2044]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are making real progress in speeding up medical assessments and compensation payments for retired miners. We are paying out about £1 million in compensation every day, and shortly we will have paid out £500 million across our country. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shorts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) for all the work that they

    927
    did when in this Department to ensure that British miners receive the justice which they deserve and which was so long denied to them by the Conservatives.
    Mr. O'Brien: What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take in response to representations about claims that have been outstanding for four or five years? Constituents of ours who art in their mid-80s are still waiting for compensation. Some people fear that they will not receive the benefit while they are living. It is unacceptable that claims made four or five years ago have still not been met. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that those long-standing claims are met without further delay, so that our constituents receive what they are entitled to while they are alive?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. We have already put in place a system to prioritise the compensation claims of the oldest miners and the sickest miners, so that they go to the top of the queue for the medical assessment that has to be done before the compensation can be paid. We are determined to ensure that those assessments are made by spring next year. We are carrying them out as quickly as we can, because that is the right thing to do.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I entirely accept the right hon. Lady's good faith, but will she be a little more expeditious and try to ensure that all the claims are settled by spring next year? It is extremely important that they should be.
    Ms Hewitt: The scheme is the largest personal injury compensation scheme that has ever been established in our country. No one has ever done that before. We have already received 150,000 claims. We do not know how many more will come in—they are still coming in every week. If those cases had been pursued individually
    928
    through the courts, the miners would have waited up to 15 years to get their compensation. We have prioritised them. We will deal with the oldest and sickest miners first. We have recruited more medical specialists to carry out the assessments. We will go on dealing with the matter as quickly as is possible, but I cannot give an end date by which we will have finished dealing with all the cases, because in some cases we have not even received the claims.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 300 lawyers are involved in the settlement of the claims—a lot more than would have been involved if the NUM areas had remained intact? They include a lot of fly-by-nigh lawyers. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much they are likely to get out of the £4 billion that has been set aside for claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and vibration white finger? Can she tell us whether some of them are dragging their feet deliberately? All of them receive a handling fee that is provided by the Government and comes from the taxpayers' pocket. When my right hon. Friend looks into ways of speeding up the claims, will she deal with those legal people who are holding up a lot of claims in order to line their own pockets?
    Ms Hewitt: I think that the problem of having 300 lawyers involved in the claims has been very real. We are now dealing better with the solicitors' group and agreeing a faster way forward to get the cases resolved and money paid out. Mr. Justice Turner, the High Court judge who has been hearing the case, confirmed last November that we had to have a complex system in order to achieve fairness. That means, for instance, that we have to pay lawyers for up to one and a half hours' legal advice to help claimants to fill in the assessment forms, which are necessarily complex. Our objective is to get fair compensation to those miners as quickly as possible. We will pay the lawyers a fair fee, but we will not let them hold up the process.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Motions to approve the membership of Select Committees.
Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.
Motion to approve a report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
TUESDAY 17 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (2nd Day).
WEDNESDAY 18 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (3rd Day).
THURSDAY 19 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to approve the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001.
FRIDAY 20 JULY—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the week following the recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day).
FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
For the convenience of the House, I should announce that the topics for debate in Westminster Hall when we return from the recess will be:
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Education and Employment Committee entitled "Early Years".
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on genetics and insurance.
THURSDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Debate on third world debt.
THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Debate on the reports from the Education and Employment Committee regarding higher education.
THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Debate on housing.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. We welcome the opportunity to debate
930
the Select Committee nominations on Monday. Will he confirm that there will be a free vote for Labour Members on both the Front and Back Benches? The business motion tabled today in respect of the debate seeks to finish the deliberations at 7 o'clock on Monday, so if a statement is made, we will be left with only two and a half hours to debate this important matter. The House will appreciate that the Opposition are very interested in these procedures. I do not expect him to commit himself now, but will he agree to be flexible in terms of that particular business motion if a statement is made? Obviously, we all look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I hope that the curtailment of time will not preclude hon. Members on either side of the House from contributing to such an important debate.
Yesterday, along with colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I voted against the draft special educational needs code of practice because it was flawed and did not recognise the individual and specific needs of children. I am pleased to see that the Government withdrew the code later in the day. Will the Leader of the House outline how the Government will now proceed with the code, particularly as we are coming not only to the parliamentary recess but to the long summer holidays in the educational world? Parents, teachers and Members of Parliament would be anxious if the Government were to publish their changes to the code during the summer weeks when there is no proper opportunity to scrutinise them. How do the Government intend to proceed with this matter?
Earlier this week, the press reported that there are to be significant changes in the Cabinet Office in respect of the way in which the Government deal with national crises. Apparently, as a result of the way they handled the fuel crisis last year and the foot and mouth crisis this year, there are to be changes in the way COBRA—the Cabinet Committee that deals with crises—is run. When the Deputy Prime Minister returns to these shores, could he be asked to come to the House before we rise for the summer recess so that we might all be apprised of the Government's thinking on the way in which national crises are dealt with?
Finally—I am sure that I do not need to ask this question—will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Prime Minister will be available in the coming week to make a statement to the House on the talks on Northern Ireland?
Mr. Cook: I look forward with the keenest of interest to our debate on Monday. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks. On the Labour Benches, the vote on who should be a member of a Select Committee will be a free vote. This is a House of Commons—[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will let me finish my sentence, I think that I shall be able to satisfy him.
This is a matter for the House and it is right that the House should decide who should be members of the Select Committees. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cook: I was pleading with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let me finish but, as he is bursting

931
with enthusiasm, I shall repeat what I have already announced to the world this morning, which is that there will be no payroll vote on any of these issues on Monday. It is for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and those behind me, to decide how they will vote in any particular case. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may force a large number of votes, having counted his amendments.
In response to the question about timing, I must stress that this is, so far as we can discover, the first time that any Government have scheduled a debate about the setting up of Select Committees in prime time. Such debates are usually taken late at night. This debate will be held in prime time between the end of questions until 7 pm, and I am sure that that will provide plenty of time for the House to explore the issues of concern. I should be extremely surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) did not contribute to that debate.
The Government have announced their intention to amend the educational code and to bring the matter forward for debate after the summer recess. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for the House to consider it when we return in the autumn.
On Northern Ireland, I am absolutely confident that the Government will take every possible measure to ensure that the House is kept informed of the progress of the talks. Indeed, as the hon. Lady will have noticed from the business statement, there will be opportunities for us to explore Irish issues next week, starting on Monday when we shall debate the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.
I note the hon. Lady's request for a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on the new arrangements for responding to national crises. It is sensible that we should examine ways in which we can achieve an integrated, co-ordinated and prepared response, although we do not seek national crises. I note and log her request for a statement, but I would gently remind her that the first point she made was that she did not want a statement on Monday. As always, I have to balance the requirement of the House for a statement with the wish to protect the business of the House.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for being so effective after my intervention yesterday afternoon when he was carrying out his caretaker role. I asked for an early decision on the Hastings bypass, and it was made at about 12.30 pm today. Unfortunately, it was the wrong decision. [Interruption.] It may be amusing, but not for my electors in Hastings and Rye, who are devastated by the decision not to proceed. Despite unanimous support from the local council, the county council and the south-east region, the Government have made a different decision. Can we have an early debate on the matter so that the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions can explain how it could have overlooked the poverty of my constituency, which includes the 28th poorest town in Britain, local democracy and overwhelming public support for the bypass, and reached the wrong decision? When will such a debate be possible?
Mr. Cook: I promised my hon. Friend an early decision, and he got one. However, as he knows, the
932
Hastings bypass has been a contentious matter. All the evidence collected at the public inquiry and the expression of public opinion did not point in one direction. I regret that the outcome disappoints my hon. Friend, but it is in the nature of public inquiries that pleasing both parties is often impossible.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On the subject of the treatment of Government Back-Bench Members, I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the leading article in today's Evening Standard. It states that the names of some Labour London Members of Parliament have been attached to a motion in support of public-private partnership for the tube, apparently without their approval. Will he urgently investigate that serious matter, which pertains to the respect of the House for its Members and vice versa, as well as to the respect of Government for their Back Benchers?
Will the Leader of the House consider the way in which effective opposition to the Government is provided largely from the Government Back Benches as well as from the Conservative Back Benches and the Liberal Democrats? Will he particularly examine the way in which Opposition Front-Bench Members are financed? In the provisional business last week, he announced that the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001 would be considered next week. It includes an increase in the amount paid by the taxpayer to the Conservative leader in the House of Lords to £60,961 and to the Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Lords to £56,224. Will that be backdated now that the increase will be postponed until October?
Will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that those increases are on top of the considerable sum already paid to the leader of the Conservative party? I presume that that is why five people are still interested in that ludicrous job. The Conservative party leader receives £63,000 and the Conservative Chief Whip receives £35,500, although he cannot control his Back-Bench Members. In view of the total disarray on the Conservative Benches, does the Leader of the House believe that taxpayers are getting good value for money?
Mr. Cook: The statement on the London tube was an initiative by London Members, not the Government. Any Member who feels misrepresented will have plenty of opportunities to make that clear. We welcome support for a proposal that will enable investment of £13,000 million to proceed. That will provide a basis on which commuters and travellers on the London tube will have trains that run on time, new, more comfortable trains and cleaner stations. Those are important gains, which will be secured without changing London Underground's responsibility for managing, running and ensuring the safety of the service.
The hon. Gentleman tempts me sorely to comment on value for money considerations, for not only the tube but Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, the increases that he mentioned follow from previous references to the Senior Salaries Review Body. As I said recently when we debated pay and rations, I believe that our pay and increases should be independently assessed. Once that has happened, we should accept the assessment.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend know that a public inquiry is about to start into the proposed development of an international airport

933
on the former RAF base of Finningley in Doncaster? Does he know that the main objector is Manchester Airport plc, which also owns Humberside airport and East Midlands airport? Does he believe that it is right and acceptable that a company owned by council tax payers in one region is trying to thwart regeneration in another region? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to hold an investigation into the use of public funds?
Mr. Cook: It certainly would be a matter of legitimate public concern if public funds rather than proceeds of the trade of the airport were to be used in such ways. Having said that, I was asked that very question yesterday and I responded by assuring the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is considering ways in which he can expedite the public inquiry. The best way forward is to have a public inquiry during which all interested parties can express their views. I am sure that my hon. Friend will robustly express the views of his constituents.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House, bearing in mind his interview in The Times today, which tells us how he will take Parliament more seriously, arrange for an explanation to be given to the House as to how a Minister recommended approving a code on Tuesday evening, with the House approving it in a Division yesterday afternoon, while, at the same time, the Department for Education and Skills was withdrawing it?
Mr. Cook: I see no conflict whatever between what I have said about modernising the House and improving scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responded to criticism and to concern, which was expressed from the Opposition Front Bench only 10 minutes ago. I think it absolutely right and proper that she should listen to those representations and consider them.
Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the recent report "Sea Changes", which has been produced by the seaside resorts taskforce? That fine report contains excellent recommendations for seaside towns. There is so much concentration on rural tourism at present—I am equally concerned about it, as I represent a rural constituency—but it is important that we do not forget the seaside resorts and the problems that they have faced over the years. I would welcome an early debate on that.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point, and makes it with force on behalf of the constituency that she represents in the House. It is important that we consider all the significant elements of the tourism industry and all the different communities that depend on it. One of the obvious lessons of the past few months is that decline in tourism in one part of Britain can affect tourism in the other parts, as many of those who take holidays use more than one centre.
I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will want to reflect on
934
how we ensure that we have a balanced tourism policy that covers those seaside resorts that find it a challenge to maintain their tourism industry in the modern world.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that, since the general election, the axe has fallen on a Foreign Secretary who believed in Europe. a junior Home Office Minister who believed in telling the truth about a telephone call from a senior Cabinet Minister and two independent-minded Select Committee Chairmen who believed in doing their job—holding the Government to account—is there anything that anyone can believe in under the aegis of this Government without facing the sack?
Mr. Cook: I note that the motion on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that we shall debate on Monday includes the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I seem to remember being, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, a vigorous teller of the truth. My hon. Friend will recall many exchanges and his survival is a clear example of the Government's commitment to open scrutiny.
I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is again on the Select Committee on Health—he was robust and vigorous in his scrutiny in that Committee in the last Parliament—and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been appointed to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. [Interruption.] Well, he is on the list for approval by the House on Monday and I have no intention of moving an amendment to his inclusion or that of either of the other two. My hon. Friend has distinguished himself by his outspokenness since the general election and the House can take confidence from that. The Government are committed to having successful Committees carrying out scrutiny.
Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a free vote on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001? Some of us have a constitutional objection to the growing disparity between Back Benchers' and Ministers' salaries. It is unhealthy, and discourages principled resignations.
My right hon. Friend's suggestion, canvassed in The Times today, that Chairmen of Select Committees should receive salaries might commend itself to us, provided that the anointing of Chairmen was not at the disposal of Government Whips.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has fully lived up to my expectations.
The proposal for payment for Select Committee Chairmen has been made from within the House on a number of occasions. It was made by the Liaison Committee in the last Parliament, and was made again in the report of the Hansard Society, whose conference I shall address later today. It is not unproblematic. One of the principles that we have advised the SSRB to follow is that all Members except Ministers should receive the same pay: but we should examine the proposal, if there is support for it, and refer it to the SSRB for its consideration and advice.

935
As for ministerial salaries. my hon. Friend is wrong about the widening of the gulf: proportionately, it remains the same. Nevertheless, I look in hope towards the day when my hon. Friend will be in a position to carry out a principled resignation.
Sir George Young: We have heard that the Prime Minister has set up a crisis management unit to scan the horizon for political black clouds. Have those sharp-eyed folk focused on next Monday's business? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the risks of trying to compress into a fairly short debate the vital issue of how the House is to hold the Government to account—a process made more necessary by what was done in the last Parliament? If he really wants to put an end to cynicism in the political process, could he not give a lead by voting for the reinstatement of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions?
Mr. Cook: As I have said, Monday's debate will mark the first occasion on which we have discussed such nominations in prime time rather than in the small hours. That is a major gain for the House, as I hope Members will recognise.
It is important for us to complete Monday's business, so that the Select Committees can meet next week and decide on their business priorities before the recess. I gave the House that commitment, and I am delivering on it. The specific membership of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee is a matter for the House. As I have promised, there will be a free vote for members of the Government as well as Members of the House.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the criteria for the selection of successful bids under the Government's regeneration schemes—which, I must say, are very good schemes? Jaywick Sands, in my constituency, has 2,000 residents, 81 per cent. of whom live in households without a wage earner. They are living in 1930s holiday homes made of wood, and they are desperate for help. There are no proper roads in the area, and there is no proper street lighting and no proper drainage.
The residents have applied for neighbourhood renewal, and have been told that they do not meet the criteria. They have applied for help under the new deal for communities, and have been told that they do not meet those criteria either. They have applied for neighbourhood management, whose criteria they did meet, but they have just failed again.
What my constituents now want is not to know when the next round of bids will he presented, but when they will receive the support that they desperately need from the Government.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the regeneration scheme. He has put with force and clarity a case in his constituency in which renewal and regeneration are plainly needed. I shall happily draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and will
936
invite him to consider with my hon. Friend whether there is any problem with the criteria that is causing the difficulty.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am trying to reconcile the stunning words of the Leader of the House about Select Committees in The Times with the shambles that he will preside over next Monday. Can he honestly tell the House from the Dispatch Box that Labour Members have not been removed from the Whips' nominations because of their independence of mind and spirit? Secondly, can he explain how the system can possibly be fair to minority parties when they have no representative on the Committee of Selection and the party that is meant to represent them, the Liberal Democrat party, blatantly pursues its own interests with no consultation in order to substitute its Members for those in other minority parties?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into far too hot water when he asks me to intervene between other parties and the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter for them to resolve between themselves. It has been a long-standing convention for the Liberal Democrat party to represent the interests of itself and other minority parties. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to resolve with the Liberal Democrat party. I cannot intervene—
Mr. Salmond: It is the right hon. Gentleman's job.
Mr. Cook: No it is not my job to run the Liberal Democrat party, nor do I aspire to it.
On Monday the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to comment on the list and on any unsatisfactory treatment of his or another minority party. Indeed, if he wishes, he may comment on what he regards as unsatisfactory treatment of any Labour Member.
Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on our architectural heritage? This year's English Heritage buildings at-risk register includes the Mechanics' Institute in my constituency. The building was once glorious. The people of Swindon used to learn there, spend leisure time and court each other there. It is now in total disrepair. Last year English Heritage found only £5.7 million in grant aid towards 98 buildings on that register. To put right all the buildings which will be found in many hon. Members' constituencies £400 million is required. May we have a debate so that we can all put our heads together and see what money can be found, so that these precious buildings, loved by so many of our constituents, can be preserved for the future?
Mr. Cook: I am familiar with the building that my hon. Friend mentions. I have passed it on many occasions. I fully agree with her on its importance not merely as part of our architectural heritage, but as part of Britain's wider cultural heritage. My hon. Friend drew attention to the funds available for these buildings. I do not disagree that those funds are stretched, given the large number of buildings concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will have heard what she said. My hon. Friend may wish to pursue this with the Department.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate to discuss the failures of the

937
health service in Lincolnshire? Is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents have to wait 68 weeks for an appointment with a consultant neurologist at Pilgrim hospital, Boston? Is he further aware that my constituents in and around Sleaford cannot get on to national health service dental panels, so cannot get NHS dentistry? Is he further aware that my constituents suffering from multiple sclerosis cannot get beta interferon? Is not that a scandal and should not the Government now be held to account for their failure?
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that not only have waiting lists fallen by 125,000 in the past four years, but waiting times have also fallen. I am sure that he will wish to express full support for our NHS plan which proposes to cut the average waiting time of 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment.
I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the gall to complain about the provision of NHS dentists. During the 18 years in which he supported a Conservative Government the NHS dentistry service went through a massive reduction. This Government have increased the dentist panels and are looking for an increase in and return to NHS dentists across the land in the way that should have been maintained under the Conservative Government.
Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 93?
[That this House is concerned that Financial Services Authority research proves that nearly five million endowment policies may not grow sufficiently to repay their mortgages; regrets that only 10,500 people have been compensated out of at least three million who were mis-sold endowments 'guaranteed' by salespeople to pay off mortgages fully; and calls on the Government to instruct the FSA to launch a mis-selling inquiry funded by companies' shareholders and to write to those facing possible shortfalls with details of how to claim compensation.]
It is about the plight of 5 million endowment policy holders whose endowments will not mature and pay off their mortgages, let alone pay the nest egg that they were promised by the sales people who made huge commissions. Only 10,000 of those 5 million people have been compensated. Can we ask the Financial Services Authority to send its leaflet advising on how to claim compensation to all those families who have received amber or red letters?
Mr. Cook: All endowment mortgage holders should have been sent the FSA factsheet explaining the situation, and their right to complain and to take it forward if they are concerned. Indeed, I can confirm that the factsheet has been sent to a number of endowment mortgage holders because I received one myself.
Mr. Michael Jack: Today, the Home Secretary is meeting 80 chief constables to talk about ways in which the performance of the police service can be improved. Will the Leader of the House invite the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters in the light of the disturbing headline in the Lancashire Evening Post on Wednesday 11 July:
"Besieged police operators 'cannot cope' with 25,000 emergency calls each week."
938
The police admitted that they have do not enough staff to man the 999 call system. In the same article, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is in the Chamber, states:
"Our area has been failed. The biggest complaints that people bring to me are that people can't get through to the police."
This is a scandalous situation and it needs to be probed. The Home Secretary should come to the Dispatch Box and answer for it.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, come the autumn, there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss questions as to the competence of the judicial system and criminal procedures, because there will a number of pieces of legislation on those matters and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that he can take encouragement from the fact that in the past year, for the first time in a decade, which also embraces the period when his party was in office, we have seen a reversal of the decline in police numbers. Police numbers went up by 1,350 in the past year. I am even more pleased to tell the House that the number of people being attracted into training for the police has gone up by 75 per cent., so we can look forward to a much greater increase in future years, which will assist with the problems that he identifies.
Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the wide implications of a recent Court of Appeal judgment? The court has decided that private trusts to which public tasks, such as care of the elderly and disabled, are transferred are not subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. Apparently, that is the case even though they are clearly carrying out functions hitherto undertaken by public authorities and are often subsidised by public funds. If there is to be a great increase in the use of private entities in public service delivery, will that not mean that our brand new. much-coveted human rights legislation will have less and less relevance to ordinary people?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of the judgment to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will happily inquire into it and ensure that she receives a response. Plainly we take pride in the fact that we introduced the Human Rights Act for Britain—
Mr. John Bercow: Ghastly!
Mr. Cook: Obviously, not everyone agrees with us: in a sense, the hon. Gentleman's opposition fortifies me in the view that we were right to introduce the Act. We want to ensure that all citizens, whatever their condition and wherever they are, have proper and fair access to its remedies.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to offer the House guidance about his views on Select Committees? Does he believe that they are a happy and convenient retirement place for sacked Ministers? Alternatively, does he believe that Select Committees perform a useful function in the

939
House? If so, has he remonstrated with his Whips about the removal of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? If it is true that her removal was in order to get fresh blood into the Committees, does he recognise that there is more vitality running through the veins of the hon. Lady than many of the yes men and women with whom he seeks to replace her?
Mr. Cook: I would not seek to differ from the hon. Gentleman in his description of the vitality of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. On his first point, I do not think that we should exclude the experience, energy and knowledge that those who have served in government can bring to the work of Select Committees. Indeed, I recall that when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government several of their former Cabinet Ministers also served on Select Committees. If I may so, I think that the then right hon. Member for Guildford, now Lord Howell of Guildford, performed well as the Chair of a Select Committee and served the House with distinction.
Mr. David Clelland: May we have an early debate on the implications of the Government's devolution policies on the structure of government in Whitehall? Surely it is no longer justifiable for Scotland and Wales to continue to have Secretaries of State representing their interests in the Cabinet, given that they have their own Parliament and Assembly. Does not that further disadvantage the English regions, which do not yet have an assembly, let alone a Cabinet member, to represent their interests?
Mr. Cook: It is very important that the House and the Government should ensure that they have proper channels of communication to the devolved bodies. I have often found my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to he of great value in ensuring that we work in partnership with the devolved organisations that represent the people of those two countries. I fully share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that the north-east is fairly represented. That is why the Government have created the prospect of a regional assembly for the north-east and any other region that wishes to have one. That is the best way forward to ensure that the people of the north-east and other regions can have a direct say in who runs the local services that are directly relevant to them.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement or an early debate on the measures to prevent a repeat of last year's floods in Sussex? Is he aware that when the House returns in October a full year will have passed since those devastating floods, which affected Uckfield, Buxted and Hellingly in my constituency alone, and that there is growing dismay and despair that no work has been carried out to prevent their recurrence? May we have a statement to discover why so little money has been spent and why it has taken so long for anything to be done?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate or a statement in the week that remains before the House adjourns for the recess, but I assure him that the
940
Government will continue to function during the recess, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to work and that I will ensure that they are aware of his concerns.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a regular debate, possibly yearly, on the work of delegations from the House. to international bodies, which would allow them to report back to the House? I am a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe, which is not to be confused with the European Union. It is a completely separate organisation, with an important role as the parent body of the European convention on human rights. Our role on the delegation is multifaceted; we are ambassadors, diplomats and politicians, but most of all we are delegates from the House to that body, yet we never return here to report.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I am well aware of the excellent work done by the Council of Europe. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, the Council of Europe has played a very important part in encouraging and supporting the countries of central and eastern Europe into democracy and adopting the important principles of freedom and human rights, in all of which it can take a lot of credit. I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend says, but I am reluctant to make a commitment to hold further annual debates, which already reduce the flexibility of the House to carry out its important business of scrutinising the Government. However, there may be ways—for example, in Westminster Hall—in which we can allow those involved in the Council of Europe to report, and it is right that they should have an opportunity to do so.
Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last week the House voted by a margin of 289 to 33 to instruct the trustees of the parliamentary pension scheme—a statutory scheme—to extend bereavement benefits to unmarried couples, including same-sex couples: indeed, he supported that decision. Has he held any discussions with colleagues about how other public sector statutory pension schemes such as those for NHS staff and teachers, which do not offer those benefits, can be amended to ensure that those benefits are available? I think that he will recognise that less well-paid people will not understand how Members of Parliament and Ministers can vote for those rights for their bereaved partners, yet prevent those benefits from being made available to public servants in the teaching profession, the NHS and other professions.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman invited the House to vote for that measure, and I was very pleased to support him. He should not therefore now criticise those who supported him in that vote. I have not had an opportunity to pursue this point with the trustees, and the House will be aware that other issues that arise from last Thursday also engage me. However, I hope that the trustees will be able to reflect on the will of the House and develop the means by which it can become part of the Commons pension scheme. Once they have done that, it may be possible to learn lessons elsewhere, but the first step must be to interpret the decision that the House has taken and to put it into practice.
Mr. Alan Hurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate consequences that flow from the

941
European Community's personal protective equipment directive? I raise the issue because my constituent, Mr. Lindsell, suffered a severe accident in 1979, as a result of which he has to wear specially adapted industrial boots. Hitherto, those boots were adapted in the local hospital for his particular needs, but since the directive came into force there has been some uncertainty about whether that is still lawful. I have been in correspondence with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health for more than a year but I have received no satisfactory response on this issue. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate to consider this important question?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a constituency case that is of great importance to him and to his constituent. My hon. Friend should be congratulated on pressing vigorously and openly on the Floor of the House the claims of his constituent. I will happily draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and shall invite him to consider further the correspondence.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), I believe—to come to the House to make a statement on the working of the emergency business rate relief scheme that resulted from the outbreak of foot and mouth? My area of Macclesfield is the only borough in Cheshire not to be eligible for the relief, which is causing great unhappiness and anger among retail businesses, hotels, pubs and other outlets that tourists and visitors normally frequent and patronise. Those businesses are in grave financial difficulties and it appears to be an anomaly and an injustice that an area that is 90 per cent. rural and agricultural and has a population density that meets the criteria should not be eligible for emergency business rate relief.
Mr. Cook: I know that my right hon. Friend continues to keep the working of the scheme under review. It has been in operation for only a few weeks, so it must be kept under review. I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to imagine that a scheme that was devised to provide assistance to the countryside is one that we can readily apply to an urban area, even if it is surrounded by countryside. None the less, I shall happily draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. John Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of yet another tragic and premature death. A woman in Scotland died from deep vein thrombosis after recently travelling on an aircraft. Given the growing public concern about the incidence of this condition and the apparent unwillingness of airline companies to carry out proper research into the matter, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in the House on the subject? We do not definitely know whether the condition affects just a handful of people or is of epidemic proportions, so does he now think that we should have a public inquiry into the matter?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue that concerns many air travellers. I am not immediately
942
persuaded that a debate in the House would necessarily throw further light on the scientific issues involved. I welcome the fact that the airlines are now providing considered advice on how people can avoid deep vein thrombosis when flying. It is in the airlines' interests, as well as those of their passengers, that there is confidence in the use of the airlines.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The right hon. Gentleman did not confirm that the Prime Minister will come to the House next week to make a statement on Northern Ireland. Given the gravity of the situation, does he not agree that despite the burdens on the Prime Minister's time it is right for him to make such a statement before the recess? Will he guarantee that his right hon. Friend will do that?
Mr. Cook: I have been very careful not to anticipate the outcome of the talks, which recommence tomorrow. I remind the hon. Gentleman that twice next week we will debate Northern Ireland orders and the Prime Minister will, of course, be answering questions in the House on Wednesday.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the introduction of free school meals for youngsters whose families receive the working families tax credit?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend proposes an extension of the working families tax credit, which has been a very successful scheme. For many low-paid households, it has provided an additional £20 to £30 a week. That has made a real difference to those families and the standard of living of their children. The policy is consistent with our commitment to lift another 1 million children out of poverty, as we did in the last Parliament. I would be much more comfortable with our continuing that strategy of lifting children out of poverty than reverting to means-tested benefits, which would keep them trapped in poverty. Let us work on our strategy to ensure that we end child poverty within a generation. That has to be right and it is one of the most important priorities for Britain.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions make a statement to the House next week on the Government's decision on the proposed development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport? Is he aware that with every week that passes its competitive advantage over gateways such as Charles de Gaulle and Schipol is being eroded? The Government have no excuse for procrastinating any longer.
Andrew Mackinlay: They should reject it, but they will not.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend helpfully makes it clear that there is more than one view on this matter, and I am grateful for that observation. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was a clear bid for a job.
My right hon. Friend has to proceed with care. He has a quasi-judicial capacity that is open to judicial review. so I would not want to press him to cut corners or act

943
hastily. He will certainly reach a considered and careful conclusion that reconciles the differing views as best it can.
John Cryer: May we have an urgent debate before the recess on the public-private partnership that is being foisted on the London tube? It is not a proper partnership but the backdoor privatisation of chunks of the tube, which involves breaking up the network in a way that could be deeply dangerous to the travelling public, many of whom are my constituents. The Minister for Transport should come to the Dispatch Box before the recess and tell us what he is playing at.
Mr. Cook: The Government would very much wish to find a way to make progress as fast as possible. That is why we have asked London Underground to enter into negotiations with the bidders. I stress that the proposals will leave London Underground managing and running services. It will be responsible for safety and will manage an integrated service.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Health and Safety Executive has a double lock on the safety of the proposals. First, it will report, probably by the end of the month, on the safety of the package; secondly, it will report, probably towards the end of the year, on the safety of each contract as it proceeds. I urge him to reassure his constituents that the safety issues are a priority for the Government and are fully safeguarded in the plans for the tube.
Miss Anne McIntosh: One of the national crises that the Government are dealing with is that of foot and mouth. A week ago today we had our first case in Vale of York and we now have five. North Yorkshire, with 107 cases, is the third worst affected county. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that the issues that we have raised with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be responded to before the recess? Will the problems that may arise should the epidemic escalate—it is clearly not under control—be brought to the attention of the Department and the Government during the recess?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that during the recess she will have plenty of opportunities to raise the matter with Ministers.
Miss McIntosh: The House will not be sitting.
Mr. Cook: The House may not be sitting, but I can assure her that my colleagues at DEFRA will continue to work on foot and mouth through the recess, and I am sure that she will find ways to communicate with them, even though she will be unable to attend the Chamber.
The hon. Lady has a point when she says that we are not yet at the end of the outbreak. That is why we have continually stressed that it is important that everybody, including the farming community, take all possible steps to make sure that the biosecurity mechanisms are in place and are observed. We have made good progress. There are now half a dozen or fewer new cases a day, which is a big improvement on the 40 to 50 cases a day that were confirmed at the height of the epidemic.
John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be all too aware that on Tuesday BAE Systems
944
announced that 1,150 jobs will be lost on the Clyde and in Barrow. Scotstoun, the biggest yard on the Clyde, will bear the brunt of the losses. Will he call an urgent debate, not only on the Clyde but on shipbuilding in the country as a whole?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue for his constituents and the wider Scottish public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House earlier this week, which has increased the orders available to the yard and, in the longer term, should provide security of employment on the Clyde. We are disappointed about, and very much regret, the short-term situation in which there will be a number of lay-offs on the Clyde. I assure my hon. Friend that the Scottish Executive and the Employment Service are fully engaged in trying to find ways in which they can meet the needs of those facing redundancy.
I cannot offer my hon. Friend a debate before the House rises next week because of the pressure of business, but I assure him that Ministers, both here and in the Scottish Executive, are following the matter very carefully.
Mr. Graham Brady: In the light of the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about Government interference in the appointment of Select Committee Chairmen, may I remind the Leader of the House about the scandal of the last Parliament in which the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance" was never subject to a free vote in the House? Will he make time available now for the House to express its views, on a free vote, on that vital report?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I see the way forward as reverting to a vote on the document from the last Parliament, as the Liaison Committee itself may well have a different composition in this Parliament. [Interruption.] It is perfectly true, and unless we make it a rule of the House that the Chairmen of Select Committees never change, that is bound to follow. However, I have already indicated to the House that I want to revisit some of the issues in the Liaison Committee report. I look forward to consulting and working with the new members of the Committee, and I intend on Monday to include the Modernisation Committee in the Committees that we set up. Among the issues that the Modernisation Committee should address are some of the recommendations in "Shifting the Balance".
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On that very point, on Monday we will agree the membership of the Select Committees for a full Parliament, and there is great disquiet among hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the Hansard Society about the way in which that will be done. Is there not a case for agreeing the membership of the Committees for, perhaps, 12 or 18 months, so that in the interim we could debate and vote on the second report of the Liaison Committee, "Unfinished Business", which was published in March but has never been debated or voted on? The way in which we appoint members of Select Committees is highly unsatisfactory. In the words of the Select Committee, the
"present system for nominating members of Select Committees must be changed",
so why do we not do so?
Mr. Cook: I have said to the House before, and I am happy to repeat it for what I think is the fourth time, that I am very willing to examine the process of appointment to Select Committees when we return in the autumn, when the Liaison Committee has been set up and when we have a Modernisation Committee to consult. However, I have also stressed to the House that to meet the genuine will of the House that the Select Committees be up and running before the summer recess, there is no alternative but to act under existing Standing Orders and procedures. Members on both sides of the House urged me to get the Select Committees in being before the recess, and we have delivered on that: the Committees have been set up faster than in any previous Parliament. I could not have done that and at the same time reformed the process.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiries of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider and to facilitate a full day's debate next week on the operation of Select Committees. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that such a debate would allow scores of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to testify to their belief that the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has always been marked by intellectual rigour, devotion to the House and an unfailing readiness to stand up to the motley crew of third-raters who dominate the Government? Why does he not accept that?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use temperate language.
Mr. Bercow: That was temperate language.
Mr. Speaker: It might be temperate by the hon. Gentleman's standards, but not by mine.
Mr. Cook: I was just going to say that by his standards the hon. Gentleman's mode of expression was very moderate.
For half a day in prime time on Monday the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to expatiate at length on the issues he raises. I understand that two and a half hours might not be long enough to exhaust his rhetoric, but it ought to be long enough for the House to have a considered debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
1.27 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made in business questions to terminal 5, in which I have a direct constituency interest. Both the previous Speaker and you have made it clear to the Government that any announcements about major decisions should be made on the Floor of the House. Will you express your view that an announcement on such a major issue as this should be made on the Floor of the House rather than during the recess?
Mr. Speaker: My view is that at all times when Parliament is in Session Ministers should endeavour to get to the House to make statements. However, we are talking about a three-month recess and it would be unfair of me to say that no statement should be made by any Minister during the recess.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take a look at the question of ministerial accountability in the context of answering for London Underground? I fear that, come the autumn, Ministers will not answer questions or appear at the Dispatch Box in respect of London Underground, but will say instead that the private infrastructure companies that they set up are responsible for maintenance, London Underground is responsible for operations and Transport for London is responsible for policy, yet their fingerprints will be all over—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend business questions.
Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows how to take up such matters, even during a parliamentary recess.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The better regulation task force today issued a report condemning the role of the regulatory system, but that report is available in neither the Vote Office nor the Library. Will you look into the omission?
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

Opposition Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to move the first motion, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.29 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
  That this House recognises the importance of post-16 education in schools and colleges, in offering new opportunities to young people and in improving the nation's skills base and international competitiveness; regrets the hasty introduction of the new AS levels, which has resulted in organisational chaos for schools, a reduction in extra-curricular activities and had a severe effect on the lives of young people; considers that the interim response of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Government on this issue is inadequate; recognises the important role played by further education colleges in providing opportunities for young people and widening participation; deplores the current low pay, status and morale of further education lecturers; condemns the Government's failure to meet its targets for expansion of further education student numbers; and urges the Government to retain the financing of school sixth forms in the schools sector, address urgently the problems in the further education sector and reconsider the spectrum of qualifications post-14.
  No one who in the past year has had any contact with students in year 12—the lower sixth form—in any of our schools or colleges, or with their parents or teachers, can be in any doubt about the impact of the introduction of AS-levels on those young people. There are increased work loads, more stress, fewer study periods and fewer extra-curricular activities. Those pupils have been guinea pigs throughout their school careers, and will continue to be so into year 13, with the new A2s. They deserve our thanks, and I offer my best wishes and support to all who have been sitting AS-level examinations this year.
  It is important that we conduct the debate on the future of the AS-level in a way that does not leave the young people involved feeling that the qualifications that they have received are in any sense to be discounted. It is also vital that the Government, working with higher education institutions, ensure that the problems surrounding those examinations do not impact on the future academic opportunities and careers of those students.
  AS-levels and key skills were introduced with the best of intentions: to broaden the curriculum offered to young people post-16. However, there was too little time for their introduction. Examinations boards complained that they did not have enough time to prepare the syllabus or materials; schools did not have enough time to prepare; timetabling was a nightmare.
  Most schools did not receive any extra funding for AS-levels. The Government announced more money, but schools said that local education authorities did not pass it on. LEAs said that the Government had not given them any extra money. Without the clarity of a national funding formula, who knows? All that most schools know is that they did not receive any extra funding. At a time of teacher shortages, more teaching hours were needed. In addition, of course, we still do not know how universities will view AS-level results.
  948
  Far from broadening the experience of students at such an important time of development in their lives, the extra work load of the AS-level means that the very extra-curricular activities that used to provide breadth of experience, such as sports, drama, music and voluntary work, are being written out of school life in year 12 owing to lack of time.
  At last week's Education questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), quoted some head teachers as saying that they agreed with the AS-level. The quotations were from that day's edition of The Times, but he quoted somewhat selectively. He failed to quote, for example, Elspeth Insch, head teacher of King Edward VI Handsworth school in Birmingham—
  Mr. John Bercow: A very good head teacher.
  Mrs. May: As my hon. Friend says, she is a very good head teacher. She said:
  "AS-level students have worked so hard they are shattered and have had little time for independent study, which is bad news … Exam papers were too variable in standards and exam time too short. It is yet another sign that the whole system is geared towards a mass dumbing-down."
  Rick Moore, an English teacher at Manor Park community school in Nuneaton, said:
  "AS levels put far too much pressure on a generation of schoolchildren who are already being examined to exhaustion."
  It is not only teachers who complain. Kate Dyer, a 17-year-old pupil at Rosebury school in Epsom, said:
  I have taken four AS levels in design technology, art, maths and business and found the experience stressful and unnecessary. It has been a nightmare trying to cram the syllabus into four months so we could finish the course work by half time—in time to start the exams immediately afterwards.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): Half term.
  Mrs. May: Half term; I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
  Kate Dyer continued:
  Since last year I have felt as if I have been running flat out on a treadmill.
  Those were some of the quotations that the Under-Secretary did not cite in Education questions. He did refer to the entry in The Times of that day from Chris Henstock, the head teacher at Lutterworth upper school in Leicestershire. The Under-Secretary quoted him as saying:
  Fundamentally I think the curriculum changes are a good thing—I have seen a lot more of my pupils doing a greater variety of subjects."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 395.]
  What the Under-Secretary did not say was that that head teacher went on to comment:
  "But I do believe there are less positive knock-on effects. For example, the community involvement programme we used to run has suffered as a result of the extra workload."
  If the Government are to treat young people fairly, they will have to recognise and address all those problems—far from being broadened, the curriculum for those young people is being narrowed—and not just the issues about which they, the Government, want to talk.

  949
  There is no doubt that the Government's rush to get the reforms through is at the heart of all the problems. Young people, parents and teachers have suffered because the Government simply did not think things through or provide enough time for proper preparation. As John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:
  "The introduction of the AS-level was a reform that we called for during the 1990s … Unfortunately, the implementation timetable has been rushed and this has left inadequate time for examination boards and schools to put the reforms in place."
  The current problems are not an inevitable result of reforms to widen the variety of post-16 academic experience, but are the direct consequence of the over-hasty manner in which the Government rushed into reform. While we welcome the setting up of a review of the crisis, from the first interim report it appears that the Government have not learned the lessons of the past. Their response so far merely addresses one part of the problem.
  We shall of course wait for the full Qualifications and Curriculum Authority report that will appear towards the end of the year, but I was concerned about the Secretary of State's attitude when she talked about the matter in her interview on the "Today" programme. Despite the fact that students interviewed before her said that the main problem facing them was the increased work load throughout the year, she insisted to John Humphrys that the key issue was the timetabling of exams.
  We are used to a Government who are out of touch with what happens in schools and refuse to listen properly to what teachers and others are telling them. I had hoped for the sake of young people that this Secretary of State would be different; sadly, it seems she is not. It is vital that the Government do not regard the recommendations of the first report as a panacea for all the problems encountered in the new system; indeed, there may be further problems.
  Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that he was not in a position to give a guarantee to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that all AS-level results would be published as intended on 16 August. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), refused to answer the same question a week ago. With some estimates suggesting that exam boards are short of 1,000 exam markers, that is causing concern to parents and students. I hope that, in her response this afternoon, the Secretary of State will give the House a guarantee that all AS-level results will be published on 16 August. But we need to go further, as the question is not simply about how many exam papers the students should sit at one go, which is what the Government have addressed so far. The real question is whether the interim exam is needed or whether it is an exam too far.
  For a long time, I have been a strong advocate of the gold standard of A-levels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] So are some of my hon. Friends, from the sound of it. In a world where young people will be expected to be more flexible in their working lives, we need to look at whether further breadth is necessary. Whatever the exam structure, maintaining standards of academic excellence and rigour is important, and we should be able to point to those
  950
  exams as a gold standard of such qualities. However, we must also look at how much breadth is necessary. Some may say that I have been on quite a journey in coming to that conclusion. We should nevertheless root principles of excellence and rigour in our examination system and recognise that we should not support a system simply because it has always been a certain way. We must be willing to adapt to the needs and requirements of today's world.
  I hope that the Secretary of State is willing to initiate a proper national debate on our post-14 examination and qualification system, as we need to consider more than just AS-level exams. As well as AS-levels, we now have the new vocational GCSEs—GNVQs are now vocational A-levels—A2s, the new advanced extension awards or AEAs, world class tests, key skills and S-levels. A document provided by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service tries to explain the AS-levels. It explains that AS and A-levels will be graded and says:
  "Once sufficient units have been completed to constitute a qualification … candidates will he provided with a qualification result and an opportunity to decline certification at that point … Candidates who have accepted an AS certificate can still resit AS units and the better result counts towards the full Advanced GCE, but in such circumstances candidates will not be issued with a new AS certificate. They can, however, resit all the AS assessment units, in which case a new AS certificate will be issued based only on their resits because the earlier AS assessment units are 'used up' for AS purposes by the act of the original AS certification."
  When the Secretary of State replies, I hope that she will feel free to explain that.
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mrs. May: Perhaps my hon. Friend is about to explain it.
  Dr. Lewis: I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend on the difficulties either of the alphabet soup of examinations or of the quagmire of regulations that the Government are laying before the country.
  I am slightly troubled by a remark that my hon. Friend made earlier, and perhaps she will expand on it for my benefit and that of the House. If we are saying that we have something as a gold standard for excellence, and if we are saying also that we nevertheless want other examinations at a different standard for breadth, what was wrong with the system that we had before any of the new examinations were introduced? Those who were not particularly likely to shine academically were trained up vocationally in apprenticeships, rather than gaining paper academic qualifications at a lower level than the gold standard, and were more qualified.
  Mrs. May: I am happy to answer my hon. Friend. That is exactly the route down which we should be going; it is the very point that I was about to make. With all the present challenges, there is the danger that we end up with a pick-and-mix system of exam qualifications. There is a mish-mash of examinations, and no one knows what any exam qualification stands for or what the standard of the qualification is. AS-levels are in danger of falling between two stools. They are not providing breadth, and will possibly not provide the necessary academic rigour either.
  For those who are academically inclined, a gold standard of academic rigour is essential. It is essential also that we have proper vocational skills-based training for

  951
  those for whom that is the right route through education. We need a proper review of qualifications post-14, so we can ensure that there is a structure that provides young people with qualifications that they and future employers understand, and in which they can have confidence. Merely tinkering at the edges, with AS-levels, will not do.
  The problems with AS-levels are not the only issue in post-16 education. As a matter of urgency, the new Secretary of State must give some form of assurance to schools with sixth forms that their budgets and their very existence are not under threat. The Government claim to be guaranteeing funds to school sixth forms, but they have been careful with their words. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Government made the following statement on school sixth-form funding:
  "all school sixth forms have a guarantee that their funding will not fall below the funding level of 2000–0l in real terms, provided their sixth form numbers do not fall".—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 389W.]
  What happens if numbers in 2002–03 are below those in 2001–02, but above those in 2000–01? We all know that sixth form numbers do not come in neat little packages. Numbers change over the years. That is not because of the inability of schools to attract sixth formers, but simply because the cohort coming through in any one year might be smaller than previous cohorts.
  What will happen to schools if they lose a significant number of their students? On what basis will they then be funded? Schools are asking the Government what number of pupils the Secretary of State thinks a sixth form needs if it is to be viable. Numbers have been bandied around by the Department. I hope that the Secretary of State will be willing to put her neck on the line and tell us the number of pupils that she believes a sixth form should have if it is to be viable. If she does so, sixth forms will know whether they are under threat from the new process of closure set out in the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
  More pupils go on to further and higher education at schools with sixth forms. There is evidence that pupils attending schools with a sixth form do better in GCSEs than pupils at schools without sixth forms. We believe that the Government should be doing all that they can to support schools with sixth forms. They should recognise that school sixth forms are different institutions from further education colleges.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills said:
  "I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comparison between further education establishments and schools. In many ways, schools are different institutions with different problems"—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 383.]
  But the similarity between school sixth forms and further education colleges is the very premise that underpins the Government's new funding arrangements. The Minister's words during Education questions last week led to concern in FE colleges which thought that the Government were working (in a system of convergence of funding. The Secretary of State should clarify the position for them today. What exactly do the Government want? Are they committed to convergence of funding? If so, when will that be achieved? Sixth form colleges also want reassurance that their funding is not under threat.
  Further education college; deserve to know where they stand. They deserve support from the Government, not more uncertainty. Our FE sector is in dire straits, with a
  952
  possible industrial dispute later this year arising from the real problems that lecturers have, given the low pay in FE. Indeed, a complaint that I often hear from FE college principals is that lecturers are leaving FE to achieve higher salaries in secondary schools. That speaks volumes.
  One of the problems that FE colleges face is the way in which the Government choose to fund them. The Government claim that they have put more money into FE, but as the colleges point out, the bulk of that funding is not available to colleges to use as they wish. It is earmarked funding for Government-identified purposes. The real-terms index of participation funding—the core funding for FE colleges— having stood at 100 back in 1995–96 has now fallen to 91.
  For earmarked funds, money is linked to meeting targets. Failure to meet any one of those targets means that none of the extra money comes through, so a college could meet a target for increasing numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds, but if it missed its target for increasing numbers in adult education, it would not get money for increased numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds either.
  The colleges' problems do not stop there. Money has been allocated for the teachers' pay initiative to recognise the problems caused by the threshold payments in schools. The allocation was due to be received on 1 April. To date, no college has received any of that money. What will happen to TPI funding after year 3? Will it be consolidated? What about the support staff, who in most colleges make up 40 to 50 per cent. of the staff? Many colleges find that it is difficult not only to get lecturers, but to find support staff as well.
  Colleges were concerned about the new structure of funding through the learning and skills councils, and the evidence shows how right they were. The Learning and Skills Council has still not settled the mainstream funding allocations for FE colleges for the next academic year, which starts in three weeks, so they face funding uncertainty and a real-terms cut in core student funding.
  The Government make much of their target of expanding numbers in FE by 700,000 by 2002–03, but the number of students in FE has fallen by 189,000 under the Labour Government. Yet again, the Government are failing to deliver. The FE sector is an important part of our education system. It offers opportunities to young and old and it deserves to be treated better than it has been by the Government. Welcomed freedoms have been restricted; funding is more complex; training opportunities are being denied. A sector that should be a major part of any agenda to widen participation is under siege from the Government. It deserves to be treated fairly, as an integral part of our education system.
  The Government have failed to deliver on post-16 education. They have plunged the exam system into chaos, failed to guarantee the future of school sixth forms, and presided over a staffing crisis, a crisis of morale and a fall in student numbers in further education. Far from widening participation and broadening opportunities post-16, Labour in government, with its utilitarian attitude to education, is reducing the opportunities for young people to benefit from a truly broad range of educational experience post-16.
  We are in danger of seeing young people forced into an identikit mould of the Government's choosing. The Government will be judged in this term not just on the

  953
  numbers, but on the provision of choice, the standards of qualification and the quality of education post-16. On the evidence of the past few weeks, they will be seen to have failed to deliver.
  1.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the Government's achievements in post-I6 education which will drive up the nation's skills and extend opportunity for all; applauds the substantial extra resources secured for further education and the reforms through the Learning and Skills Council and rigorous inspection arrangements, which will radically improve standards and the guarantee to all sixth forms that their funding will be maintained in real terms if their pupil numbers do not fall; commends the broadening of the 16–19 curriculum which is widely supported and the timely and measured response of the Government to improve delivery in schools and colleges; welcomes the early success of the Connexions Service and of Education Maintenance Allowance pilots in encouraging more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in full-time education after the age of 16, the extra resources secured for the university system and the expansion in the numbers of students in higher education; and endorses the strategy to reduce the number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills which will tackle a problem which has been neglected for far too long.'.
  Although I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate post-16 education, I must admit to being a little disappointed by the narrowness of the approach taken by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I thought that she might share with us her views about the 7 million adults who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, and about plans to deal with that problem. I thought also that she might at least express concern about the fact that, although we have one of the best higher education services in the world, access to it from some sectors of our community is just not good enough. However, we heard none of that and nothing about diversity of further education.
  Mr. Graham Brady: It is worse.
  Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman says that it works. That means that he is satisfied.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Estelle Morris: I shall give way in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention the fact that there are twice as many students from middle class backgrounds as from working class backgrounds in higher education. We have 7 million adults with no basic skills because the education system failed them in the past, as there was no planned way of improving their skills when they left school. We heard nothing from her about work-based skills and training, and the progress that can be made in that respect.
  954
  The hon. Lady made three clear points to which I shall confine my remarks, so that I can respond properly to the debate.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Estelle Morris: I should like to make some progress on AS-levels, but if the hon. Gentleman has a point of correction, I shall give way.
  Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State misheard my earlier remark. I said that the Government had made it worse, as they reduced access by taking grants away.
  Estelle Morris: The last point is not true, but I suppose that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least raising some concerns about children getting into higher education—a matter that was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
  Many of the hon. Lady's comments related to AS-levels. I am happy to say to the House what I said yesterday: this was not the best implemented set of curriculum reforms that has ever been introduced. She did not mention the tragedy of other major curriculum reforms that have not been well implemented. I cast my mind back to the national curriculum reforms of the 1970s and 1980s., when syllabuses were sent out to primary and secondary schools time after time. The schools bought books and trained teachers, but then had to start again. In the end, our good friend Lord Dearing was called in to try to make something out of the mess that the Conservative Government had created.
  I do not make those comments with any sense of pride. If we look throughout the education service—I am prepared to reflect on this matter—there must be something wrong with the fact that each of the major curriculum changes introduced in the past quarter of a century has not got it right first time. That is a lesson to reflect upon. It is with sadness that I admit that the introduction of the AS-level reforms last year did not do credit to anybody who had responsibility for their implementation.
  We must admit that fact and learn from it, but I want to go further. In arguing about implementation, it is the easiest thing in the world for the Opposition and opponents elsewhere to say, "You've got it wrong, so take responsibility; it is all no good." But, with respect, that achieves only the scoring of cheap political points. There is something fundamental that is more important. More than four years ago, in 1996, when the first look was taken at widening the post-16 curriculum, there was unanimity throughout our learning community on the view that our sixth-form curriculum was too narrow.
  I stand by that view. I think that we let down our sixth-form students. I have not moved from my belief that it is important to acknowledge that a narrow curriculum of three A-levels is insufficient to prepare our students for the world that they must enter. It is not only the Government who are expressing that view; I think that general agreement remains on the need for a broader post-16 curriculum.
  The saddest aspect of the hon. Lady's comments—I shall give way to her immediately if she was not saying this—was that, for the first time, she called into question the Opposition's support for a broader post-16 curriculum.

  955
  Whatever the inadequacies of implementation in the past year, I would welcome her support for the view that a narrow curriculum of three N-levels is not sufficient and that we are right to keep to the drawing board. That includes, from this September, a commitment to the broader curriculum.
  Mrs. May: It is obvious from what the Secretary of State has just said that she did not listen to a word of my speech. I specifically referred to the issue of a broader curriculum. Having presided over the implementation of AS-levels, does she understand that students, as well as teachers, parents and the Opposition, say that the impact of AS-levels has been not to broaden the curriculum but to narrow it?
  Estelle Morris: If we accept the need for a broader curriculum, we have two choices. Either we ask students to study more subjects in less depth or we accept that we are asking them to work harder. We asked them to work harder. The hon. Lady talked about the burden of work in the sixth form, and the fact that it had cut out a lot of extra-curricular activities. We want to keep the gold standard of the A-level. Everyone wants that: it is a good examination that gains credit with universities and employers and is respected throughout the world. If we are to broaden the post-16 curriculum while keeping the gold standard of the A-level, the bottom line is that we must ask students to study more, harder and across a greater breadth. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot broaden the curriculum and then turn round and say to students, "Hang on, you're working too hard."
  Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Estelle Morris: I want to make some progress.
  Saying such things will not work. Last year, we told sixth-form students that we thought that they could cope with more studying and a broader curriculum in the first and second years of the sixth form.
  Diana Organ: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Estelle Morris: I want to finish this point. Things went wrong because the assessment was organised in such a way that it disrupted the flow of learning and teaching.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned my interview on the "Today" programme yesterday. I want to make two points. I think that the burden of assessment was too great. I also think that when assessment is too frequent during the school year, with the best will in the world, students stop studying and start to prepare for revision, and once they have had their assessment, they go over the papers again. The biggest complaint that I heard was not that students did not want to do more subjects, nor that they did not want a broad curriculum, nor that they did not accept that they could spend more time studying in the first year sixth, but that the flow of teaching and learning was interrupted by too frequent assessments.
  Our proposals, which will come in two stages, will show that we have addressed that problem. We want to make progress from this September because we want to
  956
  ensure that students who are studying from next year have another option. Believe it or not, many students wanted to keep the end-of-module assessment and the January assessment but, for those who did not, there need be no reason to take assessments on any of their modules before the end of the first year sixth. Many schools chose that option last year, and many could have left their assessments until the end of the second year sixth—if, as I have to admit, the guidance from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and others had been clearer.
  The hon. Lady also asked about the interviews. Some students and teachers have said that the problem was not only the assessment but the prescription in the syllabuses, and that there was just too much to cover in the courses. I think that they are right about that in some subjects. Having spoken to David Hargreaves, the chief executive of the QCA, I understand that his impression, following his first review, was that that was the case in two subjects; the one that was cited to me was mathematics.
  It would have been foolhardy, after asking the QCA to look at the matter for three weeks, to say yesterday, "I announce that we are going to slim down all the programmes of study." The evidence from the three-week review did not suggest that that should be the case. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the acknowledgement that she asked for today. If she had read the report that was issued yesterday, and the Government's response to it, she would have seen that we have asked the QCA to look at the subjects slowly so that we do not rush things and have implementation next year as inadequate as it was this year. We have asked the authority to take its time and report in due course on whether some of the subjects were over-prescriptive. I acknowledge that some were, but it is not my instinct that every AS-level subject asks too much of students. We cannot say on the one hand that we are dumbing down and that we have lowered standards, and on the other that we have asked too much of students. Many mixed messages are being conveyed.
  Let me outline several important principles. The broader curriculum is necessary. It is not too much to ask of our sixth formers that they study more than three A-levels; it is important that they do. It is also important to keep the gold standard and the rigour. We have not done that properly this year, but we will improve next year. By the year after that, we will have totally revamped the assessment system. I am happy to state in the House, as I did in writing yesterday, that some study programmes that have been announced for syllabuses need reconsidering. However, although that applies to mathematics and one or two other subjects, it is not true of all subjects.
  Mr. Bercow: The recognition of error is welcome but belated. What does the Secretary of State say to my young constituent at Aylesbury high school, Emma Clark, who wrote to me on 12 June to say that the Government's handling of AS-levels was "a complete mess", and that the timing of the announcement of the review was "particularly insensitive"? She strongly objected to being sacrificed on the altar of political experimentation. In response to that hard-working and intelligent student, will the right hon. Lady personally apologise?
  Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. Again, I say that the implementation of AS-levels was not as good as it should have been. How many times

  957
  must I say that? If the young lady to whom he referred is 17, she was educated mostly under a Tory Government. If 17-year-olds have been guinea pigs since the age of five, I know who carried out most experimentation. It was not us.
  I do not believe that students who have just done their AS-levels have wasted their time to gain a worthless qualification that will not be respected by higher education and the outside world. I share that view with the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who began her speech well by congratulating and thanking those students. She said that the important message to them was that their studies in the past year were worth while and will be credited. I admit that I wish for Emma, as for the others, that life and the assessment had been easier in the past year. However, I always wish that policies could be implemented perfectly first time round. When we realised that the implementation was not perfect, we took action as speedily as possible.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
  Estelle Morris: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) first. Then I must move on because there is a danger of the debate becoming a discussion about AS-levels.
  Neither Conservative nor Labour Administrations should be satisfied with the history of curriculum implementation. I have therefore asked the QCA to consider the matter and ensure that we understand why the information was unclear, and not sent out in a timely fashion. The examination timetables were not organised to avoid clashes and schools did not have sample texts or examination papers in sufficient time. That was possible but did not happen.
  We have conveyed a clear message about what will happen in schools in September and beyond. We have to consider matters slowly and calmly and ensure that our education service is better able to implement curriculum change.
  Diana Organ: What would my right hon. Friend say to further education lecturers and teachers in my constituency whom I met two terms after the introduction of the AS-level? They said that it was excellent, created good study habits and allowed students to progress to the gold standard of A2 because, in the important first two terms, the students were busy. They claimed that it did not have a detrimental effect on the retention rates of children in year 12.
  Estelle Morris: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend's constituents said. When there is a problem, the people who write in or complain tend to be those with an axe to grind. The irony of this brief consultation is that I received lots of heartfelt letters from educationists, students and parents who wanted to keep the thrust of the reforms. Equally, we received lots of letters from people who were unhappy with the implementation.
  The important point is that a lot of people out there think that the curriculum reforms have achieved a welcome widening of the curriculum, a greater retention rate and greater motivation; we do not want to lose that.
  958
  Indeed, although I have mentioned the problems of end-of-module assessment, I also have a file of letters welcoming the ability to assess at the end of the module, because it motivates students. Some students need that recognition. They need to know how they stand at the end of the module, so that they can make an assessment and move forward. I do not want to take away from that and there is a real danger in the debate that we will lose sight of the problem that we want to address.
  Perhaps I am the one to say this in the House: someone who studies for A-levels but fails at the end of two years leaves school with no piece of paper or qualification to show for it. That happened to me. I did two years' study in the sixth form, but I did not manage to pass the end of term exam. Somewhere along the line, I probably did quite well in an essay or two, but I have no qualification or bit of paper that tells me that. The challenge that we face is to recognise that cohort of students and to ensure that their needs can be met as well. That, honestly, is what we have tried to do.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin rose —
  Estelle Morris: I must make a last point, then I shall move on and say more about post-16 education.
  We have tried to provide flexibility, but the problem involves teachers, because they are hard working and always try to do their best for students. The real difficulty with the first year was that what was set out was a series of options: exams could be set in January, but need not; end-of-module exams could be taken, but need not. Too many teachers got the message that they would let down their students if they did not do every option. That is our fault for not being clear enough and for not giving teachers the confidence to read the regulations and guidance and choose the course most appropriate for their students. I have confidence that the guidance that we shall publish by September will give teachers that confidence.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Estelle Morris: I give w ay to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). but I give notice that I shall not give way again for a good few minutes.
  Mrs. Campbell: I want my right hon. Friend to deal clearly with the point, which was apparently made in The Times,that the Government are about to eliminate the January examinations. Concern has been expressed to me by one of my local sixth form colleges that that would disadvantage students who might want to resit in January. What are her plans?
  Estelle Morris: We want the January examination to remain available, so there will still be the option of doing the January assessments. We want a diverse and flexible system that allows teachers and students to make decisions that suit them. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the thrust of the comments is that the January assessment came too early and that students had not settled down to sixth-form learning. Today, I have tried to send the

  959
  message that the January assessment will remain an option, but to return to the point that I have just made, we would not usually expect students to have to be assessed until the end of the first year sixth. That strikes a balance of the comments that were made.
  I want to give the teaching profession and those aged between 16 and 19 the confidence to study the assessment options that we have given them and to make decisions in the light of their needs, knowing that those decisions will be recognised. Nobody will say that students are doing wrong if they do not take January assessments. Nobody will fault them for taking end-of-module assessments. Nobody will criticise them for leaving the assessments to the end of the two years, as some schools did. The irony is that those options were always available this year, but we did not get it right and we did not press that message sufficiently.
  From the debate so far, people might think that all post-16 learning takes place in colleges and schools and that it is all about AS-level.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Estelle Morris: No, no. In the remaining few minutes, I want to acknowledge other learning, other places of learning and flexible routes in post-16 education.
  We have talked a lot about the gold standard of A-level and the broader curriculum. Some students, including adults, do vocational work. I feel that we as a nation have never given vocational studies the esteem and recognition that they need. The Government have made a huge improvement in expanding modern apprenticeships, and giving them the status that they deserve. For the first time, students have a real opportunity to gain vocational GSCEs. That will feed into modern apprenticeships, vocational A-levels and a more flexible and all-embracing higher education sector that recognises vocational degree-level courses.
  If we can get this right—if, in years to come, we can stand up in the House and be as proud of the vocational gold standard as we are, rightly, of the academic gold standard—we will have gone some way towards being able to lay claim to an education system that teaches the basics well in primary schools, gives all our young people access to a broad and rich curriculum, and has the confidence to tell 14-year-olds, "We now want to tailor what we provide so it can meet the needs of you as individuals, which will offer you the opportunity to study in academic groups, vocational groups or both. Whichever option you choose will be given status and recognition, and you should be proud of your achievements, in whatever field they are made."
  We will go further. We will be able to tell those 14-year-olds that, regardless of which route they take, their learning will end not at 16 but at 19—and that, in a sense, it will continue throughout their lives. It will take place not just in schools but in high quality further education institutions, and in the best higher education universities that the world can offer. As for those who do not want to learn in any such institution, preferring to go to work or stay at home, we will give them the opportunities that they require.
  Only if we can offer that commitment will we have gone some way towards ensuring that we have the learning community and learning culture that we want, and that we have put learning at the centre of all that we do.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her colleagues for raising this issue. I am usually not particularly generous to the hon. Lady, but I thought her speech struck many of the right notes. We have not tabled an amendment to the motion, because we think that many of the messages it conveys need to be debated and need a response.
  The hon. Lady will, however, not be surprised to learn that although many of her comments returned to familiar territory, I was surprised that her party had chosen to debate this matter. The debate may, of course, serve as a distraction from the Tory leadership contest—dubbed rather generously by yesterday's Mirror"the flight of the living dead"—or it may arise from a sense of guilt, and the acceptance of a chance to atone for past sins. If I may misquote Monty Python's "Life of Brian": after all, what did the Conservatives ever do for further education? The answer is "Very little".
  Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I want to make some progress first.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead said twice that she considered further education to be an integral part of our education system, yet the Conservative party manifesto, which is only a month old, made no mention of it. The lack of any policy on FE meant that the 676,000 under-19s studying in FE colleges were totally ignored. Moreover, the manifesto featured no policy on adult learners, thus effectively ignoring 1.9 million such learners in those colleges. It is, in a way, quite a tribute to the Tories that they have managed to write off the 2.6 million learners supported by FE provision, and then criticise the Government for their lack of progress.
  Mr. Boswell: Now that the hon. Gentleman has finished his little soundbite, may I respond to his earlier rhetorical question? Will he reflect on the fact that the Conservative contribution to the expansion of FE, historically, was to increase student numbers by 3 million to 4 million? Had he been able to attend sittings of the Standing Committee considering the Learning and Skills Bill last year as assiduously as I did, he would have heard in some detail exactly what our concerns about further education were, and exactly what we proposed.
  Mr. Willis: If any of my remarks hit home on the Conservative Benches, they were not directed at the hon. Gentleman, whose record as a speaker on behalf of further education is impeccable. It is a great pity that the Conservatives did not consult him when they were writing their manifesto.
  May I finish my explanation? The manifesto does not mention the 250,000 college lecturers and the 200,000 support staff, either. [Interruption.]The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) requires a response to my question about what the Conservatives ever did for further education, and he is right: there were an extra 1 million students between the time of incorporation and the beginning of the Labour Government.
  Mr. David Chaytor: What really happened, surely, was that there were 1 million extra

  961
  enrolments, resulting entirely from changes in the funding methodology that increased the likelihood of individual students being enrolled for multiples of different courses. We are not talking about real people; we are talking about a change in the funding methodology.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, he has stolen the next part of my speech. Enrolments rose by some 33 per cent. during those years, but that did not equate to any increase in the number of full-time equivalent students. The figures often bandied about by Conservative Front Benchers are highly misleading.
  I return to my question about what the Conservatives did for further education. During the period of that 33 per cent. increase, funding for full-time equivalent students fell by 35 per cent., and 20,000 FE lecturers were effectively driven out. Today. however, we are hearing a defence that tells us that we must protect sixth-form funding in the traditional sense, but that it was perfectly all right to subject the whole FE student population to the regime introduced by the hon. Member for Daventry and now supported by the Conservative Front Bench.
  In considering FE issues we should look back to 1993 and incorporation, for most of the problems result from those days. I am thinking of indebtedness, a lack of capital investment, failure to invest in staff, pay differentials, "casualisation", franchising, over-complication of funding arrangements and a lack of strategic direction. Those problems typified further and post-16 education from 1993 onwards.
  A Labour Government came along in 1997 and instantly recognised the problems with post-16 learning. We saw the wonderful book "Learning Works" by Lady Kennedy, and also "The Learning Age—A Renaissance", which promised a new understanding and a new beginning. We saw the national skills taskforce reports and the Moser report, which highlighted unacceptable levels of skills, and in particular, unacceptable levels of adult numeracy and literacy. Sadly, however, there was no real response to any of those problems, only a structural reorganisation, with the creation of learning and skills councils. That was the net result after four years of the first Labour Government for some time.
  The Secretary of State's predecessor acquired a £6 billion central fund enabling him and his successors to do what they wanted in the FE sector. The Government introduced unprecedented levels of bureaucracy. Any FE college today will say that the arrangements involving the new Learning and Skills Council are horrendous because of the bureaucracy. We must look into that.
  We now have new inspection regimes. The first area inspections are just coming through, led by Ofsted which is clearly following the traditional Woodheadian pattern of highlighting the issues that the Government want raised. Not surprisingly, more colleges have failed those inspections since Ofsted came along. We must ask why. During the past four years, student-staff ratios have been unacceptable; they are now far higher than those to be found in the 14 to 16 sector in schools, and certainly higher than those in any sixth form. Again, that is unacceptable.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead was spot on when she described how over the past few years college funding has been disguised. The previous Secretary of State made
  962
  it clear that there has been an increase in funding from £3.13 billion in 1997 to £4.29 billion this year. We accept those figures; they are on the record. But starting from the level six years ago in 1995, that is pro rata funding. Despite the hype, and four years of a Labour Government, all that has been achieved is a return to 1995 levels of funding.
  If the special grants are stripped away—they are earmarked by the Secretary of State—
  Estelle Morris: That is real money.
  Mr. Willis: Of course it is real money. I am not contradicting that. I have already admitted that to the Secretary of State, who is grumbling from a sedentary position. I am never dishonest with her, as she knows.
  Mr. Boswell: I suspect that it is my turn to agree with the hon. Gentleman for once. Does he accept that no responsible further education corporation can shell out pay increases on the basis of special grants that are subject to conditions that may vary from year to year. as opposed to an assured stream of core funding?
  Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is no different from what has happened under previous Labour and Conservative regimes, certainly since 1988. I will return to that specific point because it does need to be addressed. The ministerial team must put on the record their response to the appalling accusations in last night's debate and during Education questions last week.
  The real problem for colleges is that the level of core funding for addressing the issues that need to be addressed is decreasing. It is now 5 per cent. lower than when Labour came to power in 1997, and 10 per cent. below the magical 1995 figure. Although 96 colleges were facing bankruptcy in 1997, and one in three colleges has serious financial difficulties, colleges are having to bid for money. The money is targeted directly, and colleges cannot spend it as they want. Lecturers believe that a flood of money is coming into the colleges, and ask why it is not reflected in their pay scales. The colleges, the principals and the lecturers all feel let down.
  We accept that there is no way to satisfy the funding demands of any sector in education. Even if we Liberal Democrats were in power, we could not do that—but we would have a better stab at it because we recognise some of the problems. Given the growth rate of the Liberal Democrat party and the support for us in the country, it will not be long before we are sitting on the Government Benches.
  It is not surprising that in the first few weeks of a Labour Government there should be problems with the teacher unions over pay. Neither my party nor any political party should be involved in direct negotiations or in supporting strike action or any other action. Such matters are between employers and employees. Problems with the unions over funding in the post-16 sector were inevitable. We cannot have, on the one hand, the Government targeting funding, some of which cannot be spent on staff pay, and constantly looking for further efficiency savings, and on the other hand, college principals being allowed to negotiate openly on staff pay.
  Lecturers have delivered huge increases in productivity. Despite the appalling comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for

  963
  Wentworth (John Healey) at Question Time last week about the quality of the courses and lecturers in the colleges, I believe that they are doing a substantial job in difficult circumstances. The lecturers' fight is not with the college principals; it is with the Government. The Government have created a funding system under which the colleges cannot meet the demands of their staff.
  It is all very well for Ministers to talk about professionalism and increasing skills and levels of participation. Those of us who have had any involvement in FE know full well that the most difficult group of young people to bring into college are those with no qualifications. They demand far more attention and time from staff, and far more resources. Yet they are the very group that is so grossly underfunded.
  How can the Secretary of State justify the 29 per cent. funding gap between a sixth form college delivering a three A-level package and a school sixth form? How can that be justified? Can she explain why a package of four AS-levels plus two A-levels in a school attracts average funding of £3,530 while exactly the same package in an FE college attracts £3,030—a difference of 14 per cent.? Is it any wonder that college lecturers are underpaid and under-resourced?
  I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we must not allow the introduction of learning and skills councils to lead to the underfunding of our sixth forms, as we all worried that it would during the passage of the Bill. We were promised a levelling-up, but exactly the opposite has occurred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) handed me a letter this morning from her local sixth form college, Barton Peveril, which illustrates exactly what that means on the ground. It is a relatively small college with a relatively small budget, and because of the funding arrangements, it is £1.6 million less well off than a similar sized school. That is unacceptable, and when the Minister responds later, I hope that she will address that specific issue.
  Finally, I shall touch on two further issues. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maidenhead had a protracted debate over the AS-level debacle. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and comment on that. The Secretary of State admitted that mistakes had been made. That is an honourable position, and we, and most schools, will thank her for that admission. However, that was not what concerned me most. Having made mistakes—having considered the 16 to 19 age group in isolation from the 14 to 19 age group—does the right hon. Lady not agree that if we are to take up the challenge issued by the hon. Member for Maidenhead we need a comprehensive overhaul of the whole of that curriculum and qualifications structure? To tinker around with the post-16 sector without considering the rest is ridiculous. Back in the 1990s. Lord Dearing made a clear commitment to movement on that front.
  Surely the idea that there can be a review, but that we will retain the "gold standard" for A-levels irrespective of what comes up in it, must give the right hon. Lady cause for reflection. That would rule out the introduction of the baccalaureate as an alternative. It rules out the whole idea of considering a more appropriate way of delivering vocational education in schools and colleges.
  Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the sad things about the Secretary of State's response was
  964
  that she completely failed to listen to my point about the need for a proper national debate on post-14 qualifications? A range of qualifications is available. We need to consider what is right for young people. This is not merely about tinkering around with the number of exams taken at AS-level.
  Mr. Willis: I confess that I agree with the hon. Lady—and I have made the same point. However, I hope that she agrees that we cannot say that we will reconsider the curriculum and qualifications for everyone apart from the relatively small group of students who do A-levels. The Secretary of State and I know that every year 10 per cent. of young people leave school with no qualifications—they simply drop out. Indeed, most of them have dropped out well before they get to the end of year 11. That is the reality.
  How do we keep those young people in the system? How do we create a curriculum and qualifications structure that not only brings them into schools but into colleges and onwards? That is why we must have a radical overhaul. If the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Government can actually agree on that, this debate will be momentous in relation to the next four or five years.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although there is undoubtedly a case for considering a broadening of the post-16 curriculum, it is essential that we at no stage devalue the academic content of what is undertaken simply to achieve the Government's politically correct totem of 50 per cent. participation in higher education?
  Mr. Willis: That is an insulting intervention from such an ostensibly intelligent Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ostensibly?"] I use my words advisedly. Nothing has been said during this debate from any Bench that suggests that we want to undermine academic excellence. That is not the case—[interruption.] It is certainly not what we want. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the baccalaureate is used in some countries, in some areas or in the private sector as a route to academic excellence and broadening, I should like to explore that in this debate—[Interruption.] I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman, if he will stop shouting at me.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not shouting.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is speaking rather loudly from a sedentary position.
  We also need to consider that army of youngsters who achieve nothing and gain nothing from the system. We must not think in terms of an exclusive either/or decision.
  One of the greatest omissions from the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was that it completely ignored higher education. If there is to be a genuine continuum of lifelong learning, higher education must be part of it. Last week the Minister for Lifelong Learning—who is deep in conversation at the moment—said that she was prepared to examine the relationship between FE and HE and between the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Our party is on record as saying that we want the Learning and Skills Council and the HEFCE to be combined, except for

  965
  research fund moneys. It is important that we do not create a new 14 to 19 structure and then find that there is a barrier when people try to move between the FE and HE structures.
  I hope that the Minister will agree that we are trying to make progress by holding this debate, rather than merely picking a fight with the Government.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the Opposition's choice of this subject for debate, but it is especially surprising given that, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) pointed out, the Conservative manifesto made no reference to a policy on post-16 education. During their past four years in opposition, the Conservatives put little emphasis on the subject. Furthermore, their record during their last four years in office was dire.
  I associate myself with some of the hon. Gentleman's critique of the period between 1993 and 1997, although given that his criticism of the Tory record was so strong I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats did not feel able to table their own amendment to the Tory amendment. Unfortunately, they seem to agree with the substance of the Tory amendment.
  Between 1993 and 1997, following the incorporation of further education colleges, funding for the post-16 sector was squeezed, year on year, in a way that it never had been in any UK public service during any four-year period. The result was tremendous staff demoralisation and an enormous exodus of further education lecturers from the profession. There was a huge rundown of the staffing base, leading to the recruitment of a large number of part-time, temporary contract staff, with inevitable instability and uncertainty for the institutions.
  There was a continual struggle with a funding methodology that was more arcane and complex than any that had been used for any UK public service. The management of colleges throughout the country struggled day to day as they grappled with that funding methodology in a constant effort to beat the system.
  I hark back to the oft-cited fact that 1 million extra students were recruited during that period of Tory Government. In fact, the figure was entirely the result of creative accounting. The real number of students fell as the system started to fall apart. The impact of competition between colleges led to greater confusion about what was on offer. The numbers were maintained on a wholly notional basis. I speak with some feeling on that point, because before I became a Member one of my jobs was to beat the system in exactly that way.
  During that period, we saw the introduction of a pseudo-enterprise culture in the post-16 sector. Sadly, as the years passed, some of the Conservatives' heroes of that enterprise culture finished up running pubs in north Wales with their girlfriends rather than the colleges they should have been running. Some of them are still fugitives from justice. Others ended up in jail—if they did not end up there, they should have done. The record of the last Conservative Government is dire. Many of the problems currently facing the sector are entirely attributable to that period.
  966
  It was depressing that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) concentrated most of her remarks on AS-levels and on schools. She made passing reference to further education colleges and sixth form colleges, but made no reference to adult training. There was no reference to young people who leave school with no qualifications. There was minimal reference to students who continue along the vocational route.
  Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that head teachers, parents and sixth formers are greatly concerned that the Government's approach to post-16 education ignores our sixth forms and treats them as second-class citizens and that the Government are much more interested in colleges and other aspects of post-16 education? Would it not be appropriate for the Government to send a signal to our sixth forms, which deliver so much quality, that they do matter?
  Mr. Chaytor: I am very aware that the vast majority of 16 to 19-year-old students are taught in colleges, not in sixth forms. The overwhelming majority of post-16 students are taught neither in sixth-form colleges nor in sixth forms, but in general further education colleges or tertiary colleges, or they study outside the institutional framework. We have to set the importance of sixth forms in that context, and I shall return to them later in my remarks.
  In contrast with what happened between 1993 and 1997, the Government have recognised the importance of post-16 and lifelong learning in the past four years. That recognition has been supported by remarkable new investment in the sector, by record new numbers of students—I am talking about real bodies, not the creative accounting of students entering the sector—and by the widening of participation and the extension of educational opportunity to different social groups.
  Mrs. May: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's claims of record increases in student numbers in further education. In fact, the number of students has fallen by 189,000 under this Labour Government.
  Mr. Chaytor: I remind the hon. Lady that we are debating post-16 education, not simply that for 16 to 19-year-olds. I include the number of students who are 19-plus, and I am talking about the increases in higher education and in the number of students who stay on beyond 16, which is higher than ever before.
  Mrs. May: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that there has been a net fall of 110,000 in the total number of students in further education and in higher education.
  Mr. Chaytor: We could spend all afternoon trading statistics. [Interruption.] I am happy to do so, but all I can say is that in the past four years more young people have remained in education than ever before, partly because we are now moving forward to a much broader definition of what constitutes post-16 education. We are no longer hung up on the sixth form or the A-level as the only significant post-16 qualification. We are continuing towards the Government's target of getting almost 50 per cent. of

  967
  18-year-olds into higher education by 2010. Such a continuous extension of educational opportunity was simply unthinkable during the Tory years.
  I do not want to reinforce the obsession with AS-levels. Although it is clear that there have been difficulties with implementation and serious questions remain for the QCA and the examining boards, that is not the most serious issue in post-16 education today. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that a consensus appears to be emerging that AS-levels alone are not the issue and that the more profound issue is the importance of a coherent curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. I look forward to the Government doing more work on that as the months pass, so that we can quickly have such a curriculum, which exists in many other European countries whose levels of achievement and participation are far higher than ours.
  I cannot be the only Member in the Chamber who has a 17-year-old son who has spent the past 12 months studying the first year of curriculum 2000. I have been able to observe at first hand the differences between his experience and that of my daughter, who studied traditional A-levels two years ago. Frankly, I observe comparatively little difference in the work load, although I accept that the frequency of assessment is a problem and that the concept and implementation of the key skills programme has been almost an unmitigated disaster—a point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention at all. The QCA's interim report contained serious criticisms of the key skills programme, and there is a need for urgent reform, preferably for year 2 of curriculum 2000. I will pass on to my son the hon. Lady's generous remarks to all those students following curriculum 2000 this year, and I am sure that he will be very grateful for them.
  Mr. David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman's experience is totally different from mine if he thinks that no more work has been involved, and I have a child in the age group that he mentions. Did he not notice that the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that the expectation was that the students would be involved in a lot more work? If the hon. Gentleman's son or daughter has not experienced that, they are not experiencing what the Secretary of State expected.
  Mr. Chaytor: We could spend all afternoon trading individual experiences. I could cite my visit to the two excellent colleges in my constituency. In the past few months, I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to students, especially those at the Holy Cross sixth form college. Without exception, their response to the first year of curriculum 2000 was, first, that they welcomed its greater breadth. Secondly, they found that it involved a large amount of work but that, by and large, they were coping and they would have the opportunity to drop a subject in the second year. Thirdly. the major problem was the teaching and the concept of key skills, which they recognised as unsatisfactory. Fourthly, they approved of the continuous assessment, but they wanted it to be perhaps less frequent. They approved of assessment throughout the year, rather than being solely dependent on one form of assessment at the end of a two-year programme. I think that that is enough trading of individual experiences.
  On sixth forms and differential funding, it is completely unacceptable that we continue with such a gap. The precise gap is disputed, but it is indisputable that a gap
  968
  exists between the per capita funding for students taking A-levels in sixth forms or in sixth-form colleges and those taking them in tertiary colleges or general further education colleges. That is indefensible. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that and that they have given a commitment that the differential will be closed over time, by levelling up the college sector.
  I ask the Minister to refer in her winding-up speech to the fact that uncertainty remains about the Government's response to the consultation on sixth-form funding, which, I think, closed in March. It would be helpful if she could say when the Government will respond to that consultation document. It would be helpful if the Government could give some information on the method by which the standard spending assessment will be top sliced and redistributed to the Learning and Skills Council, so that we know exactly what the funding will be.
  Having said that, the Opposition have done young people and their parents no service at all by continuing their obsession with sixth forms. Their thinking is mistaken. They would establish the A-level as a gold standard, regardless of the nature, the quality, the size and the location of the sixth form, or its curriculum provision. That is a classic example of an issue in which the standards and structures dilemma needs to be pursued. The real issue about post-16 education is not that sixth forms are good and colleges are bad: nor that all college provision is good and all sixth form provision is bad: what matters are the standards and the level of achievement, not the structures.
  I want to remind the House of the figures that relate to the size of sixth forms in the United Kingdom by putting on record a parliamentary answer of 24 May 2000. We were told that, of the 1,834 sixth forms in England, 115 had 50 or fewer pupils; 319 of them had between 51 and 100 pupils; and 409 of them had 101 to 150 pupils.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead asked the Government to give an indication of the minimum viable size of sixth form, but I do not think that any Government would do that. However, in the mid-1980s, Her Majesty's inspectorate issued a document that spelled out fairly specifically what the minimum viable size for a sixth form would be for it to be able to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum under the old A-level system. My recollection was that it was about 150 pupils.
  The figures that I was given in the written answer show that almost 45 per cent. of sixth forms in England have 150 pupils or fewer. If we are moving towards a baccalaureate system—regardless of whether it is a full baccalaureate system or whether we stay with curriculum 2000—I wonder whether smaller sixth forms can adequately provide the breadth and balance of the curriculum and richness of experience without plundering the budgets for years 7 to 11 in those schools.
  I also received an answer to a written question on 13 June 2000 and it analysed the A-level points score according to the size of sixth form. It showed that schools with 50 or fewer pupils obtained an average A-level points score of 7.4; schools with 51 to 100 pupils obtained a score of 9.4; those with 101 to 150 pupils obtained 11.9; those with 151 to 200 pupils obtained 14.6; those with 201 to 250 pupils obtained 15.7; and those with more than 250 pupils obtained 15.8.

  969
  As the average A-level points score for the whole country is 15.3, we might be able to draw two important lessons from those figures. The first is that achievement at A-level is directly proportionate to size of sixth form. Secondly, only two categories of sixth forms—those with 201 to 250 or with more than 250 pupils—actually achieve an A-level points score greater than the national average.
  I do not instantly draw such conclusions, but it is important information and we need to debate it. We must get away from our hang-ups about the importance of structures and institutions and must consider levels of achievement across the country. Even though I accept that A-level point scores are not the only criterion by which we should measure achievement, we need to design our structures to maximise achievement.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has been most generous in giving way to my interventions. He is in danger of stereotyping school sixth forms. He talks about 150 as the Ofsted-set level for viability, but what would he say to the head of the secondary school that I visited in West Bromwich and that has a sixth form with fewer than 50 pupils? The school does not offer A-level courses, but it has set up a sixth form specifically to provide a very limited range of courses that were not available to pupils in colleges in the locality. Pupils were otherwise falling through the net and were not being given the opportunity to undertake courses that might benefit them.
  Mr. Chaytor: I would say that the head teacher is probably doing a very good job; I never take on head teachers as that is a dangerous thing to do.
  I take the hon. Lady's point exactly. That is why I do not draw sweeping conclusions about the achievements of small sixth forms. I am certainly conscious of the fact that the remoteness of some parts of the country and their sparsity of population—I do not think that West Bromwich falls into this category—means that small sixth forms are the only way forward.
  In many urban and suburban parts of the country, however, the legacy of the Education Reform Act 1988 coupled with the legacy of the Higher and Further Education Act 1992 mean that we have far too many schools for 11 to 18-year-olds struggling desperately to hang on to tiny unviable sixth forms for reasons that are entirely understandably to do with the preservation of the staff and their sense of identity in the school. It is a classic example of a producer-led system. In such areas, schools, head teachers and governors are doing no favours to the young people who, in many cases, would be far better-off in a sixth form college system, in a tertiary college or in a federal system in which the school for 11 to 16-year-olds is far more closely linked with the local college.
  Caroline Flint: There is much merit in my hon. Friend's arguments, but will he consider areas such as mine? It is made up of mining villages in a rural setting and a number of sixth forms keep young people in education even though they do not necessarily take A-levels. What does he think of a system in which
  970
  providers work with other providers to ensure that young people have choices to continue their post-16 education and opportunities to do one part of a course at a venue that is linked to a college in the town centre?
  Mr. Chaytor: That is the way forward for many parts of the country. As I said, we cannot draw sweeping conclusions from the information that I cited earlier on the relationship between the size of a sixth form and academic performance, but we must start a far more serious and mature debate, free from preconceptions about the particular types of institutions. I hope that such a debate will take place as the months go by.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has been most generous in giving way. How would he characterise the sixth form at Furtherwick school on Canvey Island, where there was previously no post-16 education provision? Children from Canvey Island had to travel to the mainland. Since the sixth form was established—it is still quite small, but it is growing and becoming more successful year on year—the staying-on rate has increased dramatically. In addition, how would he explain why, when sixth form provision is introduced in competition with college provision to add choice, the results from the colleges as well as from those staying on at the sixth form improve? Sixth forms drive up standards by providing competition.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am loth to characterise anything of which I have no direct experience, so I will refrain from answering the hon. Gentleman's question. However, it is important to distinguish between the impact of competition for its own sake or as a result of Government diktat and the need to provide appropriate choice. In the past, this country has been far too obsessed with the issue of choice between institutions and we have been concerned less frequently with the importance of choice within the institutions. The obsession with competition between institutions—competition that is ostensibly designed to provide choice—has led to a diminution of choice within institutions for certain groups of students. We need choice, but we do not need competition for its own sake.
  Although I began by saying that I resented the way in which the Opposition introduced the debate to suggest that schools and AS-levels were the big issue in post-16 education, I am conscious of the fact that I have been sucked into considering that issue. However, I hope that when we next have a debate on post-16 education we can ignore sixth forms and AS-levels and consider the overwhelming majority of young people who do not go on to A-levels and who take the vocational route. We should also consider the growing problem of an underclass of under-achieving young people who leave school with nothing and, in many cases, well before the age of 16. They are easily sucked into a life of crime and other antisocial behaviour.
  Before I conclude I wish to comment on two or three other points and invite my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to them. One of the Government's major achievements in the past four years was the introduction of education maintenance awards. There are, I think, 56 pilot areas and the scheme is working work well. I urge the Government to continue the concept and extend it nationwide. My area is surrounded by districts that are

  971
  part of the scheme, and that throws up enormous anomalies. Unlike students in Bolton and Rochdale, students in Bury are not entitled to the awards. They and their parents cannot understand the distinction. I call on the Government to move quickly to make the pilots a national scheme.
  Skills within the adult population are important. I pay tribute to the work of the Moser report on basic skills and the Government's national strategy, published last year, which contains, as I mentioned in the most recent Education questions, an interesting proposal. The strategy suggests that the Government will consider funding the release of employees so that they acquire basic skills. That would help people in low-income, low-status and low-skilled jobs, with poor literacy and numeracy levels. The report said that the Government should consider funding that for one day a week for 13 weeks, which is 13 days a year of paid educational leave. I want to draw the Minister's attention to that important proposal and to the Bill that I promoted last year—the Lifelong Learning (Paid Study Time) Bill—to provide paid educational leave for all employees. I shall introduce the Bill again this year and hope to attract wider support for the concept.
  For many people in the adult work force, including MPs, banisters, business people and academics, paid educational leave is a given part of their life. We have no problem in taking almost as much time as we want off our regular daily work to enhance our professional skill and knowledge. However, the overwhelming majority of people are trapped in low-paid, low-skilled jobs. Their lives are a daily struggle to get by, and they have no security and little prospect of advancement. Unless they are extremely fortunate, they are never released from their employer to improve their skills. It is a classic example of where the market alone will not work.
  Given a free choice, most employers will choose not to release their staff because they do not obtain an immediate benefit. In this case, it is an absolute responsibility of the Government to intervene in the operation of the market and, although there will be a short-term cost to compensate employers for releasing their staff, the long-term benefits—the life opportunities for low-paid workers and the improved quality of life for their children and families—will be well worth while.
  I welcome the Government's work over the past four years and encourage them to continue so that post-16 education remains at the top of the policy agenda and lifelong learning for everyone becomes the norm, not the exception.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. Gregory Barker: I have the honour to address the House for the first time this afternoon and the privilege to represent the East Sussex constituency of Bexhill and Battle, which contains the two towns of that name and a large rural area covering some 240 square miles. I was born and bred in Sussex, so to represent that seat means a great deal to me.
  I follow Charles Wardle, who represented the constituency for 18 years, held ministerial office and was a diligent and assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, often taking up local causes with extraordinary and effective tenacity, as many residents of Robertsbridge, who suffered yet again this winter from terrible flooding, will readily testify. I hope that people
  972
  will remember him for that rather than for his unhappy relationship with the Conservative party at the end of his parliamentary career.
  I am pleased to say that Bexhill and Battle has been represented by a Conservative Member since 1874, and Charles Wardle was preceded by a distinguished and much respected parliamentarian, Bryant Godman Irvin, who gave great service to the House, not least as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee from 1976 to 1982. He is still remembered with affection by my more senior colleagues.
  Byrant Godman Irvin was preceded by another distinguished Member, a former mayor of Bexhill, Mr. W. N. Cuthbert. He was one of the few Tories to enter the House in the first election after the second world war at the time of the Labour landslide. I feel a strange affinity with Mr. Cuthbert. He, too, must have sat on these very Benches and stared in disbelief at the overwhelming number of Labour Members, but I take great encouragement from the fact that just five years after he was elected, that great majority was swept away.
  It is a time-honoured tradition for new Members to make bold and flattering claims for their constituency. However, I can tell the House that Bexhill and Battle is, without a degree of doubt, one of the most beautiful parts of this kingdom. Mindful of the fact that we live in an age of performance indicators and audits, I have the statistics to prove it. Some 74 per cent. of Bexhill and Battle is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty and we have 16 sites of special scientific interest. From the High Weald to the Pevensey levels, from the Kent ditch to Brightling beacon, my constituency is blessed with an idyllic historic landscape and a majestic coastline. My constituents are guardians of a very special environment which I have pledged to defend.
  We also treasure something else in Bexhill and Battle, less visible in the tourist guides but just as important—quality of life. Quality of life is a fragile and precious thing which cannot be measured by economic indicators alone. We understand that in the countryside, especially in the patchwork of close-knit rural communities that criss-cross my constituency. In the elegant Edwardian seaside town of Bexhill, I am pleased to say that standards of courtesy and decency still prevail. The De La Wan Pavilion, a modernist architectural gem. may be our most famous landmark, but the public spirit of my constituents, which finds expression in the numerous and highly successful voluntary organisations and charity fundraising committees, is perhaps the town's finest feature. They do a terrific job.
  Few people realise that Bexhill was the birthplace of British motor racing and next year we look forward to celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first motor race along the seafront. However, in a constituency that is rich in historical associations, that race was relatively recent. Most famously, of course, in 1066 King Harold was defeated by William of Normandy. The town of Battle is now a charming, historic but vibrant market town. Despite the passing of 1,000 years, the deeds of that fateful day and the personalities of the individuals involved are still stamped on the local landscape. The strong vein of Euroscepticism that runs through my constituency perhaps shows that there are old scores yet to settle.
  For all the charm and picturesque qualities, we are not complacent. Even amidst the rolling Sussex countryside, there are pockets of real hardship. As police numbers fall,

  973
  fear of rising crime is rife across the constituency. Areas of Bexhill still wrestle with problems of social deprivation and antisocial behaviour. Our local hospital is frequently subject to bed-blocking and this afternoon's decision by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to decline to go ahead with the Bexhill bypass will be seen as a kick in the teeth for the town.
  The bypass was not just a measure to ease traffic congestion; it was desperately needed to provide land for housing to attract people to the town and to provide homes for local families who are unable to get on the property ladder. It would have opened up land for a business park to provide much-needed, better-paid jobs, and it would have provided land to build a new university, which is one of the proposals of the new Conservative-controlled East Sussex county council. I, for one, shall continue the fight for the Bexhill bypass. However, I welcome any action from the Secretary of State to upgrade the A21 and improve our poor rail links to London.
  Many people in the villages and the countryside in my constituency face a bleak, uncertain future, thanks to the crisis in the countryside and the secondary shockwaves from the foot and mouth epidemic. Action is undoubtedly needed, but the imposition of urban values on rural communities is certainly not the answer. However, my constituents know that to prosper they must embrace change. The area must attract investment to bring greater opportunities to young people and the less well-off members of our community. That means embracing new technology, new ways of working, a better skill base and a better transport infrastructure, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs can prosper. There is no universal solution, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that if we can get education right so much else will come right too.
  My constituency is fortunate in having many good schools. My son's primary school in Etchingham, with just 130 pupils, is one of several beacon schools, sharing its success with others. We are particularly proud of the fact that Bexhill high school has just won technology college status. I applaud the fact that education is one of the Government's foremost priorities, but as much as I share their ambition to make improvements, I am genuinely concerned by their propensity to over-regulate our schools and further education colleges. In their desperation to drive up results, they chronically overload teachers and students.
  Childhood and adolescence are not merely a departure lounge for adulthood, but a time of life that should be enjoyed and relished for its own sake. We do our children no favours by denying them a childhood. We do young adults no favours if, at 16 or 18, they are worn down and worried by a constant work load of public examinations and tests. At the election, the Labour party told the country that "the work goes on", but for the sixth formers at Bexhill college, the work goes on and on and on. After-school sports, clubs and extra-curricular activities are all being squeezed as never before, and in driving our students ever harder, the Government risk quenching the very thing that drives our economy, the ingredient X that gives our nation an advantage over our trading competitors, which is our blend of ingenuity, creative spirit, free thinking and entrepreneurial flair.
  974
  Before entering the House I spent two fascinating years working for a large corporation in Russia, at the front line of efforts to reform and reinvigorate the post-Soviet economy. I was lucky to work with numerous highly educated people, whose excellent general management admission test scores were terrifying. The breadth of their knowledge never ceased to amaze me, but all too often, despite that, their ability to think creatively, to be radical and to take personal responsibility and initiative had been completely drilled out of them by an overbearing education system. The flicker of creativity and individualism that is the essential catalyst of wealth creation had been completely extinguished.
  Clearly, we have not yet reached that point in this country, but, albeit from the kindest of motives, that is the direction in which our further education system is heading. Indeed, a Russian official making a recent fact-finding visit to a neighbouring education authority, when asked for her impressions remarked that the British education system was very impressive, but seemed to her rather over-centralised.
  The current confusion and the U-turns in the new AS-level regime have only compounded that worry. It is no wonder that there is an unprecedented crisis in teacher retention and recruitment. I speak as a director of, and shareholder in, an advertising agency that specialises in that area of public service recruitment. It is time to trust the teaching profession, which has changed greatly in recent years. Those good changes were set in train by successive Conservative Governments. We rightly expect a great deal of our schools, and we must hold to account those who fail to deliver, but surely it is now time to stand back and give our teachers and lecturers some professional space.
  Bexhill college in my constituency is subjected to three separate external auditors, and barely a week passes without an audit or official inspection taking place, tying up a huge amount of staff time and front-line education resources. The funding for the college comes from up to 73 separate pots, with all those amounts, including sums as small as £2,000 for governor training, having to be separately tracked. We will never unlock the potential of each and every student by crushing the professional freedom of teachers and lecturers.
  I began this speech by praising my constituency, and I should like to end in the same vein. As this is a debate on education, I hope that the House will indulge me if I quote a verse by Rudyard Kipling, who made his home at Burwash in my constituency and was inspired by the wonderful countryside around him. He wrote:
  "God gives all men all earth to love,
  But, since man's heart is small,
  Ordains for each, one spot shall prove
  Beloved over all
  Each to his choice, and I rejoice
  The lot has fallen to me
  In a fair ground—in a fair ground—
  Yea, Sussex, by the sea!"
  3.17 pm
  Paul Farrelly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member

  975
  for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on his maiden speech. For those in the Gallery who may think that we new Members have taken too much sun, or something stronger, on the Terrace, I should point out that these speeches tend to follow a traditional form. The hon. Gentleman paid handsome tributes to his predecessor and his constituency, and made a substantial contribution to the debate.
  I should like also to congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State on her appointment. She is a former teacher with a lifelong commitment to education and no need of a belated voyage of discovery.
  I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, because in my constituency we face a challenge in encouraging more of our children simply to remain at school after 16. Two thirds of the high schools have staying-on rates that are well below the county and national averages. That includes my old school, Wolstanton High, where, as a young father knocking on 40, I am still a governor.
  That challenge has much to do with the loyal and ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. For those who are straining to hear a hint of Geordie, a common mistake, may I explain that Newcastle-under-Lyme is indeed in the north—north Staffordshire? Granted our royal charter in 1173, we can rightfully claim to be the first Newcastle, or, for that matter, Oldcastle. We were overrun by the Romans and the Normans long before they reached the Tyne, although of course they reached Bexhill and Battle long before us. It seems that for our 800 years we have always been fighting somebody or other. For much of the past century we have resisted the imperialist embrace of our Victorian new arrivals next door in the pottery city of Stoke-on-Trent.
  Newcastle is historically not a potteries town, but many of our folk have toiled in the bottle kilns and our terraces housed their workers. Newcastle's first Labour Member of Parliament was Josiah Wedgwood, a great-grandson of the founder of the Wedgwood company; we have been represented by Labour ever since 1919. We might have got Luton's motor factory, but the pot bank owners fought it—in our area, they did not want to pay car-makers' wages.
  Newcastle has always beer a market town—the trading centre of north Staffordshire. but above all it has been a pit town: the Staffordshire coalfield is the biggest in the country and the Wolstanton and Silverdale mines were Britain's deepest. In one civil war, Newcastle's roundheads, loyal to Parliament, saw off cavaliers from Cheshire and Derbyshire; sadly, in round two, we lost to the lady from Lincolnshire, so all our pits are now gone. We have lots of parks instead, mind you. Apedale mine is now a beautifully landscaped nature park, Wolstanton a retail park and Holditch a thriving business park thanks to Newcastle's wonderful council, helped now by a Labour Government.
  No matter how we fought the industrial challenge, Newcastle's community bears the scars and they continue to show in our schools. I know how hard it is for poorer kids to stay on after the age of 16: my mum left school at 15 and my dad, in Ireland at 12. I can safely say that I am the only new Labour Member of Parliament to be the grandson of a rabbit trapper from County Meath. I was urged to go to work at 16, but more than a little stubbornness. combined with wiping tables at Keele
  976
  motorway service station and pouring pints for the world darts championships at Jollees nightclub in between, enabled me to survive A-levels and get the best of educations.
  I was the first of my family to go to university—to Oxford. I was lucky. My English granddad—a captain's messenger hopping the trenches in the gunfire of the first world war, a staunch trade unionist all his life and one of the first members of the Labour party—knew the value of education. I am proud to serve Newcastle-under-Lyme for a Labour party that has put at the heart of its second term in government the transformation of secondary education and the expansion of further and higher education for all, not only a privileged few.
  Making sure our kids achieve begins in the home, not at school. Labour's family policies are already helping poorer children to break the vicious circle of families surviving on benefit with no incentives, no jobs and no aspirations. We are also giving children a hand directly: my constituency now benefits from the sure start programme, and Stoke-on-Trent is reaping rewards from the education maintenance allowance, which helps poorer children to stay on past 16. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Stoke will understand it when, just this once, I cast my eyes enviously at their patch and urge the Government to extend the EMA to all of Newcastle, north Staffordshire and nationally, so that all our kids benefit from a level playing field. Above all, we must continue to level up education standard spending assessments in areas such as Staffordshire. The Government will, I am sure, continue to do exactly that.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) highlighted some of the holes in the Conservatives' manifesto. During the election I noticed that they had already stolen some of Labour's clothes, but not, it would seem, in education. I hope that during their knockabout leadership election, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will undertake another voyage of discovery and abandon foolish and dangerous policies such as so-called free schools. They are not free: someone will pay and it will be the least advantaged of our children who face the greatest challenges to staying on beyond 16.
  It is right and proper that, as is the custom, I now pay tribute to my predecessor. Children have been the lifelong passion of Llin Golding, who represented Newcastle for 15 years. Despite Llin's many other onerous commitments, such as the Commons fly fishing club, the Back-Bench horse racing committee and the foxy Middle Way, she always led the parliamentary children's group. She served as a Front-Bench spokesman on education and agriculture. Her creativity in combining her passions has been truly remarkable: for example, she remains a patron of Second Chance, a charity for less advantaged children who need special help—to spend weekends fishing, of course.
  The new Baroness Golding's sweet songbird name—Llinos is Welsh for linnet—truly understates her steely determination. To quote another parliamentary incomparable, Andrew Roth:
  "She was a tough Whip and organiser with a warm heart for the underprivileged, especially children in trouble."
  My hon. Friend the new Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) has already paid generous tribute to Llin's father, Ness Edwards, former Member of Parliament for Llin's birthplace and a member of Clement Attlee's

  977
  Cabinet. I am sure that the House agrees that Llin's elevation to the peerage—without inducement, I am ecstatic to say—is just reward for the 60 years of service that she, her father and her late husband John gave the House.
  No mention of Newcastle-under-Lyme would be complete without praising the late, great John Golding. Many of my older colleagues will have mixed feelings about my old friend, Labour's witchfinder general and the well named "hammer of the left", but I am sure that everyone recognises John's outstanding contribution to Labour's historic electoral success under my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). John was a tireless champion of the underprivileged and one of the earliest campaigners for the minimum wage. Locally, he was a passionate advocate for Newcastle further education college, which now offers our over-16s a wonderful array of academic and vocational qualifications. He, and we, will not tolerate an education system that acts merely as a sieve of failure at different stages for our children.
  In remembering John, I commend the especially dear obituary written by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, whom I wish a speedy recovery. John holds the record for the longest ever parliamentary speech: 11 hours and 15 minutes speaking to a single amendment to delay the privatisation of British Telecom in 1983. With his much missed twinkle in the eye, John once told me that eight minutes was the ideal length for a speech. The House will be glad that, on my maiden outing. I have followed John's advice and not his custom and practice. I commend the Government's record, our manifesto, and the amendment to the House.
  3.26 pm
  Adam Price: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today, a little later and a little hoarser—thanks to a bout of tonsillitis—than I had intended.
  The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) have set an exacting standard with their excellent speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for a thought-provoking and well informed contribution. He spoke from the heart and I have no doubt that he will be a credit to his party, his constituency and the House.
  I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor. Dr. Alan Williams was a most assiduous advocate on behalf of his constituents. A chemist, he brought to the House valuable expertise, a keen interest in scientific and environmental policy and a reasoned and logical approach to every issue that came to his attention. I wish him every success in future. Dr. Williams had the honour to be the longest serving Member of Parliament for a constituency renowned for febrile campaigning and unpredictability. Among my more colourful predecessors was William Paxton, who in his first attempt to capture the seat in 1802 kept the polls open for 15 days and bribed the electorate with 11,000 breakfasts, 36,000 dinners, 25,000 gallons of ale, 11,000 bottles of spirits—the list goes on—spending £18.18 for milk punch, whatever that is, and £786 for ribbons. He might have had a little difficulty explaining his actions to today's Electoral Commission.
  978
  The last Member of Parliament for the Carmarthen Boroughs seat was the nationalist and anti-Lloyd George Liberal Llewelyn Williams, who said of the House:
  "You get in to get on, you staff in to get honours. you get out to get honest".
  Perhaps his cynical view of politics can be explained by the rather curious Carmarthenshire tradition, which survived well into the 20th century, whereby Tories wore red rosettes and their opponents blue—a tradition that in these days of ideological confusion seems strangely apt.
  The political history of the Carmarthen constituency was especially interesting in the 20th century. Carmarthen was the only Labour-held seat—apart from Mile End in London, which went communist—that the party lost in the 1945 election. It was the only Labour-held seat that the party lost in the second 1974 election. I am pleased to say that on 7 June this year it became the only Labour-held seat lost by Labour in Wales.
  Above all, Carmarthen was the first seat won by Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales—in 1966. I pay special tribute to my predecessor Gwynfor Evans, the founder of modern Welsh nationalism. His integrity, eloquence and commitment to the cause of Wales set an example to which I can but hope to aspire. He continues to be an inspiration to everyone in my party.
  It is no exaggeration to say that the communities of East Carmarthen and Dinefwr have a unique, historic character. They stand on the cusp of rural and industrial Wales, and are the gateway to both. Four main valleys make up the constituency: the post-industrial Amman and Gwendraeth valleys of the anthracite coalfield and the agricultural heartlands of the Teifi and Tywi valleys. The constituency has the only anthracite coalfield in Britain and produces more milk than any other county in the UK.
  The interplay and interconnection of the two communities—the coalfield and the milkfield—lie at the heart of the special character of my constituency. The markets of the south Wales coalfield helped to build up the dairy sector. Welsh-speaking peasants and farmers, including my grandfather, huddled into the terraced cottages of the pit villages of Amman and Gwendraeth. Where others try to drive a wedge between town and country, we in Carmarthenshire have a bond of solidarity between village and valley, miner and farmer—from the free milk supplied by the farmers of Carmarthenshire to miners' families during the great strike of 1984, to the enormous concern shared by everyone in my constituency at the human cost of the deepening rural depression.
  I was born and brought up in the industrial half of the constituency. My forefathers lived and worked in grim conditions, but they succeeded in sustaining a remarkably vibrant culture, which was characterised by a love of two languages, of religion and of all aspects of popular culture. That is certainly true of sport; the two valleys of Amman and Gwendraeth can boast the likes of Carwyn James, Barry John, Gareth Davies and Jonathan Davies—to name but a few of the greats of the Welsh game—as well as the emerging present-day talents of Shane Williams and Dwayne Peel. In snooker, we have in my constituency Matthew Stevens and Dominic Dale. In soccer, we have the former Welsh international goalkeeper, Dai Davies. Last but not least, my father was a former Welsh middleweight champion and, if I may say so, a formidable canvasser on the election trail.
  Other great defining characteristics of the people of Carmarthenshire are their patriotism and democratic socialism. There was no finer an exponent of that than the

  979
  late Jim Griffiths. Along with Aneurin Bevan, of course, he was one of the two great founders of the welfare state, having introduced the National Insurance Act 1948 under the Attlee Government. He was also a firm believer in the Welsh dimension of politics So it was fitting that he should have succeeded in being made the Charter Secretary of State for Wales—a fulfilment of his lifelong ambition for his country. He passionately believed—as I do today—that the villages and valleys had something distinctive to contribute to our shared humanity.
  The essence of these values was captured in, of all places, last Friday's edition of The Times, in an obituary of the theologian W. D. Davies, who was originally from Glanaman.
  "Davies"—
  it said—
  "had the quiet dignity of the miners he knew as a child, people who knew the depth of economic depression but retained the self-respect that they found in the Christian faith. The social concern of the Nonconformist chapels of the Amman Valley gave him a concern for those he perceived as victims, and this developed into a natural affinity with the Jewish people".
  Jim Griffiths was a product of that same tradition, but in the 1960s the vision and the values on which such great communities had been built were threatened—ironically as a result of his own Government's policies.
  In an archive in Ammanford, there is a letter written by Jim Griffiths to a Labour party colleague shortly after a Carmarthen by-election, stating baldly that all Labour seats in Wales were vulnerable. Jim Griffiths' particular concern was that the Labour party had lost the support of young people. The cause was clear then as it is now. As Gwynfor Evans declared in his maiden speech 35 years ago, the Labour party boasts of prosperity but the people of Carmarthen
  "see no evidence of this prosperity What they see is mines closing, railways closing, steel workers being made redundant and a decline in agriculture."—[Official Report,26 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1498.]
  The parallel between those words, spoken 35 years ago, with the Wales of today is chilling in its accuracy.
  The Labour party has never really recaptured the energies of young people in Wales. That is why I stand here a Plaid Member, a miner's son and the youngest Member representing a Wales constituency. When hubris threatens to overwhelm some of my fellow Welshmen on the Government Benches, whom I am glad to see present, perhaps they should ask themselves why people of my generation and background have turned their backs on Labour.
  The issue of post-16 education possibly offers some clues. There are few issues that for me define more precisely the essence of social justice in an advanced society than access to education. Further and higher education were to me, as to so many hon. Members, the key that unlocked the door to the favoured position that we now enjoy.
  Education involves not only individual benefit but social and economic gain for society as a whole. Indeed, according to the recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, almost half a percentage point of the annual average growth rate in the UK in the 1990s was due to educational attainment. More sobering was the finding in the report that, in 1998, the UK spent only 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product on education compared with an OECD average of
  980
  5.3 per cent—still far below the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, which invest more than 7 per cent. of their annual income in education.
  Alongside questions of funding lies the issue of student financial support, on which the Opposition motion is curiously silent. Like many an hon. Member, my training ground for political engagement was the National Union of Students. I particularly remember the presidential term of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and the great lobby of Westminster against student loans, which ended in deadlock—unfortunately—on Westminster bridge.
  Our policy in the NUS was to defend and extend the principle of the maintenance grant to embrace all those in full-time post-16 education. Our fears then about the effects of the abolition of the maintenance grant have been borne out by a string of recent reports. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales last year published research showing that, following the introduction of student fees, prospective students from the deprived communities of south Wales were up to three times less likely to attend university.
  Earlier this year, the Rees report on student hardship, commissioned by the Lib-Lab coalition in the National Assembly, echoed the Cubie report in calling for the abolition of tuition fees and went further in calling for a statutory entitlement to maintenance support for all those in HE and FE. That was the very same policy that many of us were advocating back in the 1980s while in the NUS.
  As the youngest of three working-class children to go to university, and one of the last to receive a full maintenance grant, I am passionately committed to ensuring that the same opportunities are afforded to today's generation of young people. Passion in politics, it seems, is no bad thing—even, if the House will forgive me, in a maiden speech.
  It is often said that the difference between a Llanelli and a Swansea supporter—those two great rivals of west Wales rugby—is that Swansea supporters wear gloves and Llanelli supporters cannot afford them. I am a Llanelli supporter through and through and I assure the House that my gloves will be off in many of our debates—not out of any enmity for Labour Members, but because I care so deeply about a special place that I love and a special people whom I love. Their demands over the 20th century were modest, but their contribution was immense. They deserve a future that is better than the past. It is our collective duty to ensure that it is delivered.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: It is entirely appropriate that in this first Opposition-day debate of the new Parliament, we should discuss post-16 education. We all know that it receives insufficient attention. That is partly because we have a strong relationship in our constituencies with schools, parents and children. At the other end of the spectrum, the university sector commands a great deal of firepower. It is often said that further education is a Cinderella squeezed between those great powers. I have a long-standing commitment to FE, especially to adult education, and acknowledge its importance. Even if our motion is contentious in some respects, I hope that both sides of the House agree on the basic premise that the post-16 sector is critical to improving the nation's skills base and its international competitiveness; by implication, it needs greater attention than perhaps it receives.

  981
  Our debate has been marked by a number of distinguished speeches. There is never enough time to debate further education, but at least the quality of speeches has made up for the lack of quantity. There was a distinguished contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who has great expertise, followed by three exceptional maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) produced a wonderful combination of perception, wit and elegance; he emphasised strongly the positive side of his constituency and his commitment to education. That is not to detract in any sense from the contributions of the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price). Perhaps we do not hear enough in the House about passion; we do not hear enough from Labour Members about commitment to the socially disadvantaged. Some Opposition Members have such commitment and we are delighted that passion will be brought to bear on the subject, as there ought to be a common commitment to improve the situation.
  Apart from those speeches, the contributions were mainly from the Front Benches. I regret the fact that Ministers have not quite addressed concerns expressed in all quarters, not only in our debate but more generally in the national debate, about recent events. I particularly regret the fact that they have not addressed the concerns set out in our motion, which were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who dealt with the immediate issue for almost all post-16 AS-level learners. The Secretary of State conceded that students were having to work harder and study longer; her prescription for dealing with that situation, albeit an interim one, was to offer alleviation in the timetable for assessment, not mitigation of the range of study. Frankly, she seemed to confuse a broader curriculum, with more subjects to study, with a greater breadth of educational experience. We want the latter, and we worry that producing a broader curriculum may displace rather than facilitate it.
  I welcome the Minister for Lifelong Learning, whom I know from previous debates and her service in the Department, to the Dispatch Box and invite her to nail a worry about a specific issue. On 16 August, the first national AS-level results are due to be published. Before our debate ends, can she tell us unequivocally whether those results will be published on time, in full and accurately? We have asked the Government to tell us a number of times, and it is essential that parents and students know where they stand. There can be no ducking the issue and no repetition of the fiasco north of the border last year. Our students have suffered enough problems and cannot go through that as well.
  A range of issues have been raised today, including the differential in funding that has already been discussed at some length. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead remarked, schools are different; in saying so, she echoed remarks made only last week by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey). When the word "convergence" is in the air, we must ensure that schools retain their funding for pre and post-16 education and that any convergence involves levelling up, not
  982
  levelling down. The Government cannot be permitted to use arguments about schools' funding as a cop-out for inadequacies in FE funding.
  I want to touch on some issues that have not received enough attention today. One is inspection; we now have the first Ofsted reports and, it is fair to say, further work in that area is required. The reports should be considered carefully and dispassionately. Some of us remain uneasy about the interface between Ofsted, the adult learning inspectorate and the colleges and providers themselves. FE is not the same as school education; it does not have the same skills and motivation base as various types of schools. We need to watch that carefully.
  Special educational needs is another important issue which, as the Minister will know, impacts on the difficult transition from school to college. Wisely, the Government responded to representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), whose concerns were shared across the House, about deficiencies in the SEN code of practice and withdrew it in another place yesterday. I hope that they have learned from that experience; any more information that they can give about their plans would be appreciated.
  Finally, there is the overarching issue of qualifications and public examinations, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, must be taken very widely indeed, not just seen as a scissors-and-paste job on a present difficulty. What has made it worse for schools is that GCSE changes and other changes took place in parallel. We must all learn that we have to look at the changes ensemble; we should not consider one change without regard for others taking place at the same time.
  I mention two other important issues, the Connexions service and the structure and operation of the Learning and Skills Council, only to say that we cannot debate them now. We shall need to return to them later, but I submit to the House some wide general considerations and tests that need to be set out. We must consider whether a post-16 system contributes to education in its widest sense, including providing interpersonal and the so-called soft key skills as well as those that are more easily examinable. Does it build up the appropriate skills base for future employment and in an appropriate setting for the particular elements of that base? Does it capture those who would otherwise miss out on further education, by widening access and participation? Does it contribute to widening the base of pre-university general education, which provides the only realistic prospect of meeting Government targets for participation in higher education, unless the standards for entry are diluted?
  Those goals are not being achieved and their achievement seems unlikely under present funding and organisational arrangements for the post-16 sector. The Government set a target increase of 700,000 FE students over two years, but the reality is that in each year of their stewardship student numbers have dropped, albeit by a small amount. They cannot claim even one extra student, yet in our time in government, however much the hon. Member for Bury, North tried to explain it away, we provided for the enrolment of an extra 1 million students. That comparative record bears examination. I do not puff our achievements, which were not without their faults, but the Government's achievements so far have been minimal, if not negative. It is perhaps no accident that they are set against a background of colleges under pressure, with staff under particularly great pressure. Unit

  983
  funding per student is falling; the flexibility of colleges and their ability to use their resources are being impaired as they find an ever higher proportion of their remaining funds are subject to conditions. Lecturers are falling behind their school equivalents, and even more so behind their counterparts in outside employment, especially when the skills are transferable.
  Further education colleges and the wider delivery of post-16 education—the critical area that we are considering—do great things with diminishing resources. However, somewhere there is a point of failure. The purpose of the motion is to bring that to the attention of the nation before it is too late.
  3.40 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): This has been a good if limited debate. It has been constructive and well-informed. I suppose that some of the less well informed interventions from the Opposition Benches can be blamed on distraction. Perhaps Conservative Members have their minds elsewhere. I can assure them that under Labour's commitment to lifelong learning for all they will get the second chance that they denied to so many when they were in government.
  I was pleased to hear three excellent contributions from new Members. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on an eloquent maiden speech. He told us of all the qualities and opportunities that exist in his constituency and of the threats that he saw facing his constituents. I must tell him that I do not apologise for an obsession with driving up standards. I do not accept that in pursuing high standards we are not developing the important skills and enjoyments that make for the whole person.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made a well constructed and passionate maiden speech that ranged across many issues, which he linked to his own experience. He spoke with fondness of his constituency. I look forward to his contributions in future.
  The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) told us some good history about his constituency. By his account, his predecessors made a colourful contribution to what happened in the House. I am sure from his contribution that he will maintain that good record.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) talked about concern about allocations this year from the additional moneys that are going to colleges and further education colleges. I wish to reassure him that the allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 have already been given to colleges. Any money that is still outstanding will be paid retrospectively. The Learning and Skills Council is waiting for the forms to come in so that it can meet the bill.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the radical overhaul that we want from 14 to 19. We are committed to that. In the meantime, I hope that he will welcome, as we do, the introduction of a range of qualifications from vocational GCSEs through to AS-levels, vocational A-levels, the modern apprenticeships and foundation degrees, as a way of extending, deepening and opening opportunities for people in education.
  984
  I acknowledge the considerable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to the FE sector. He mentioned educational maintenance allowances, which we consider to have been an effective experiment. We are considering their future in depth. I look forward to him pursuing his arguments about paid educational leave for employees.
  I shall talk briefly about school sixth forms, which were raised by several Opposition Members. We gave an unprecedented guarantee to maintain funding for school sixth forms. We have given a clear instruction to the Learning and Skills Council that it must pass the money that it receives to the sixth forms in full.
  Funding for sixth forms varies considerably throughout the country, from £2,600 per student in some areas to £4,100 in others. Making sense of that will take time, but we have a commitment to do so by funding upwards. The Learning and Skills Council will publish information on funding to schools in July. The provisional allocation will be made in December. I hope that that will reassure school sixth forms.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that we shall publish the A-levels on 16 August. The awarding bodies have confirmed that the results will be issued on that day.
  Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Margaret Hodge: I am short of time.
  Mr. Boswell: I appreciate the extreme shortage of time. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the term "A-levels" includes for this purpose AS-levels? There may be a critical distinction.
  Margaret Hodge: I understand that, and can confirm that.
  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the inspection reports. Schools and FE colleges may be different but quality must be high in both.
  I am delighted that we have had an opportunity of a Supply day debate to reflect on the post-16 world in education. The challenges that we face in post-16 education are huge, but crucial and exciting. We must raise aspirations, extend participation and boost attainment for many more people so that British people can equal the peoples of other industrialised nations in their skills and achievements.
  On an individual level, we want men and women to enjoy a better life and a better job. At a national level, we want the skills that are necessary to enhance our productivity and competitiveness, and to facilitate the growth that we need to deliver inclusion. To do this, we need to extend participation in all post-16 education, in colleges, at universities and in the workplace. We need to tackle inequality of access, which still bedevils us with our history of class divisions. We need also to raise attainment levels at 16, 18 and 19, and in the universities and beyond.
  We must tackle the silent scandal that one in five adults still do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. We must ensure that individuals attain the key skills that are vital in the new economy. We must work with businesses and trade unions to instil a culture of continuous learning

  985
  and development in the workplace. We need to improve the quality of all our education and training provision. We still need to maintain our world-class status in innovation and research.
  That is a tough and long agenda, but I believe that we have made a good and impressive start. There has been a real-terms growth in spending. In FE, there has been an increase of 12 per cent. compared with the 12 per cent. cut in real-terms spending by the Tories in the last three years of their Government. This year sees the first ever real-terms increase in funding for students in higher education. We are developing the new and important phase for 14 to 19-year-olds, which will be better tailored to meet the needs of each individual student. Vocational qualifications will sit alongside other qualifications. There will be new qualifications such as AS-levels, which give breadth and flexibility. There will be closer co-operation between institutions, which will make it easier for individuals to progress and achieve.
  We are providing additional and targeted support for individuals to encourage learning and to equalise opportunity. That is why we have educational maintenance allowances and individual learning accounts and why we are piloting opportunity bursaries. We are tackling inequalities in other ways with our excellence challenge, Connexions service and adult basic skills programme. They are all parts of a concerted and logical effort to widen participation. We are making learning more accessible with learning direct, new online centres, support for Investors in People and the union for learning fund. We are making life easier for students, especially for the less confident students, by establishing better links between institutions.
  We recognise that central to our efforts are the teachers in our schools, colleges and universities. That is why this year sees not only a generous settlement of pay in FE—one that is 50 per cent. higher than that which the Tories funded in their last year in office—but the introduction of the £300 million teachers' pay initiative which will reward teachers in FE with up to £2,000 each for their performance.
  The House will see from what I have been able to cover that there is an ambitious and comprehensive agenda. Our task is to deliver it. With so much to do and much that is new, we will of course aim to get everything right first time, but where we recognise that change is necessary and that our plans and policies need to be amended, we will not hesitate to do so promptly and openly.
  That is what we have done with the AS-levels. We got the concept right in principle but we must make changes in how they work to ensure that the qualification is sustainable, rigorous and lasting. Of course, we wish that we had got it right first time, but we are right to respond quickly to people's legitimate concerns. A serious Opposition would recognise that AS-levels are only one part of a wider picture, and would address the myriad policies and programmes that we are pursuing to raise standards, aspirations and achievements. However, the Opposition prefer not to have regard to that serious agenda. For that reason, we tabled our amendment to the motion.
  We have a huge task before us. We are confident that we are putting in place both the resources and the policies to meet the challenges. We are proud of what we have
  986
  done. We know that we have a great deal more to do, and we look forward to reporting regularly to the House and to our colleagues on the progress that we have made in providing greater opportunity for all in the education and training that we are determined to deliver.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 302.

  Division No. 23]

  [4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Amess, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Goodman, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grayling, Chris

  Bacon, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Barker, Greg

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baron, John

  Greenway, John

  Barrett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Hermon, Lady

  Breed, Colin

  Hoban, Mark

  Brooke, Annette

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Holmes, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Horam, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cameron, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cash, William

  Keetch, Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

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

  Chidgey, David

  Key, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clappison, James

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lamb, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Laws, David

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cotter, Brian

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cran, James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter

  Doughty, Sue

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Flight, Howard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moss, Malcolm

  Francois, Mark

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Norman, Archie

  987

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Öpik, Lembit

  Swire, Hugo

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Syms, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Price, Adam

  Thurso, John

  Prisk, Mark

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pugh, Dr John

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Walter, Robert

  Robinson Peter {Belfast E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rosindell Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Ruffley, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Selous, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilshire, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. John Randall and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. James Gray.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cawsey, Ian

  Austin, John

  Challen, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben (Winal S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Best, Harold

  Coaker, Vernon

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cox, Tom

  Bryant Chris

  Cranston, Ross

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Crausby, David

  Burden, Richard

  Cruddas, Jon

  Burgon, Colin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Cairns, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  988

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kelly, Ruth

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  David, Wayne

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

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

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lammy, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lepper, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony

  Drew, David

  Love, Andrew

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lucas, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Luke, Iain

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lyons, John

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCabe, Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  McCafferty, Chris

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonnell, John

  Flynn, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foulkes, George

  McKechin, Ann

  Galloway, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mann, John

  Hanson, David

  Marris, Rob

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Heyes, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hill, Keith

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miliband, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Organ, Diana

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Picking, Anne

  989

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Todd, Mark

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ryan, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watson, Tom

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brain

  Simon SiÖn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woolas, Phill

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wray, James

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's achievements in post-16 education which will drive up the nation's skills and extend opportunity for all; applauds the substantial extra resources secured for further education and the reforms through the Learning and Skills Council and rigorous inspection arrangements, which will radically improve standards and the guarantee to all sixth forms that their funding will be maintained in real terms if their pupil numbers do not fall; commends the broadening of the 16–19 curriculum which is widely supported and the timely and measured response of the Government to improve delivery in schools and colleges; welcomes the early success of the Connexions Service and of Education Maintenance Allowance pilots in encouraging more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in full-time education after the age of 16, the extra resources secured for the university system and the expansion in the numbers of students in higher education; and endorses the strategy to reduce the number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills which will tackle a problem which has been neglected for far too long.

The Countryside
4.15 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's neglect of the continuing crisis in the countryside; condemns its failure to produce any programme for the recovery of agriculture and its refusal to accept the need for a full independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic; further deplores the absence of policies to maintain adequate services in rural areas, including post office and shops, and its failure to address public concern about rural crime; and regrets the pursuit of tax policies which are especially damaging to rural communities and the unsustainable planning policies which continue to threaten greenfield sites.
This debate is probably the last chance that Parliament will have for more than three months to examine the crisis in the countryside. Many of the problems are in need of urgent attention and are likely to get worse by the time that the House returns in October unless action is taken in the meantime. In welcoming the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, let me say that I hope that she has recovered her voice and that she will set out the action that the Government propose to take to deal with the crisis.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady's name does not appear among the principal six names attached to the Government amendment to the motion. It is a matter of concern—this is not merely a House of Commons point—that the Government appear to believe that it is more important for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to appear among those who tabled the amendment, ahead of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The extent of the problems in the countryside is well known. There was already a serious crisis before foot and mouth disease struck. Farm incomes have fallen every year since Labour came to power and they are now less than a third of the 1997 level. Jobs in agriculture are being destroyed at a rate of more than 400 a week, and the number has been falling at that rate for the past two years. Many sectors, such as dairy farming, are running at a loss. Last November's report by the Government's better regulation task force stated:
"Farming has been subjected to a considerable increase in regulatory obligations over recent years."
Foot and mouth has made that situation worse not only for farming, but for tourism, which has also been devastated. The number of overseas visitors to Britain is down. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has warned that 250,000 jobs in tourism are at risk. The British Hospitality Association has estimated that the domestic tourism market is in decline by £2 billion. What a pity that Ministers spent the spring claiming falsely that foot and mouth was under control, instead of concentrating on eradicating the disease, which would have been the right way to help the tourism industry.
To revert to the subject of agriculture, the Secretary of State must understand that many people in the countryside now believe that the Government do not care whether farming survives as a substantial British industry. Many fear that Labour would be happy for British consumers to eat nothing but imported food, even though the Government's own Food Standards Agency has admitted that it is sometimes hard to police the safety of such food. The Government's refusal to introduce honesty in food

991
labelling and to apply the same standards to food imports as to home-produced food, as well as their reluctance to claim the help available to farmers from the European Union, encourage fears that they are not concerned about the future of farming. The action, as well as inaction, of Ministers in the past four years has made the crisis worse, not better.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will later deal with agrimonetary compensation in more detail. I shall deal with the foot and mouth epidemic, and in particular with three aspects of it. First, there is a need for a proper recovery plan. If the enhanced farm business advisory service to which the amendment refers, and a bit more rate relief, are all that the Government are going to propose, their actions are ludicrously inadequate. If other measures are on the way, when they will be published? They are needed today.
When will the Government reach a decision on compensating some of those who have suffered irrecoverable losses because of foot and mouth disease? It is more than three months since I wrote to the former Minister of Agriculture at his request, setting out precisely the categories of loss in respect of which compensation should be provided. Those in need of compensation include farmers who have beep unable to sell cattle before they reached the age of 30 months. Does the Secretary of State intend to answer my letter? Apart from compensation, what other steps will the Government take to ensure the survival of many rural businesses, including the remaining small abattoirs, for example?
Will the Government withdraw their unworkable proposal for a 20-day ban on livestock movements? I trust that the Secretary of State is aware of the truly devastating prospects in the near future, particularly for the sheep sector but for other sectors of the livestock industry as well. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will deal with those issues in greater detail later.
What strategy, apart from hope, do the Government have for eliminating foot and mouth disease entirely? Do they expect to eradicate it from the United Kingdom before the weather turns colder? What is the latest scientific assessment of the future trend of the disease? It is now more than two months since the Prime Minister claimed that the Government were on the home straight. When will the end of this very long straight heave into sight?
Many questions arise in the wake of the devastation following the epidemic, all of which point to the need for an inquiry. So far, the Secretary of State has refused to acknowledge that a full, independent public inquiry will be held. However, the Government's handling of the epidemic has so lost the trust of rural communities that confidence can now be restored only by such an inquiry.
I have already published the terms of reference that we propose for such an inquiry: it must examine the origins of the disease; it must make recommendations for a future prevention strategy; and, crucially, it must analyse the extent to which delays and mistakes by Ministers in the vital few weeks after the first case was discovered on 19 February caused the epidemic to spread much more widely than would have happened if Ministers had paid
992
attention to the lessons of the 1967 epidemic, or acted on the advice that I gave in the House at each stage of the unfolding crisis.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is another category of investigation that needs to be included in that inquiry? That is an analysis of the degree to which incorrect evaluations were made of the presence of the disease, causing whole areas to be closed down for specious reasons. Does he agree that a proper objective analysis of the methods used to diagnose the presence of foot and mouth is a crucial element in the inquiry for which he rightly calls?
Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right. The inquiry will have to be wide ranging. It will not have to be lengthy, because the science is relatively simple, compared, for example, to that involved with BSE. The inquiry should indeed deal with the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The country needs to know just how many millions of animals could have been saved if the delays and mistakes by Ministers had not occurred. How many businesses might have been preserved? How much money might the taxpayer have saved? The Secretary of State should announce today the Government's commitment to holding an inquiry, even if she is unable to set a date for it to start. Any continued refusal to acknowledge the need for a full independent inquiry will suggest that Ministers are hoping to get away with a whitewash.
I shall now move on to other aspects of the crisis in the countryside. While the decline in agriculture is weakening the whole rural economy, services are also disappearing or being run down as a direct result of Government policy. Let us take the example of post offices. I recognise that village post offices have been closing for many years, but the closure rate has accelerated alarmingly in recent times. Up to 350 post offices a year closed during Labour's first term of office. That rate has increased to more than 500 in the past 12 months. According to figures supplied by the Countryside Alliance, 333 post offices have closed in the past six months alone. That is more than a dozen every week.
The viability of up to 8,000 post offices now depends on the business generated by the payment of social security benefits. However, the Government's decision to axe the previous Government's benefit payment card project has now jeopardised the future of every one of those post offices, and postmasters and postmistresses have made it clear that the Government's proposal for a universal bank is simply no substitute.
We welcome the business rate reductions announced in the last Parliament, but we believe that the threat to the remaining shops, pubs and post offices is so acute that further rate reductions are needed, and that another £1,000 a year off the business rate for vulnerable enterprises in rural areas should be funded by central Government. Equestrian businesses, too, should be exempted from business rates. The Labour party continues its obsession with its wish to ban hunting, but one in 12 of our riding schools closed down in 1999.
It is not only services that are in decline. Rural areas also suffer discrimination over funding. Shire counties lost an estimated £700 million in taxpayer support during

993
the last Parliament because of changes to the local government funding formula made by the Labour Government. As the Labour group of rural MPs pointed out, country people
"are now paying disproportionately more in tax for less services."
The council tax for band D taxpayers in the shire counties rose by an average of f234 a year over the past four years. Inner-London local authorities spend £1,326 per head of population, compared with only £787 per head in the shire counties.
Transport is another source of acute difficulty. Reliance on high fuel taxes as the main instrument of transport policy is uniquely damaging in rural areas, where there is no alternative to using cars for normal social, domestic and business life. As the AA has pointed out, three out of four rural journeys are made by car. As for the Government's much vaunted integrated transport policy, it simply ignores the countryside altogether. Ministers boast of £180 billion in transport spending over the next 10 years, but as the Countryside Alliance has pointed out, of every £1,000 of that spending, just 16p will go to the rural transport fund for expanding rural bus services. That is another reflection of the appallingly low priority that Labour attaches to helping the countryside in its time of need.
Mr. Robert Key: To be fair to the Government, we should recognise the fact that in many local authorities, a lot of the lunatic anti-car policies are the brainchild of the Liberal Democrats who control so much of our countryside. Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the best that they can come up with in their amendment is to urge the Government to take action to establish an advisory commission? That is typical. Is that, perhaps, why the majority in constituencies such as mine went up so much, and the Liberal vote went down? Is that why the Liberal vote went down in the seat next to Romsey, and why they lost control of my district council to the Conservatives in the middle of the election campaign? Hooray!
Mr. Yeo: In the spirit of fairness that my hon. Friend invokes, and in line with the new reasoned approach to debate, to which my hon. Friends and I are publicly committed, I willingly agree with every word that he has said.
Crime, and especially fear of crime, are big threats to the quality of life in the countryside. Last year the NFU Mutual insurance company reported a rise of more than a quarter in thefts from business premises in rural areas. The BBC's "Countryfile" reported that more than half of all farmers had been burgled. More than one in five had suffered arson. Neither the Labour nor the Liberal Democrat amendments refer to crime as part of the crisis in the countryside.
Neither amendment shows any interest in the constructive suggestions that we have made for parish constables, or for improving police accountability by encouraging police use of premises such as shops or village halls. Law enforcement is also a special concern in the areas in which the minority of travellers who are lawbreakers are to be found. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study found that one third of travellers interviewed had committed benefit fraud, but the Government are reluctant either to enforce existing laws or to assist in the eviction of illegally camped travellers.
Mr. Richard Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the rural county of Suffolk, levels of crime have risen in the past four years by 20 per cent., and that levels of crimes of violence have risen by fully 60 per cent. in the past three years. In comparison with the effects of crime in urban areas, the dramatic ripple effect of attacks on sub-post offices and village shops causes huge problems of morale, and difficulties and tensions that are unique to rural communities.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend, who is a notable champion of those with anxieties in the county of Suffolk, is absolutely right to raise the hideous problem of rising crime, especially violence, in our county, whose crime record is, historically, below average. That issue is raised with me more frequently than any other. The problem is the result of four years of a Labour Government in London and a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration in county hall.
I repeat the question that I asked the Secretary of State two weeks ago about planning. What influence will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have over planning policy? Is it not extraordinary that something described as a Department for the Environment is not responsible for planning? Does the right hon. Lady understand that the decision in last year's rural White Paper to remove protection for the best and most versatile farmland reinforced the fear that the Government do not regard the survival of farming as important to Britain's future? [Interruption.]I am citing the White Paper. I realise that the Minister for Rural Affairs was absent from the Government for several years. However, he could have used the time usefully by studying their publications.
Labour's policy of destroying the green belt and bulldozing greenfield sites ignores the wishes of local communities. Ministers ride roughshod over the views and decisions of elected local councils. The regeneration of inner cities is ignored as long as developers get the go-ahead to build on greenfield sites. The Government's approach to planning is unsustainable. By the time they admit that, much irreversible damage will have been done. That is a tragedy.
Few aspects of policy divide the Government more sharply from the Opposition than the countryside does. Few communities have experienced more Government hostility than those in rural areas. Few industries experiencing serious slump have been treated with less sympathy by the Government than farming has. Few generations have seen more of Britain's green and pleasant land go under the bulldozer than the current generation. Few Governments have displayed more contempt for rural traditions than the Labour Government have. Four more years of those attitudes, policies and decisions will inflict terrible damage on our countryside. I commend the motion to the House.
4.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"supports the Government's key priority to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible; regrets that the Opposition has failed to notice the Government's recent announcement of an enhanced Farm Business Advisory Service which encourages farmers to

995
develop new income opportunities and an extension of the rate relief scheme to ensure further financial support to businesses in rural areas suffering most from the impact of FMD which will help councils to grant I00 per cent. rate relief to eligible small businesses up to the end of the year, as well as continuing other measures to help the rural economy to recover from the crisis; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole."
My Department is strongly committed to achieving sustainable development, dealing with economic, social and environmental issues together, and encouraging policies such as re-using and recycling materials. However, there is a balance to be struck, and I regret the Opposition's proclivity for re-using and recycling motions and debates in the House. It is precisely 10 sitting days since we held a debate in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech on a motion that raised almost exactly the same issues, in almost the same terms, that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raises today.
The Opposition cannot sustain the argument that they have raised the matter again because nothing has changed in those 10 sitting days. Since the earlier debate we have launched a fresh campaign to remind everyone of the need for proper biosecurity. It has been spearheaded in regions of continuing outbreak by visits from multidisciplinary teams led by my Ministers. W have taken steps to tighten the precautions by consulting stakeholders in the farming community and hauliers and others who were involved in movement on and off farms.
During the debate on 26 June, we were urged to consider afresh any steps that could assist other businesses because of the deadline and the criteria for existing schemes such as rate relief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced the Government's response this week. We accepted the need not only for continuing schemes of support but for wider eligibility criteria, for which there were calls in the debate.
Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced concrete plans for an extended scheme of business advice for farmers who are affected by the disease but beginning to plan for their future. Today, the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Agriculture Ministers and I anticipate receiving advice from the Rural Payments Agency that the over-30-months scheme will be restarted on 23 July in Scotland, where rendering capacity will be free earliest, and a week later, on 30 July, in England and Wales. There are still some details to work out and throughput will inevitably be slow, especially in England, but it is welcome news to those who have been waiting for the resumption of the scheme.
As we tackle those issues, we continue to bear down on the disease and to focus with stakeholders on the shape of a sustainable future for agriculture in the context of a wider rural economy, which is beginning to experience the benefits of our rural development programme.
For the reasons that I have outlined, there is no valid justification for the Opposition's knee-jerk use of "neglect" to describe the Government's response. Even if no further steps had been taken in the short time since our previous debate, such criticism would be invalid as the Government have already committed some £800 million
996
to £900 million to those farms where a cull has been necessary. In addition, some £300 million is being made available to other rural businesses. If that is neglect, what name should we attach to the previous Government's programme?
Listening to Conservative Members, one would believe that Britain's rural areas were a paradise of prosperity until the wicked Labour Government were elected only four years ago. What about all the schools, shops, bus services and post offices that disappeared in the 1980s and 1990s? Were people in the rural communities to blame for that? Did they fail? Is that the Opposition's argument? Unless they argue that individuals and communities whose businesses failed are to blame, how do they have the gall to charge us with neglect?
Between 1983 and 1997, an average of 30 village schools closed every year, post offices closed in rural and urban areas alike, a third of all villages were left with no local shop and three parishes in four with no daily bus service; yet the hon. Member for South Suffolk says, "It's terrible that there are such poor bus services because of the high fuel taxes imposed by the Government." Who instigated the high fuel taxes? The Conservative party.
In contrast, in the past year two village schools closed and a £40 million small schools support fund was established to raise standards in schools with fewer than 200 pupils. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief has been extended to all village food shops as well as to all sole village pubs and petrol stations and new, small-scale, non-agricultural enterprises on farms. Other steps have been taken to protect post offices. There is an obligation to prevent the closure of rural post offices unless it is unavoidable. We have set out a rural development programme under the rural enterprise scheme.
Money and support are also available for agri-environmental and farm woodland schemes. Again, the hon. Member for South Suffolk suggested that not enough had been done, although the Government whom he supported and in which he briefly served took no advantage of such schemes. As for rural public transport, some 2,000 new or improved rural bus services have already been provided. The hon. Gentleman made remarks about brownfield and greenfield development. The Conservative party reduced the greenfield sites available in their last year in office, whereas, under the Labour Government, some 30,000 hectares—an area three times the size of Bristol—have been added to the green belt.
We have nothing for which to apologise to the Conservative party, and I have outlined only the record of delivery so far.
Alistair Burt: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Margaret Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome back to the House.
Alistair Burt: That is kind of the right hon. Lady, and I appreciate it. If she is not in the mood to apologise for the matter that she mentioned, is she aware that in the previous Parliament the number of press and publicity officers in Whitehall Departments increased so that they

997
now outnumber police officers in Bedfordshire? The number of police officers there fell in the last Parliament. Is she prepared to apologise to my constituents for that?
Margaret Beckett: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman's past record. I hope he appreciates that I shall want to check his figures before I comment on them. Let me take a slightly different example, where I am familiar with the figures—I am not familiar with those that he cites. Conservative Members often claim that the number of civil servants in Whitehall has soared. The number of those who deal with the Government has fallen, whereas the number of police officers, customs officers, immigration officers and those who detect social security fraud has soared. Those people carry out policies that the Conservative party claim to support.
I have described our record and what we have already achieved. Of course, there is more to come: investment in the post office network, investment in the renewal of market towns under the rural White Paper, investment in affordable homes and investment not only in more transport, including rural bus services, but in a programme of support for the police. In a variety of ways, we are working to deliver a more prosperous future for the rural economy.
Mr. Colin Challen: If the Opposition want to bandy figures around, perhaps they can discuss the £20 billion of cuts that they proposed at the election, which would have cut a swathe through all the services that we are developing in rural areas.
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Indeed, when the hon. Member for South Suffolk demanded expenditure on this, that and the other, it struck me that in the run-up to the general election the Conservative party complained we were extravagant and investing too much public money. As ever, that does not apply to any scheme that at any given moment it claims to support.
While we believe that we have the plans and the investment in place to deliver a more prosperous future for the rural economy in the longer term, there remains the pressing need to carry on fighting the disease outbreak, which continues to blight much of our countryside. I want to tell the House of the intensified campaign that we plan in order to bear down more heavily on that disease.
A campaign targeted on disease hot spots is under way, led by Ministers and supported by vets and scientists. It highlights the fact that biosecurity is crucial in bringing the outbreak to an end, not only for farmers but for the supply trade and those working for the Government on disease eradication.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: The campaign that the Secretary of State has touched on is welcomed by my constituents, but they are deeply concerned that the farmers who need the help are not the ones who are already disinfecting. Those who did not disinfect have been through the disease and now have the money, but, going forward, the welfare of the stock will be left to
998
people who do not have the money. Would it not have been better if the money had gone to the farmers who have stock remaining?
Margaret Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns that are felt across the countryside. Depending on people's circumstances, they are differently affected and I understand the case he makes. Nevertheless, few if any of those farmers would want to have suffered an outbreak of disease or to have lost their flocks, and I know that that is not what he was suggesting.
We have taken steps to link biosecurity standards with the granting of livestock movement licences. We have agreed new arrangements with local authorities, which will be introduced from tomorrow, on requiring licence applicants to certify that they understand and will comply with the cleansing and disinfection rules and on issuing formal warnings where bad practice is found, leading to the withholding of licences if necessary. Local authorities will also seek better targeting of their enforcement efforts.
Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
Margaret Beckett: If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to finish this section of my speech because the House will be interested to hear about the impact.
We are imposing tighter movement controls around new cases of the disease, focusing restrictions on the 10-km area around new cases and bringing movements in those areas to the absolute minimum for 30 days. I have more to say, but I give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Mr. Tyler: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, although it was understandable in the early days that responsibilities were confused, we are so many weeks into the crisis that it is inexcusable that trading standards departments and her Department seem to have different criteria for their disinfecting and movement licensing responsibilities? How can better co-ordination be ensured?
Margaret Beckett: I was not aware that such disparities were continuing. I say to the hon. Gentleman and every Member that, on this or any other issue that arises in observing biosecurity and treating the outbreak, my Department will be only too pleased to hear concrete examples of difficulties that Members believe are continuing to arise. We shall pursue and attempt to deal with them.
Mr. Atkinson: On movements, can the Secretary of State clear up a problem? Some time ago, she announced that movements from controlled to non-controlled areas would be relaxed, which meant that animals could be taken to more distant abattoirs. One problem with that is that her officials require that the vehicles involved should not stop on the journey. Drivers' hours regulations mean that they have to stop after four and a half hours, so, effectively, the relaxation is helping no farmers in the north-east of England.
Margaret Beckett: I am slightly surprised to hear that because that is a substantial amount of time. Again, if the

999
hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give my Department details of particular cases that have come to his attention, we shall certainly consider the issue that he raises.
We shall seek the continued assistance and support of the National Farmers Union and other such groups to improve co-operation between the Department and farmers locally in carrying out culling on contiguous premises as quickly as possible. We are keen to continue to provide farmers with as much information as we can on what they need to do to have the best chance of continuing to avoid the disease and, in the unfortunate event of stock having to be destroyed, how they can help to protect their neighbours by working with the Department's staff at all times.
Looking further ahead, I am also examining ways to improve the incentives for farmers and others to maintain good biosecurity standards. The system that applies in the Netherlands, where levels of slaughter compensation are conditional on farm hygiene standards and other criteria, could not be introduced here immediately because it would require changes to the Animal Health Act 1981. However, it is an interesting idea that I want to consider and discuss with the farming industry and others as a possibility.
In the same context, I want to examine the arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting infected premises. We need to find ways to ensure that farmers and all who come on and off farms have an incentive to maintain high biosecurity standards. It is not entirely clear that the present system, whereby the taxpayer automatically picks up the entire cost of the cleansing and disinfection operation, is the best way to achieve that. I would like to discuss that with farming industry leaders.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Secretary of State undertake to look into the case of my constituent, Mr. Lewis, who was told by her Department that he could move his cattle and apply for a licence? He was then told by the local vet that the Department was wrong and then told by a trading standards officer that the Department was right. Now the Department has admitted that it was wrong. Is it not vital that the Department gets the information right when it is dealing with people's livelihoods in a desperate crisis?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that people try to give correct information and I fully appreciate that nothing spreads more difficulty and confusion than people getting a conflicting story. Again, concrete examples brought to the attention of my Department will help to ensure that that happens as rarely as possible.
Mr. David Cameron rose—
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionaydd Nant Conwy)rose—
Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, I must give way briefly as I am mindful of time and this is a short debate. I give way first to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).
Mr. Cameron: Will the right hon. Lady and her Department give careful consideration to the implications
1000
of foot and mouth for zoos and wildlife parks, such as the Cotswold wildlife park in my constituency? The park was badly affected by foot and mouth and had to close. It was not told exactly what to do when the disease broke out. It wanted a decision about vaccination, but no decision was made. It had a meeting with Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has now departed—but nothing seems to have been done.
I know that these issues are small in comparison with the farming industry as a whole, but they matter to wildlife parks and zoos. Should they not be considered, not only by the right hon. Lady's Department but in the full independent public inquiry that the Government ought to establish?
Mr. Llwyd rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that, for the sake of good order, the Secretary of State should deal with the first intervention now, and perhaps respond to the hon. Gentleman later.
Margaret Beckett: I shall do so if that is your preference, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is sometimes convenient for a couple of interventions to be dealt with together.
I have taken on board the point made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). If we can add anything to what has already been said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will deal with it—but this is exactly the kind of issue that we need to look at in the future, irrespective of the form taken by examination of these events.
Mr. Llwyd: May I ask the right hon. Lady to ensure that there will be no further confusion between officials from the Department and officials from the devolved Administration in Cardiff? It has been the devil of a job to obtain correct information, and the problems have been exacerbated by the Department's saying that this is a devolved matter while those in Cardiff have said that it is a matter for the Department. The right hon. Lady's predecessor could not answer a number of the questions either. I am not sniping; I am genuinely asking the right hon. Lady whether the lines of demarcation can be made clear, so that the problems are not exacerbated further.
Margaret Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that our aim is always to maintain clear demarcation lines, clear understanding and clear agreement between us and the devolved bodies. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister is an expert in these matters. He will certainly encourage productive liaison and relationships.
The farming industry and other sections of the rural economy are likely to face further severe difficulties in the autumn, when traditionally there are a large number of livestock movements. However successful we are in bringing the tail of the outbreak to a halt in July or August, there will still be a need for substantial controls over movement of livestock in the autumn and winter to ensure that we keep a grip on the disease, given that undisclosed disease could still be present in the national sheep flock at that time. The more speedily we eradicate the disease, the sooner we can consider greater flexibility of movement.

1001
The Government are working hard with industry representatives to plan for the autumn, to establish what movements could take place without an unacceptable increase in disease risk. I hope to be able to say more later this month. At the same time, we are assessing the implications of the likely restrictions in autumn livestock movements for support arrangements in the livestock sector and have had preliminary discussions, which are continuing, with farming leaders.
We shall be using the increased capacity available for serological testing of sheep to continue to the staged clearance of infected areas, alongside a planned approach to testing in disease hot spots. That is designed to help us obtain a better picture of the level of disease in sheep in particular ahead of the autumn livestock movements, and also to make it easier for us to demonstrate to our European Union partners, in due course, that we have a basis for the phased resumption of exports.
Let me say in parentheses that although much is said in the House about how the Government have not done enough or not done it fast enough by those who wish solely to impute blame to the Government, enormous credit is due to all involved in the hugely increased capacity for serological testing, given its scope for tackling the disease. I speak from memory, but I believe that when the disease broke out we had the capacity to run about 400 tests a week. We have now reached the 100,000 mark or thereabouts, and are heading for a target of between 140,000 and 180,000 by the autumn, probably by October. As I have said, enormous credit is due for that, but it has not always been forthcoming.
Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, for the very last time.
Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has just looked forward to the autumn. Will she look forward a little further? Given the crisis in agriculture that has been happening over a number of years, and the hunger for change that this particular crisis has caused stakeholders in the countryside, can she say a word about the independent commission on food and farming that is currently envisaged?
Margaret Beckett: I can say a word, but it will not be much more than that. I can certainly confirm that the Government have every intention of setting up such a commission and are in continuing discussions about it. I agree that there is a hunger for a more sustained and thorough look at the long-term prospects for the countryside and the agriculture industry, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are more than anxious to foster the debate that is taking place.
We are working closely with our European partners, especially the Commission. Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, and David Hunter, director of the departmental agriculture group, will be in Brussels
1002
tomorrow to update the Commission on what we are doing to eradicate the disease, and to discuss the difficulties that we shall face in the autumn.
Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Margaret Beckett: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I really ought to finish as this is a very short debate.
We have always said that there will be an inquiry when the outbreak is over and that it will be thorough but not long drawn out. We all want to get at the facts and to identify what could have been done better, but also to identify what was handled extremely well—although the exact nature and form of the inquiry remain, as ever, a matter for the Prime Minister
Without prejudice to the issue of an inquiry, we have also always said that there are lessons to be learned from the epidemic, including on disease control policy for future outbreaks. We need to consider the case for better animal identification, especially for sheep, improved movement records, the possibility of controls on the movement of cattle and sheep, as there are already for pigs, and stronger controls on the import of meat. My Department is already co-ordinating a cross-Whitehall initiative to improve activity in this regard. In the longer term we need to look at better biosecurity by markets, dealers and farmers. The Commission has announced a review that will cover some, if not all, of these issues and we are helping to organise a conference in Brussels in the autumn to provide a forum for discussing future foot and mouth disease policy options, including vaccination.
I acknowledge the real problems in rural areas, from the immediate consequences and aftermath of the disease to the long-standing deterioration in rural services over which the Conservative party presided with so much complacency for so long. We are not complacent. We are determined to work with all who have real concern for rural areas to deliver real, long-term improvement. It is on that, not on the empty rhetoric of Opposition Members, that in time we shall be prepared to be judged.
4.56 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not give way, but I appreciate the time pressures. I have a number of questions to ask and I certainly hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs, will endeavour to answer them in detail.
As the debate is entitled "The Countryside in Crisis" we can acknowledge that the fact that the countryside has been in a near permanent state of crisis in recent years is why the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to go. Unfortunately, so far—I stress, so far—there is little evidence that the new super-Department has yet undergone a cultural transformation. Indeed, wherever I go people tell me that, under a new name, MAFF lives. Most of us want to see it die. Crisis management remains the over-riding characteristic.
The tragedy is that after the disasters of BSE, the collapse of the pig market and lower grain prices, farming was just beginning to get back on its feet when it was hit by the foot and mouth epidemic. We cannot avoid facing up to the fact that for many years under successive

1003
Governments we have dangerously lowered our defences against monitoring and controlling the spread of disease. So far we have had only crisis response to deal with the situation.
The number of vets in Government service has undoubtedly been reduced. The independence of much of the advice available to Government has been compromised because most of the institutions have been forced to bid for commercial contracts alongside their Government work. As a result it is extremely difficult for those in pursuit of commercial contracts always to give advice that might be required but could prejudice their ability to attract new contracts. I hope that the new Department will address that.
In a crisis an urgent response is needed. Farmers everywhere are understandably becoming anxious about the scale of livestock movement restrictions. The Secretary of State gave some indication of changes to the restrictions, but also made it clear that the restrictions would continue into the autumn and winter. What honest prospect does she have of a timetable for reopening export opportunities? If that does not happen in a few months, we shall have to address yet another crisis. Ministers must be aware that a general 20-day restriction on movements is unworkable for many farms and a more flexible approach is needed.
I hope that in the inquiry the Government will not only look at movement restrictions and vaccination options, but will also consider the possible role of quarantine in dealing with animal disease. There is scope for building that into a system in a way that we have not done to date.
Right now, many sheep farmers face ruin if the ban on sheep exports remains in force during the autumn. In my part of the UK, it is estimated that up to 70 per cent. of the lambs produced are dedicated for export, mainly to France. I am sure that Ministers will understand that, despite the fact that we in the north of Scotland have, to date, remained a foot and mouth free zone, if that market is closed the consequences will be disastrous. Will Ministers consider the introduction of a welfare scheme for unmarketable ewes and lambs? Will they also seek private storage aid for the thousands of tonnes of lamb that currently have no market? At the start of the outbreak, I suggested that such measures would be necessary and, as the months go by, they become more and more urgent. I am concerned that Ministers do not yet appear even to have opened discussions. I hope that they will do so.
The area that I represent is also a major pig-producing region: half the pigs raised in Scotland are produced in the north-east of Scotland. Like areas throughout the country, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of pigs due to the market difficulties, although they were just beginning to resolve themselves when the crisis struck. Indeed, some operators had got back into profit for the first time in two or three years only a month or two before the disease struck.
At the start of the epidemic, the market for cast sows was inevitably lost, because 90 per cent. of them went to the plant where the outbreak was first discovered. The problem is that there is no effective market for cast sows. Will the Government consider a welfare scheme for culled sows? It will be urgently needed.
The House will realise that I represent a quality livestock area, so there is no livestock sector that is not important to the north-east of Scotland—as is the case in
1004
many parts of the UK. I was pleased by the Secretary of State's announcement of the reintroduction of the over-30-months scheme on 23 July in Scotland and on 30 July in England and Wales. That will remove one uncertainty that has been worrying many producers. It may be a forlorn question, but will the Minister for Rural Affairs tell us whether there will be any consideration of the extra costs incurred by those farmers who have to retain cattle for several months? They have to feed cattle which have no productive use, so it would be proper to expect additional compensation to be allowed for animals which have—to use a colloquialism—been eating their heads off.
We have been living with the effects of BSE for a long time. My strong concern is that the beef export regime is unworkable and that it is unfair to British producers. I have raised this matter in the House previously: technically, we have lifted the ban, but, practically, we have not. As the number of BSE cases in the UK continues to decline, while it is still rising on the continent, it is time for the Government to press for a standard EU-wide regime that will at last enable prime British and Scottish beef once again to reach tables throughout the world. Let us not deceive ourselves: that is not happening at present.
I pray in aid a lady who deals in meat in northern Italy; she rejoices in the name of Francesca Piccolini. She said that throughout the period of the beef export ban she had scoured the world looking for beef of the quality that she had imported from Scotland, but that she had conspicuously failed to find anything of such quality. We can still produce that quality beef and get it on to the table—even in the House of Commons, where the beef supplied is produced in my constituency. However, we cannot put beef of that quality on the table of foreign purchasers because the regime does not allow us to do so. That is absurd and must be addressed. I hope that Ministers agree.
Of course we require a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that we must press the Government hard on that point. I remain dissatisfied when I am told that we have to leave it to the Prime Minister, who will ensure that there is a proper inquiry—whatever that is—when the outbreak is over, even though we do not know when that will be.
I understand the argument that an inquiry cannot be started perhaps until the outbreak has finished, but it would help if we knew what kind of inquiry it will be, that it will be public—we have had no such assurance—and who may submit evidence to it. I find it odd that the Government do not recognise that that is probably in their own interest, given the rumours circulating that suggest that there is even Government complicity in the spread of food and mouth disease—nothing that I accept, but Ministers must know that it is being said. Surely it is in the Government's interest to make it clear now what form the inquiry will take.
The catalogue of disaster clearly shows that a fundamental review of our approach to disease control is required. Our defences have been lowered under successive Governments, and we need to address the extent to which the reduction in the number of vets, the compromised research institutions and the cuts in customs

1005
control have contributed to the increasing problems of disease, and to find out what needs to be done to put it right.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman refers to disease control, but what is the official Liberal Democrat policy on vaccination? He will be aware that Lord Greaves, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats in the other place, has called for immediate vaccination, but I am not entirely sure if that is the hon. Gentleman's policy.
Malcolm Bruce: It might be Lord Greaves's policy. The policy on vaccination has been recognised; it is an agreed international policy, to which we have signed up. Indeed, I have said on several occasions that the policy cannot be changed half way through a crisis. I certainly think that vaccination should be considered, but it would have been quite wrong to change the policy mid-term. I have also said that the role that quarantine could play should be considered. A public inquiry should look into those issues—that is what it is for.
Common sense tells me, and it should tell the House, that the rundown in the quality, availability and volume of advice for the Government has been a factor in our problems, and we should consider what we need to do to raise our defences once again, to ensure that we can monitor and control disease penetration into this country. Frankly, our ability to establish public confidence internally and any significant export operations in the long term depend on our being able to reassure people that we have the matter under control, and we patently have not had it under control for the past 10 years or more.
I want to press home a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who asked the Minister—he did not get much of a reply—about the rural commission. It was a Labour manifesto pledge. It was set out as though it was a radical cultural change and, indeed, a justification for the creation of a new Department. Six weeks have passed since the election and we are getting no information—
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Six weeks and it has not been done!
Malcolm Bruce: Not only has nothing been done, but we have not been told how and when it will be done and who will be involved. There is plenty of speculation outside the House about the rural commission. One such speculation is that it will be entirely an internal Government commission, that it will not involve outside consultation, that it will be by Lord Haskins and that it will report by the autumn. If that is not true, will the Government tell us what is true, and then we shall all know what we are working with. In the interests of the Government who say that they wish to engage, how on earth can Opposition politicians or those in the wider community contribute to such an operation if they do not know its format and timetable? Why are the Government so coy? It would be helpful if Ministers would give us a little more information than they have so far.
Some useful experience is emerging from Scotland, which has had a Rural Affairs Department—at the Liberal Democrats' insistence—for two years. In the past two
1006
weeks, my Liberal Democrat colleague, Scotland's Minister for Rural Development, Mr. Ross Finnie, has produced a useful forward strategy for Scottish agriculture that contains some valuable pointers. Particularly welcome is the rebalancing of £70 million in recognition of the fact that farmers need to diversify their income base. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary jeers, but his own party endorses and supports those proposals, which could usefully be adopted by a new Department.
The suggestion is that farmers should be able to apply for funding to support not just farming operations, but environmental management, tourism and other business projects that can generate income and employment opportunities. That approach has also been reinforced by Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament in their review of the common agricultural policy. Co-ordination and clarification of the relationship between the Department headed by the Secretary of State and the Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be helpful.
I shall give a constituency example. A rendering plant in my constituency operates to a rather poor standard and that generates many complaints and much trouble. However, when we complain to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, we are told that it is powerless to enforce controls because it has been told by DEFRA that the overriding responsibility is to process and render the consequences of foot and mouth. That may be the case, but environmental standards should not be compromised at the same time. Who is calling the shots? Why cannot we have both effective rendering management and good environmental standards?
The Scottish strategy also recognises the need for UK-wide and EU-wide initiatives on livestock movements, which I have mentioned; on a scheme for establishing traceability in sheep, which is clearly difficult but desirable; on eradicating scrapie; on reducing the number of transactions involving live animals; and on buy-out schemes for farmers approaching retirement. They are all useful initiatives and I hope that they will be the subject of genuine debate. A commission could usefully consider them, and practices being developed in Scotland could inform that process.
If we are considering a holistic approach to rural services and to the rural economy—something that the hon. Member for South Suffolk was anxious to stress—more vision will be needed. We tabled an amendment to the motion, because simply cataloguing the problems does not take us very far. It is important that we find ways of moving forward.
It is true that post offices continue to close and are doing so at an accelerating rate. Transport services are also under threat. The Secretary of State said that 2,000 new bus services had been introduced, but I presume that she meant in England or in England and Wales. In Aberdeenshire, 1,600 services were withdrawn last month because Stagecoach, which is suffering from the losses on the railways, felt unable to sustain them and the local authority was quite incapable of finding the money to keep more than a fraction of them going. We are not moving forwards, but back.
Community hospitals in rural areas are under review and, in many cases, rural authorities do not have the resources to pick up the pieces. The Secretary of State also said that there had been only two school closures—

1007
presumably in England—but there was one in my constituency in the last 12 months. It took place under a Labour chair of education and was approved by a Labour Education Minister despite the highly dubious case made.
When services are cut and closures take place in rural areas, no one takes responsibility for the transfer costs to the citizens living in those areas. Agencies say that they cannot sustain the cost of a service, so they close it down and they pass the cost to people in rural areas to pick up. The Government should consider requiring any agency to capitalise that cost and for it to be taken into account before any closure goes ahead. That might very well alter many of the decisions made.
The irony is that more and more people are moving into the countryside when services are diminishing. That is madness. We need a moratorium on the reduction in services and we need—I hope that we will get it—a radical approach in the new Department to rural policy and services. However, it would help if Ministers could provide us with some answers before the House rises for the summer
5.13 pm
Joyce Quin: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in the debate and I very much welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The new Department can successfully bring together countryside interests in a forward-looking way and an environmentally sustainable way. Both aspects are important. The new Department should certainly see agriculture as part of the wider rural economy and in the wider context at regional, national and European levels. That is vita] if agriculture is to recover from the foot and mouth disaster.
I do not intend to concentrate on the foot and mouth crisis, however. That is not because I do not consider it serious, because it obviously is; nor is it because I am not prepared to defend what my colleagues and I did in the previous Ministry. Indeed, I welcome the inquiry and believe that some of its findings will place the Department in a good light. However, given the scale of the disaster and the stark differences between the recent outbreak and that of 1967, about which I have spoken several times, it will certainly be true that not everything was handled perfectly,
Mr. A. J. Beith: Farmers in my constituency are usually very critical of Ministers, but they have paid tribute to the work of the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) while they were office. I thank her for meeting my constituents during the outbreak to discuss their problems and remind her that at such a meeting she expressed sympathy for those who had to experience the burial of carcases in vast quantities at Widdrington. She said that the Government needed to recognise their contribution when forming future policy. Is she still of that view?
Joyce Quin: Indeed I am The right hon. Gentleman's constituents made a strong case. That site is located in a part of the country that has experienced many environmental problems over a long period. I thank him for his kind words. It is my experience that one is paid more compliments on leaving government than as a Minister in government. None the less, I am grateful for his comments.
1008
I want to consider the future of farming and agriculture. By contrast with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), Labour Members are of the view that farming has an important future. Food production is agriculture's role first and foremost. I believe that the British farming industry can supply a good proportion of our food requirements, and that applies both to meat products and to the fruit and vegetables that are produced by our horticulture sector. No doubt we will continue to import products that we cannot produce ourselves, but I hope that we can rebuild our export markets.
Labelling is important and I do not accept the Conservatives' criticisms of the Government on that. Country of origin labelling, which exists for fruit and vegetables and some meat, is an important aspect of giving consumers information and allowing them to make an informed choice. I hope that Ministers will continue the work of the previous Department in stressing concerns about labelling at a European level and by increasing the amount of clear and accurate information that consumers across the single market can expect.
Marketing schemes are important to help farmers add value to their products. As a Minister, I was struck by some of the successful marketing schemes, such as the fell-bred marketing brand in the Lake district. Successful work on branding has also been carried out in Scotland, Wales and parts of England. Those schemes help to build consumer loyalty to brands and often help them to buy regional and local produce, which is often a good trend.
I was also much taken by the growth in the regional and speciality food market. I pay tribute to some of the regional food organisations, in particular Taste of the West, which has a good record in promoting regional foods in the south-west and winning markets much further afield. Co-operation along the food chain is important, and for that reason I hope that the code of practice, which will mean that supermarkets treat their suppliers reasonably and fairly, will work. I am sure that those of us who are interested in these issues will be keen to monitor its operation in the weeks and months ahead.
The role that agriculture plays in countryside and environment issues must be taken fully into account. When we are looking at the relationship between fanning and the environment, we must consider things like support for organic farming. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has been taking part in a debate on organic farming in Westminster Hall. I know that he personally has a long-standing commitment to that sector, and that the Government have considerably increased the funding for organic farming.
Happily, the Government have expanded the countryside stewardship schemes, which go back several years, and it is important that they continue to do so. We must recognise that there are parts of conventional farming that are much more environmentally sensitive than they used to be. I think of the programme linking the environment and farming—known as LEAF—and of the fact that much modern farming equipment is able, even when it is applying pesticides, to target crops much more sensitively than in the past. Developments in conventional farming are making it more environmentally benign. All those issues will continue to be important.

1009
I strongly believe that the regional dimension is important to the future of agriculture in our country. That is why I welcome the fact that MAFF, now DEFRA, has appointed staff to the Government regional offices to ensure that agriculture is fully factored into regional economic strategies. We need to consider the role that agriculture can play in exploiting and developing the economic potential of the different regions. I hope that the regional development agencies will give full weight to agriculture in their strategies and exploit as effectively as possible the links between rural and urban areas and between farming and food industry jobs. Regional economic growth and jobs will depend on such initiatives, which will be enormously helpful to the future of agriculture.
No speech about the future of agriculture would be complete without a reference to the common agricultural policy, and indeed the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred to it in his contribution. The policy is still in need of profound change, but the prospects for that change are better than they have ever been. The CAP is not appropriate in the present circumstances, because it supports certain agriculture sectors and not others.
The policy has been slow to reform, so it has tended to be backward looking and only with great difficulty can it withstand pressures from the World Trade Organisation and enlargement of the European Union, as well as pressures for greater compatibility between environmental protection and agriculture policies. As I said, however, the prospects for change are greater than ever before; certainly, a helpful start was made with the development of the second pillar of the policy, the rural development regulation. That has allowed the introduction of schemes that are more flexible in their support of agriculture sectors and more forward looking on the subject of how farmers can add value to their products.
The changes agreed, especially at the time of the Berlin summit, are helpful, and we have seen in the European Council of Ministers that an increasing number of Europe's Agriculture Ministers take a more forward-looking and reformist approach to the common agricultural policy; the change in Germany is particularly positive. During my last months as a Minister at MAFF, I was aware of the growing number of allies that the UK Government were gathering in relation to agricultural reform.
It will be important that the UK Government protect British interests and make sure that any new rules that emerge from the proposed changes do not give unfair advantage to one party or another. However, I believe that the UK Government are excellently placed to build alliances with like-minded countries, so I conclude by wishing my colleagues every success in that important task of reform.
5.25 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), and to speak in a debate briefly attended by my old comrade the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber. He defeated me soundly in 1997, so living up to his nickname of "Jones the Vote", and it is a great honour to share the Chamber with him now.
1010
As is conventional in maiden speeches, I pay tribute to my predecessor. As many in south Oxfordshire and elsewhere have not hesitated to point out, Michael Heseltine is a hard act to follow, so I approach this moment with much the same sense of self-doubt as Simba in "The Lion King". For the benefit of those who have not seen Walt Disney's film, there is a poignant moment when Simba, following Mufasa across the veld, compares his own paws with the vast pawprints left by that great beast; such are my feelings today. I have no arboretum in south Oxfordshire, merely a sort of lop-sided laurel. I struggle to run one magazine, whereas Michael told me that at the last count he had 267. He served the people of south Oxfordshire well for 26 years and in that time he was one of the biggest figures on our political landscape.
As Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael liberated millions from the captivity of state-owned and state-controlled housing. When some Members of Parliament were unilateralist, he stood out against a Soviet menace that is now almost forgotten and played his part in the end of the cold war. He worked tirelessly in the 1980s for the people of Liverpool and other deprived areas, and in so far as there is a Canary wharf—Hezzagrad, as people call the great city that has arisen in the docklands—it is thanks to his energy and drive. It is fair to say that we did not agree on every detail of European policy, but far more united us than divided us. Even when Michael was Deputy Prime Minister, he was, it is acknowledged everywhere in south Oxfordshire, an excellent constituency Member of Parliament—and what a constituency it is.
There might be some present who are under the impression that Henley is merely the town of Henley, so it might be helpful if I give them a little guided tour. Suppose one is travelling on the M40; just before junction 6, one suddenly comes to that dramatic cutting—the Khyber pass of the Chilterns—where ahead, spread out like a land of dreams, is the plain of south Oxfordshire. That, roughly speaking, is my constituency. That is the view that Jude the Obscure saw when, on that spot, he dreamed of education: far in the distance on a clear day one can just make out the spires of the ancient university town, now in need of some protection from senior figures in the Labour Government. Away to the south, one sees the Whittenham clumps, which were famously painted by Constable, and the towers of Didcot power station, which were not.
If, unlike Jude, one turns south at junction 6, one comes to the small town of Watlington, with its first-rate fish and chip shop and venerable town hall. One would not want to have a car crash in Watlington because, apart from anything else, the Government have closed the local cottage hospital—a fate that has befallen many cottage hospitals throughout the country. Labour Members will of course be delighted to know that the hospital is now likely to be rebuilt, thanks to an enormous concerted private initiative taken by the people of the area. I do not know whether that is in accordance with Government policy these days—it is hard to tell—but let us hope so.
Even if one were not injured in that car crash, one would certainly not want one's car to be out of action for very long in Watlington One might have an urgent appointment in Thame to the north but not want to stump up for the petrol. Let us not be under any illusions—many of my constituents find it very difficult to afford petrol these days, as my hon. Friend the Member for South

1011
Suffolk was saying. Someone might want to use the bus. I have news for the House: one can get a bus from Watlington to Thame only on Tuesdays and come back only on Saturdays—but let us suppose that, one way or another, one succeeds in doing so.
People will find in Thame a vibrant town that holds regular busy farmers' markets of the kind that the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was describing—and wonderful events they are. The farmers will say how badly affected they have been by foot and mouth, how fast their incomes have been falling and how much they depend on such occasions to market their produce. They will also say, I am afraid to report to the House, how disappointed they are that there was not more in the Queen's Speech about rural affairs than the promise to ban hunting.
Armed with some produce from the farmers' market, one might meander south. Let us suppose that one gets a bit lost. If one is lucky, one will end up at a place called Ewelme—it has a claim to be the centre of English literature and language, as Chaucer's niece is buried there—where a wonderful pub called the Shepherd's Hut, selling very good ale and food, is to be found. It is doing very well, unlike many other pubs in the area that are not so lucky and, as hon. Members will know, have been closing in great numbers.
One reason for such closures is that people are of course worried about drink driving and the punitive measures taken by the police. I of course support all measures to deter reckless driving, but want in my maiden speech to make one legislative proposal. The Chancellor, who I am disappointed to say is not present, should offer a tax break to Brakspear's 2.5, which is a newly developed beer that I have sampled and which I assure the House is utterly delicious. One can drink three pints of it without coming near exceeding the limit. It would be very good if it were taxed at an appropriate rate, thereby encouraging sobriety when driving and helping local pubs that are otherwise closing at such a rate. Those who have the Chancellor's ear may be inclined to pass that on to him.
Thus fortified, one passes through many scenic villages in south Oxfordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk has pointed out, such places have already suffered the closure of post offices and many varieties of unsuspected rural hardship. Eventually, one arrives in Henley, the town that gives its name to my constituency. It is of course famous for its regatta and bringing back a great haul of gold from the recent Sydney olympics, thereby doing something to redress the Chancellor's recent wanton disposal of bullion on the markets. Henley is of course also this week the scene of a most wonderful festival, which I commend to all Members.
Not everywhere in my constituency is as lucky as Henley. There are pockets of genuine deprivation, problems of poverty and problems of prosperity. For every affluent estate agent in south Oxfordshire—and there are quite a few—there are dozens, if not hundreds, of young people who cannot afford housing in the area and whose needs must be attended to.
I want to explain why I am in politics and sought election. We always say in our pious way that we want to make a difference, to do out bit for our country. Of course that is true; I hope that the House will not mind if I offer it that piety. It is perhaps especially true for someone who
1012
spent a lot of time sitting in the Press Gallery—I am not supposed to mention that place; I hope that hon. Members will forgive the solecism—as a journalist. I do not condemn those who have taken the socialist view—I do not know whether they are still socialists—and do not condemn those who have believed in socialism. I can see why they do, and why they are motivated to root out injustice and build a better a society. However, I think that Conservatism offers a better and broader understanding of human nature, which is why it has been so successful over the past 200 years and why it is now sedulously imitated.
There is a hidden wisdom in old ways of doing things. If you get the state off people's backs and allow them to get on with their lives, not only will they be more contented, broadly speaking, but they will generate more of the wealth that society will always need to help the poorest and those who genuinely cannot help themselves. That is one-nation Toryism; it is a wholly reasonable creed. If I have one criticism of the framing of the motion—of course, I do not—it is that we have talked too much as if there is a great insulation between the crisis in the countryside and metropolitan England and London. The simple fact is that yesterday's newspapers show that musicals are closing in London because of the foot and mouth crisis.
The crisis in the countryside affects everyone. I make that point for the first time in the House as Member for Henley; I am proud to be given the chance to make it again, as I shall on behalf of all my constituents in the months and years ahead.
5.36 pm
David Hamilton: I do not intend to attempt to try to follow the entertainment that we have just had, but, as a socialist, I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his contribution and his tribute to his predecessor. If I remember rightly, his predecessor closed 32 pits throughout Britain and had a hairstyle not unlike that of the hon. Gentleman. I shall see with interest how we can work together on a number of issues over the next four or five years.
I shall make one or two observations about comments that have been made about the countryside in crisis, before going on to the main part of my maiden speech. As a councillor in Midlothian—there are 17 Labour members on the council and one Liberal Democrat—I had meetings with farmers and others, as I represented a semi-rural area. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we all need to work together. We rise and fall together; it is not about one community as opposed to another community. Foot and mouth has highlighted that in many ways.
I have recently been meeting farmers, who have raised the same issues as those raised by the Opposition. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) talked about how high council tax is; a tenant farmer who lived in a big mansion complained to me that he had to pay council tax, but never had the opportunity to own the house because he was a tenant farmer. Such complaints are made, but we should remember that the Government helped badly paid farm workers by establishing the minimum wage, giving them some of the biggest increases that they have ever had. We should remember that it is not just about the farmers, but the farm workers who reside in the countryside and have to look after farms.

1013
In addition, I am pleased that we work well with people from the borders. We shall work with hon. Members from the borders to promote the Waverley line, which is extremely important in opening up the countryside. It is important that we start to look at developing the countryside's economic base.
It is a great honour to speak in the House as a representative of my home county of Midlothian, the place of my birth and, of course, the constituency of a man whom some may remember, W. E. Gladstone, Midlothian's most prominent politician to date, who made his mark in Parliament. Since its early years Midlothian has undergone many changes in size and population. Since the war there have been four Labour Members of Parliament: David Pryde, James Hill, Alex Eadie and, of course, my predecessor, Eric Clarke. They all had one thing in common: they were all from a mining background. Alex Eadie will be remembered by some in this place as Under-Secretary of State for Energy between 1974 and 1979. He spent 21 years in the House and did not forget his roots. He was followed by my predecessor, Eric Clarke.
As it is the custom of the House, I shall say a few words about Eric, who came to this place in 1992. I believe that his contribution was a good one, and not only because he successfully introduced a private Member's Bill or because he was a junior Whip for a period. I believe that being a Whip would have suited him. He was commonly thought of as rather a grumpy person, but having known him for more than 30 years I can assure the House that Mr. Grumpy had a soft centre. Indeed, in the last Prime Minister's Question Time of the previous Parliament, I saw the then hon. Member for Midlothian thanking all Members for their friendship, and that was sincere. I hope that the House will join me in wishing Eric a long and happy retirement.
The House will remember that Eric raised the question of a group of workers, and Ito pledge to carry the banner forward. I refer to victimised miners—an issue that is still a running sore after 17 years. I believe that the Government have made some progress with the repeal of parts of trade union legislation. They have made major changes to enable thousands of workers to claim industrial compensation, having recognised the contribution that they made over the years. They are the first Government to do so.
Workers, including miners, and their families have been able to claim. They have received benefit for vibration white finger. Thousands of miners and widows and their families are receiving millions of pounds through chronic obstructive pulmonary restriction funding, although it has taken too long for some of the payments to be made. That is a major change and a major improvement to the lives of many people throughout Scotland and, indeed, Britain.
Good people such as Alex Bennet, James Hogg, Robert Hogg, Michael Hogg, Arthur Blackhurst, Billy Anderson, George Laing, Jimmy Lennie and George Purcell are only a few of the 206 Scottish miners who were sacked during the 1984-85 strike. Many have returned to work. Unfortunately, all too many did not get the opportunity to do so. It is already too late for some, such as my good friend Dyett Murdoch, who has since passed away, but their families are still looking for justice.
1014
There were many casualties during the dispute. There have been 17 long years for Britain's sacked miners and their families. They lost not only redundancy payments but, more importantly, some of them lost their pension rights. If Members are wondering why I feel so strongly, it is because I am one of the sacked Midlothian miners—there were 46 at Monktonhall colliery, 36 at Bilston Glen colliery and five at Newbattle workshops. I am proud to be a victimised miner, and to be the first to enter Parliament. The phrase "down but not out" comes to mind when I say that. I am proud also to carry the banner on behalf of miners and their families.
I hope that the House will agree that 17 years is long enough. We should have a cross-party agreement to right the wrong. I remind Conservative Members that even after the dispute up to 10 Tories signed petitions to the effect that the miners should have been reinstated after the dispute.
On a more upbeat note, over the last decade mining has declined and Midlothian has changed dramatically. Thousands were employed in only a dozen industries, and now dozens are employed in 1,000 industries. That shows that small micro industries have developed throughout the area.
The old industries may have gone, but they still play a significant role. An example is Monktonhall, the colliery where I used to work. The council has commissioned studies into the use of warm water from old mine workings to provide energy for 4,000 houses and industrial units in the largest greenfield development site in Scotland. Essentially, a mine water heat pump would pump water that had been geothermally heated from the bottom of the mine. The water would then be circulated to consumers and returned to the mine, where it would be reheated. If the heat pumps were operated using a green source of electricity, the heat delivered would be truly renewable energy without any greenhouse gas emissions. This renewable energy requires a capital investment, perhaps from one of the funds that have been announced by the Government, and a commitment from the developers to provide the appropriate infrastructure.
Finally, one of the most exciting challenges in Midlothian comes from biotechnology. Hon. Members will have heard of Dolly. We are in the process of combining research and manufacturing in Midlothian with the development of the Gowkley Moss land acquisition, to which I look forward. As a councillor, I have asked the director of education to work closely with our six secondary schools and the local college and universities to support employment opportunities in biotechnology, which now employs more than 1,000 people in the locality.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for the kindness shown to me as a new Member. I have no doubt that that will be shortlived, thanks to the Opposition and some of those on the Government Front Bench, when I start to express my views. I have been given a great privilege by the people of Midlothian, and I shall do everything in my power to repay that privilege.
We are at the beginning of a new millennium. As we meet the new challenges, I hope that we will not forget the values for which many of us came into politics—free education, a free health service and support for the weak in our society, for those who are disabled and for our

1015
elderly. I feel sure that when we say that we are the fourth largest economy in the world, those people will benefit, along with all of us, and not just a few.
5.45 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: It may seem presumptuous for me, as I am about to make my own maiden speech, to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on theirs—two excellent speeches, giving in their own way a vignette of their parts of the world, which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will clearly represent so ably in Parliament.
Anyone with political aspirations has rehearsed the moment of their maiden speech many times over. I am sure that I can rely on the indulgence of the House in making mine. The full terror of the occasion crosses the political divide.
It is the custom in a maiden speech to refer to those who have gone before. Even if that were not the case, I should anyway want to start my speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Emery, who is well known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to others in the House.
Sir Peter's political career, which was lengthy, began with the ritual blooding of fighting so-called unwinnable seats—in his case, Poplar, which he contested in 1951, and Lincoln in 1955. Unsuccessful but undeterred, like so many of us, he went on to win Reading by 3,942 votes from Ian Mikardo. He represented Reading from 1959—incidentally, the year in which I was born—until 1966, when he lost to John Lee by just over 4,000 votes. In 1967 Sir Peter succeeded Robert Mathew in a by-election as the Member for what was then the Honiton division, with a majority of 16,000. In 1997, following boundary changes, the major part of that seat became East Devon, which Sir Peter represented until the election.
Sir Peter's record is one of unstinting service to his constituents and to the House. He was, I believe, an important influence on the Modernisation Committee, and I know that the House found his advice, based on many years of parliamentary experience, to be of enormous help. His retirement is truly a loss to the House.
The House's loss is my gain, and I stand here humble and honoured to have been chosen as Sir Peter's successor to represent East Devon, which can lay claim to be one of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. From the River Exe in the west to the borders of Dorset in the east, it includes the coastal resorts of Exmouth, whose foundations lie in Roman times and which was originally a busy fishing village but is now more of a tourist resort; Budleigh Salterton, which takes its name from the salt pans that were used to collect local salt for preserving by the monks at nearby Otterton priory; and Hayes Barton, birthplace of that great Elizabethan explorer, Sir Walter Raleigh who, I suppose, in his own way did so much for the tobacco industry and who, if alive today, would almost certainly have just returned from an overseas trip promoting his product. Incidentally, I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will support me in my ambition to relocate his statue from Raleigh green in Whitehall to his birthplace in East Budleigh.
The charming seaside town of Sidmouth, near which I live, with its Regency terraces and villas, was immortalised by Sir John Betjeman. The small village of
1016
Beer was once famed for fishing and smuggling. The waiting women made lace there and so contributed to the foundation of the Honiton lace industry. Seaton, where the Romans landed and the Fosse way started, and nearby Axmouth, which is thought to be the site of the major Roman station of Uxelis, and from which until the late 19th century trading vessels sailed regularly to and from London, are also situated in the area. Those towns, together with a largely rural hinterland, including the towns of Axminster, which is famous for the synonymous carpet factory, and Colyton, represent my constituency.
East Devon, which is so rich in history, is not only about landscape and coastline, although I shall return to those aspects shortly. In Lympstone, we are proud to have the training camp of the Royal Marines. Exmouth, our largest conurbation, is home to one of the country's biggest secondary schools, which is also the country's largest community college. That contrasts with Colyton grammar school, which always scores highly in Ofsted reports and has just achieved long overdue beacon school status.
If I am guilty of anything this afternoon, it is that I may have depicted East Devon as a place from an England of yesteryear rather than of today. To an extent, that is truthful. Mercifully, we do not suffer from some of the problems and tensions that have been seen in other parts of the country. Although crime is a recognisable problem, it is not out of control.
Beneath that bucolic veneer, however, lie some all-too-real problems, one of which is rural poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) articulated the problems of farmers yet again today. Throughout the foot and mouth crisis, he has articulated the suffering of my farmers better than anyone whom I can think of. Our farmers and suppliers are desperate in the wake of foot and mouth, although to date we have been relatively lucky in having had only one reported outbreak. Our local magistrates courts in Axminster and Exmouth have been closed. Our infrastructure, roads, local shops and post offices, all of which people in the countryside depend upon, are under constant threat, just as our countryside itself is threatened by over-development.
A great number of my constituents are on fixed incomes. Some 27 per cent. of the population of East Devon consists of people aged over 65, which puts a strain on the health service. In some parts of the constituency, more than 6 per cent. of the population is over 85. Although our cottage hospitals are as good as any in the land, the pressures on our privately run care and residential homes are now truly worrying.
In my constituency, the income of our four main coastal towns is based mainly on tourism-related employment. We have an extraordinary opportunity ahead of us if the bid to give world heritage status to the east Devon and Dorset coast is successful. We will learn the result in December. The United Kingdom currently has 20 world heritage sites, 11 of which are situated in England and one of which is the Palace of Westminster, together with the abbey and St. Margaret's church.
The proposed world heritage site is the 88 miles of coastline between Orcombe point near Exmouth and Old Harry rocks in Dorset, with some exceptions of coastline that do not exhibit important geological or geomorphic features. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has been campaigning vigorously along with

1017
my predecessor for world heritage recognition. The geomorphology of the coast is of global importance. There is a complex spectrum of every combination of landslide-forming rocks of the Triassic, Jurassic and cretaceous periods, which together provide an extraordinary teaching laboratory comparable to similarly important landslide areas to be found in New Zealand and the Black sea.
World heritage site status will lead to new opportunities for tourism, but we must address them in advance. It is vital that the gateway towns to this proposed new site do justice to it. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to providing funding for the restoration of Seaton Hole and the Alma bridge at Pennington Point, which have suffered as a result of coastal erosion and landslides. Their current condition is a source of great local concern.
We must ensure that the tourism industry offers suitable training, first-class accommodation and, indeed, sufficient accommodation. We must reverse the trend that we have seen recently in Sidmouth, for example, of losing hotel beds to residential development. We must improve access by road, which will mean improving the A303, the A30 and the A35. We must improve access by plane, which will involve a controlled expansion of Exeter international airport. We must also improve our train services on both the Paddington and Waterloo lines as a matter of urgency. None of this can be achieved without commitment and funding.
In today's world, agriculture and tourism are interlinked. People come to our part of the world and marvel at our landscape. Unlike our coastline, it has been man-made over the centuries by landowners and farmers. It looks as it does because it has been farmed, and it must continue to be farmed. The Government must recognise that, above all.
I urge the Government also to recognise that tourism in my part of the world will not recover of its own accord. It desperately needs help. The total revenue generated by tourism in the United Kingdom during 2000 was around £64 billion. Of that, £6 billion was spent by tourists and visitors to the south-west, which amounts to 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the region. However, investment by the Government in the English Tourism Council, which includes the allocation to the council and to the regional tourist boards, was £11.7 million, or 20p per head of the population, compared to £3.77 per head in Scotland and £4.03 per head in Wales. Moreover, none of that money can be used for marketing. The report published by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in May 2001 states:
"These figures leave no doubt that there has been a sustained problem of under-funding by the public sector in tourism that has affected English tourism in particular."
I urge the Government to provide at least £3 million so that we can develop a professional and effective campaign aimed at our home and near-overseas markets. I urge them to reconsider the inequalities in funding to which I have just alluded. I also urge them to take up South West Tourism's plea to set up an independent competitiveness review of the costs and profits position of the United Kingdom's tourism business, compared with our overseas competitors, so that we can best judge how to increase what is, after all, the fourth largest industry in the country.
1018
I make no apologies for promoting my part of the world. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have not finally settled on their summer holiday destination will now think favourably of the south-west, but with one caveat: that none of my colleagues bring a leadership campaign down there. I can guarantee right hon. and hon. Members who come to the south-west a memorable holiday; I can equally guarantee them welcoming and appreciative hosts.
5.59 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: It is amazing that, of the last four speakers, I should be the most senior in terms of service, as I have been here for only four years. It is a delight to listen to maiden speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) on a heartfelt and principled speech. Those qualities always add to the geographical and historical descriptions that we also enjoy. Unless the constituency of Midlothian has been redistributed, I believe that I have been there once. I visited the town of Balerno, but it may no longer be in his constituency.
I also enjoyed the two maiden speeches from Opposition Members. That of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) was almost a model maiden speech. He expressed his view of the countryside and its importance well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). I do not know Henley, but I was intrigued by his geographical description. I now realise that it is just east of the Khyber pass, and I shall bear that in mind when travelling.
The speeches so far have been reasoned and well balanced. 'The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) tends to go overboard in his condemnation of the Government. He is not
"slow to chide and swift to bless",
to quote the hymn. We need to take a more balanced approach to the position in agriculture and our rural communities.
Agriculture has always been in crisis. We could almost go back to biblical times and the seven fat years and seven lean years. Agriculture is subject not only to economic fluctuations but to those of nature, which are often beyond the control of man. In the past decade, agriculture in this country has suffered from BSE, classical swine fever—at least in East Anglia—and, lastly and most devastatingly, foot and mouth. On top of all that, economic factors, such as the decline of the markets in the far east and Russia, have proved pernicious to our export trade.
Agriculture has also been affected by the climate: in the past year, there have been floods and droughts. All those factors affect farms on the margins, especially farming communities in what used to be called marginal areas.
Further problems spread from agriculture to the rest of the rural community. Not enough people are engaged in agriculture. At the end of the second world war, approximately 1 million people were employed in agriculture. It was the equivalent of the mining industry. Agriculture and mining have suffered colossal decline in different ways. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a fascinating maiden speech in which he told us about the unity between farmers in one part of his constituency and miners in the other. We must remember that town and country, industry and agriculture do not stand apart. They form a unity.

1019
The problem nowadays in rural areas is that so many people can no longer work locally. Many others move to rural areas because, as the descriptions of new Members often imply, they are idyllic havens—places where one wants to live. People live, or simply sleep or weekend, in those havens and return to London, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham or Cardiff to work. Consequently, the village store does not have customers to buy from it every day. The local garage cannot sell petrol because the commuter or weekender has bought petrol more cheaply at Tesco, Asda or elsewhere. The local pub is also affected for several reasons but mostly because the closely bound community, of which the pub, the chapel and the school were all part, no longer exists.
That has been happening for decades. Twenty-five years ago, I lived in a small village beneath the highest point of the Pennines. Before I lived there, it had a school, a chapel and a post office. The school had gone in the distant past, the post office had hung on until the proprietor retired, although no replacement could be found, and the chapel went after I left, so that village no longer has the essential ingredients of community life.
Rather than blame the Government or the previous Administration, we should consider the long-term trends that are causing great problems to our rural communities and we must devise a means whereby people who live in the countryside can work in the countryside. Part of it might take the form of Government schemes to encourage young people to enter farming. The average age of those in the farming community is even greater than that of members of the Conservative party and new people are not coming in. Also, it is difficult to take up fanning at a young age because of the price of land.
The situation is absurd: commodity prices are low and profitability has been squeezed to the margin, but the price of the acres on which farming takes place is still ludicrously high, certainly in the south and the east. That involves elements of speculation, does it not?
Large organisations, banks and insurance companies buy agricultural land as a speculative investment. They have no real interest in the product that comes from the land and no real desire for the communities based on that land to thrive. They are interested in the price of the land and they will do everything by way of purchase or sale to keep the price high. That represents the investment, but it is one of the factors that make it so difficult for agriculture to survive.
At one time, many farms were rented, so the young farmer, or the son, nephew or niece of a farmer, could rent land to raise animals or grow crops. That is now unbelievably difficult and the only way to do it is to form a contractor company whereby people contract out their labour and work for others who own the land. The problem with that, which other Members may have experienced in their division, is that that system separates the occupation of the land from those who work on it.
I look to the Government to devise schemes whereby they encourage young people back to the land through either financial incentives or renting out state-owned land. Unless we get more people back in the countryside and working in agriculture, the crisis, if I may use that word, will go on for many more years. Eventually, the foot and mouth outbreak will end and I entirely agree with those who have said that we need an inquiry. What form it should take I do not know, but it should not be akin to that
1020
chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy. It should seek proper solutions to problems that have been discovered, and we must find out what happened. That issue can be addressed, but the long-term problems in agriculture require us all to think about how we can resolve them.
I should mention two more contemporary matters. The first is arable agrimonetary compensation. I do not trot along with the notion that we should go to Brussels and ask for the money and that Brussels should hand it over. We all know that most of it is our own money and that we are spending it among ourselves, but there is a case for making an application because the price of arable crops is some 70 per cent. of what it was a few years ago.
Secondly, I want to raise the renewal of the over-30-months scheme. Although there are alternatives such as the welfare schemes, difficulties were created by its suspension when the foot and mouth epidemic was at its height and farmers are experiencing great problems. That issue has links to the need to stimulate and support small slaughterhouses. Finally, it is universally agreed that we must be ever-vigilant to ensure that we do not allow contaminated food to enter this country by way of sandwiches, non-Cornish pasties or whatever and thereby put our livestock at risk.
I shall support the Government tonight because they are making genuine attempts to help to solve the problems in our rural communities. It behoves us all to work together to achieve those solutions.
6.10 pm
Pete Wishart: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech, and I am delighted to follow the maiden speeches of the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire). if they think that they have the most beautiful constituencies in the United Kingdom, let me tell them that they have stiff competition from North Tayside. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton). We both have Scottish constituencies and we both have mining backgrounds, although unfortunately mine has been lapsed for two generations.
I am grateful to have been called to make my maiden speech in a debate about the countryside. My constituency consists almost entirely of countryside, being one of the five largest in the United Kingdom, and it experiences many of the issues and difficulties described so well today. Before I discuss those difficulties, however, let me say—like many maiden speakers before me—that in my humble opinion, mine is perhaps the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom.
North Tayside is a constituency of rivers and mountains, of market towns and open spaces. In the heart of Scotland is highland Perthshire, and around that beating heart flow the rivers of the Tay. They are the heart's blood of my constituency—rivers such as the Tummel, the Ericht, the Isla, the Strath and the Braan, which make up the largest river system in the UK, flowing ever onwards and outwards into the Tay estuary.
The western part of Angus is also in my constituency. There the River Esk flows down from the mountains that adorn the Angus glens. What can I say of the mountains? At the geographical heart of Scotland is Schehalion, hill of the fairies, the most striking mountain in the whole of

1021
Scotland. We also have Ben Lawers, Ben Aglow and Ben Vrachie, and Dreish and Mayer sit deep in the Angus glens.
Mine is also a constituency of estates and castles. I think that it must contain more noble Lords than any other constituency in Scotland. Deep in Strathmore is Glamis castle, perhaps the finest example of a baronial castle anywhere in Scotland. At the foot of the Tay is Scone palace, ancient home of Scottish kings and true home of the Stone of Destiny.
The thing that I do not like about my constituency—there always has to be one thing—is its name. "North Tayside" sounds like a council ward in some old Labour municipal council. Whoever came up with that name must have been up in the Library all night. I suggest that we find a name more in keeping with the constituency's natural beauty. How about Strathmore, Highland Perthshire and the Glens? There is a name worthy of its splendour.
I am grateful to the people of North Tayside for electing me to represent that beautiful constituency. I am, of course, aware of the responsibility involved. Let me also do what is traditional and pay tribute to my predecessor, John Swinney. John was elected to the House of Commons in 1997, and it is hard to believe that he served only one term, given the impact that he has made on Scottish politics since.
John transformed the constituency, turning it into one in which all constituents' concerns were addressed immediately. It is also hard to believe that he served two of his four years here with a dual mandate: that never stopped him from being a most effective Member of Parliament. Wherever I went during my election campaign, there was a good word about John Swinney, and a growing realisation—accompanied by pride—that this was a future First Minister of Scotland. I had to reassure my constituents that John was going nowhere, and would continue to represent their interests in the Scottish Parliament. I now look forward to working as part of an effective team with John to ensure in both Parliaments that all our constituents' concerns are addressed.
John has, of course, gone on to bigger and better things since becoming a Member of Parliament here in 1997. I am not referring to the fact that he is now convener of the Scottish National party, or even the fact that he is Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament but to the fact that he is now Scotland's most eligible male, as decided by Scotland on Sunday. That is an honour to which this Member for North Tayside does not aspire and from which, in any case, he is disqualified by reason of marriage.
Before John's incumbency, North Tayside was represented for 18 years by the Conservatives in the guise of Bill Walker. Bill is what is commonly described as a colourful character; I think that everyone involved in Scottish politics has a favourite Bill Walker story. He and his colleague the then Member for Perth and Kinross provided the House with an unforgettable double act that I am sure is sorely missed by some of our older Members.
It is surprising that tourism has been so little debated this afternoon. Tourism is a big issue for my constituency, given its natural beauty and scenery. Tourism is one of
1022
the major employers in North Tayside. It has struggled under the impact of foot and mouth disease, but it was in crisis in Scotland long before the latest outbreak. The high cost of fuel and the high value of the pound make a double whammy that continues to beat the countryside. We cannot underestimate the effect of the strong pound on deterring European visitors. That was clearly demonstrated to me when German friends told me that this year they would not make their usual annual trip to Scotland because it was too expensive. They could get two weeks of luxury accommodation in the Mediterranean for their two nights of bed and breakfast in Scotland. Moreover, they could be guaranteed all-day sunshine in that destination. The best that I could guarantee was that the weather was likely to be changeable.
Poor access to European airports from Scotland is another factor. For a nation of 5 million people, we have appalling access to European destinations. The services that exist are highly priced and infrequent. The extra cost of coming north from an English airport is an added disincentive to European visitors.
What of coming to Scotland by car? With our crazy fuel costs, we have started to enter the realms of the luxury holiday sector ourselves. We seriously cannot discount the high cost of fuel as a major disincentive to European and United Kingdom visitors to Scotland. Members on this Bench always ask, why has oil-rich Scotland got the highest fuel prices in Europe?
Agriculture, agricultural supplies and textiles are also major employers in my constituency. Food production is perhaps the main employer in Strathmore, where the world-renowned berry industry faces many severe difficulties. It is but a shadow of its former self. The berry-picking season is nothing more than a distant memory.
Even with all those activities, the main issue in my election campaign was local hospitals. I simply cannot equate the warm words of Labour Members with the reality of health service provision in my constituency. The service on Tayside is in chaos. There is no confidence in its delivery and staff morale is at rock bottom. We in Tayside are to be subject to a centralisation programme that takes no account of the geography of the area or the public's desire to retain popular local services.
The east of my constituency is served by the Stracathro hospital. Its acute hospital status will be lost with services centralised in distant Dundee. The western part is served by the Perth royal infirmary. The preferred option is to remove maternity and paediatric services once again to Dundee. That means that my constituents will face upwards of a 100-mile journey to receive the services. A service already seen as remote will now seem as though it were at the other end of the country.
I come before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the first Member of Parliament from the world of popular music. I am reliably informed that I am the first Member who has ever appeared on "Top of the Pops" in his own right, so you can imagine the onerous responsibility that that places on my shoulders. I find it staggering that no one before me has made the journey from the stage of the concert hall to the Floor of the House of Commons, given the historic association between popular music, popular culture and politics. We can see from history that popular culture has sometimes been expressed by musicians and artists and that that led and dominated political debate.

1023
In the counter-culture of the 1960s, there were those who rallied against unwarranted international aggression and those who championed and pioneered the rights of minorities and women. Music has so often been the soundtrack of political change. At times, music and song have even articulated it. Can any hon. Member imagine political change without the songs?
People and commentators ask me what are the differences between my previous profession and my new job in the House. I answer that it might be a different stage and even a different song, but that I will certainly not get an encore in this place.
Tonight's debate is entitled "The Countryside in Crisis". It is clear that the countryside ranks low in this Government's priorities and thinking. They come on the back of a Conservative Government who gave us the BSE disaster. It must have been the first incident that gave the feeling of crisis, from which the countryside has never recovered. We must also remember that it was the Conservatives who introduced the fuel tax escalator, which started the crazy spiralling of fuel costs in the first place.
My constituency consists almost entirely of countryside, and particularly beautiful countryside at that. Let us do what we can to promote it and ensure that we get the best from our most prized asset—our countryside.
6.19 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I begin by congratulating hon. Members on some excellent maiden speeches. I assure the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that after he has won his second election victory he will come to love the name of his constituency. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on a tremendous maiden speech. I especially valued his comments about his predecessor, whom we all esteemed. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) is himself a victimised miner; I know that his comments will have resonance on both sides of the House, and I hope that we will achieve justice for such miners during his time in this place.
I cannot begin my speech without mentioning the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who gave us such an entertaining bird's-eye view of his constituency. I am convinced that he will uphold the tradition of dashing blonds in the House.
As my contribution to the debate, I lend support to those who urge the Government to work in Brussels for EU-wide fund switching under the common agricultural policy, so that this country is not at a disadvantage, and to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow much wider application, to most UK farms, of agri-environmental schemes, organic conversion, farm woodland development and so on. That will mean that agricultural practices can become more sustainable and can protect, rather than detract from, the natural environment and wildlife. I am confident that there will be public support for that sensible emphasis.
Consumers want quality, and they want safety. Most people have come to understand that the condition of the countryside concerns us all whether we live in the country or, like myself, represent an urban constituency. Many of my colleagues support the aims of the organic targets Bill, which would make 30 per cent. of land and 20 per cent. of food marketed in England and Wales organic by 2010.
1024
Perhaps one of my colleagues will make it their business to help the Bill to make progress, through one of the channels open to Back Benchers.
No one who has attended this important debate underestimates the scale of the current problems, and everyone knows that full recovery will take a long time. A document produced by the Countryside Alliance states that the lowest average weekly wages are in rural counties such as Cornwall, Northumberland and Shropshire; that seven of the 10 counties with a gross domestic product below the national average are rural; that total farm income is down from £6 billion in 1995 to £1.8 billion in 2000; and that the average farm income after expenses is £5,200 per farm. That is clearly unsustainable. The Countryside Agency estimates potential losses of £2 billion in the rural economy as a whole as a result of the terrible foot and mouth epidemic.
Before the election, I hosted an event in the House that brought together several rural interest groups and at which representatives of the Farm Stay UK Exmoor group took the opportunity to brief the then Minister for Tourism on the scale of their losses. I know that she had hoped to visit Exmoor to see for herself. No doubt her successor will want to strengthen such contacts.
The income from letting accommodation keeps many farms going. A small family farm with six bedrooms is currently losing between £500 and £600 a week. The Exmoor group will lose £25,000 a week as the holiday season progresses, and is looking at a loss of £500,000 if foot and mouth disease continues throughout the summer.
Even counties such as Dorset, with no FMD, have been badly affected. The English Tourism Council has pointed out that if there is a silver lining to the terrible FMD crisis it is that it has demonstrated to the Government, the business community and the public what the industry already knew: the importance of tourism to local economies. In some rural economies it is the main employer, and we could get far more from it in terms of growth and jobs. The council says that £4 out of every £5 spent on English tourism comes from domestic tourists, so it is they who need to be encouraged back. We need a wide-ranging review of the industry, and encouragement for certain ventures.
Before the election, I supported a proposal by Farm Stay UK to acquire Government backing for an integrated nationwide information and support service, as exists in France. Again, the then Minister was sympathetic, and I hope that the Government will revisit the issue in the light of the continuing crisis. There should be much more support for organisations such as LEAF—Linking the Environment and Farming—whose activities I have promoted on several occasions in the House, and there are others, such as the Farmers Conservation Group and the Farmers and Wildlife Advice Group. Perhaps there is a case for those groups to co-ordinate and work more closely together. We must also support new industries in rural areas.
Last week I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on environmentally friendly fuels, and I talked about liquid biofuels from farmland, which are important in my own region, as well as in others. Fears about climate change have increased this very week, and we know that the need to reduce greenhouse gases is urgent. The slaughter of more than 3 million animals during the terrible FMD

1025
epidemic has left much land under-utilised, and the set-aside scheme contributes nothing to our gross domestic product.
I understand that the European Commission is working towards a directive that would make it mandatory for member states to ensure that 2 per cent. of road transport fuel came from biofuels by 2005. In the United Kingdom that would involve some 300,000 tonnes of biodiesel and perhaps 400,000 tonnes of bioethanol. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested a 20 per cent. rebate for biodiesel in the 2002 Budget. That is welcome, but it does not go nearly far enough.
A few thousand tonnes of recycled oil may be involved, but it is by no means certain that that fuel can meet the essential quality standards required under engine warranties without the addition of perhaps 10 times as much pure oilseed. I understand that the rebate will not be paid on fuel that does not meet the standard. No firm guidelines have been given for bioethanol. Research has been mooted, but it will be years before it can make any serious contribution to the rural economy and cleaner air.
Many issues have brought crisis to our countryside, and hon. Members on both sides of the House must work together in the spirit that has characterised this excellent debate. I am delighted to have heard such sensitive speeches from new Members on both sides of the House. I am also delighted that they have all contributed to the theme of this debate. We can work together, and I am confident that we will.
6.28 pm
Hugh Robertson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also thank all hon. Members who have kept their speeches short enough to allow me a brief innings tonight.
I thought that as the summer recess is fast approaching, I would take hon. Members on both sides of the House on a brief tour of a very green and pleasant land—or at least it was green and pleasant until the channel tunnel arrived. I was elected this year to represent the Faversham and Mid-Kent constituency—a creation of the 1997 boundary commission. I know that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) knows it well.
My constituency comprises all the countryside between Sittingbourne and Maidstone on the western side and Canterbury and Ashford in the east. It rises in the north on the north Kent coast and sweeps over to Faversham—originally a cinque port and a well known mediaeval market town. which is now famous as the home of the oldest family-owned brewery in the country, Shepherd Neame.
My constituency continues beyond Faversham, across the north downs—an area of outstanding natural beauty, criss-crossed by many ancient pilgrim routes to Canterbury. Beyond that to the south is the rolling countryside of the weald, to the west of which are the prosperous suburbs of Maidstone. However, it would be wrong to try to argue that all that part of the world is prosperous. At the eastern end of Maidstone are two of the most deprived housing estates in Europe. As Members will imagine, it is from there that much of my postbag comes.
1026
The town, however, has the accolade of being home to three former Members of the House: Sir Roger Moate, Andrew Rowe and Sir John Wells. Indeed, it is the current home of the shadow Home Secretary. my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Over the past few weeks, a number of people have grappled with the question of how to talk about their predecessors. I have no such problems. Andrew Rowe was universally regarded as one of the most diligent and popular constituency Members. After I was selected, I was very struck by how many people said to me what a difficult job it would be to follow him as the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. I have been amazed since my arrival at the House by just how many people have said to me how sad they were to see him go. There may be some irony in that. Mr. Speaker told me that Andrew Rowe would be an extremely hard act to follow, and at the end of my first month here, I am just beginning to understand exactly what that means.
I am sure that all Members of the House, knowing that Andrew Rowe was not well in his last few years here, will join me in wishing him a long, happy and well deserved retirement, and will hope very much that the disease that blighted his final few years in the House will finally be laid to rest. He was indeed a credit to the House.
I asked to make my maiden speech today because in many ways, the countryside defines my constituency. Not for nothing is it known as the garden of England. However, as with the many other parts of the countryside that Members have mentioned, my constituency is in crisis. Incomes and the number of people employed in rural industries are falling and many of the orchards that so characterise that part of England are being grubbed up.
The reasons for that are many and varied. They include low prices, because farmers receive a falling share of the retail price; cheap imports from abroad with which we cannot compete; poor weather; regulation; and most critically, surprisingly enough, the labour situation. Many of my constituents tell me that they simply cannot get their fruit picked. The answers to the problem are also many and varied, but it is interesting that none of the farmers directly wants any form of state handout. All they want is the security to run their farms as businesses, free from interference and over-regulation.
Fruit farmers ask for three things in particular. The first is fairness in competition; they want to compete on a level playing field. The second is honesty in labelling. They would like consumers to know accurately the country of origin and the means of production—a point that the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) touched on earlier. Above all, they want more flexible labour arrangements. They want to employ casual labourers at the national minimum wage. During the election, I spoke to a fruit farmer who, sadly, had had to lay off all the local workers because he simply could not tackle the regulations involved in taking them on for short periods.
Fruit farmers also want an increase in the seasonal agricultural wages scheme so that they can access more nationals from countries joining the European Union. I met some Polish 17 and 18-year-olds who, having left school, are over here to pick our fruit and to learn something of our culture. They were also learning English and they were having a marvellous time. It is an extremely good scheme and I commend it to the House.

1027
I have been asked to be brief, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. I am particularly fortunate to represent a constituency in an area where I was born, educated and brought up. Farming in general, and horticulture in particular, is the one industry that affects the whole of my constituency. In Kent, the fate and the future of the countryside is the single biggest issue for most of my constituents, and I believe that it will be best safeguarded by promoting a living and working countryside.
The horticulturists whom I represent are keen to produce high quality food in a healthy environment and to preserve Kent's beautiful countryside. I, as their MP, am very keen to help them do that. I ask for the help of Members on both sides of the House to help them achieve their aim.
6.34 pm
Mr. James Paice: I remind the House of my interest which is properly listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
Although the debate was rather short, it was marked by a succession of excellent maiden speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They commenced with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who, as well as rightly paying tribute to Michael Heseltine, demonstrated that his wit in literature is repeated in his speeches. His light-hearted tour of his constituency enshrined some serious concerns. He is lucky to hold such a grand constituency and the House is fortunate to have him. He came here with a reputation—that can often be a millstone around new Members' necks, but he demonstrated that that will not be so for him.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) rightly paid tribute to Sir Peter Emery whose wise words we miss. He, too, took us on a tour of his constituency from Roman days, through Raleigh and Betjeman, to its problems today. He presented a shopping list for his constituency, and I hope that when he stands for re-election he will have ticked off some of the items that he has come here to obtain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) continued the trend of using breweries as part of the route map around a constituency, which in his case is in the garden of England. He succeeded Andrew Rowe, a true gentleman whose mild manner concealed strongly held views. My constituency also grows much fresh produce and we, too, have the problem of obtaining enough labour, to which my hon. Friend referred.
We also heard maiden speeches by the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton), who used strong words to describe his mission here, and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who even I have to admit represents a truly beautiful and historic constituency. However, if he is worried about hospitals in his area, it is no use coming here because the House no longer deals with such matters in Scotland.
All the maiden speeches were fluent and clearly argued. The new Members bring a great deal of varied knowledge and experience to the House. They are all welcome and we look forward to their contributions.
When the Secretary of State replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), she criticised him for repeating some of the points that he made in the
1028
debate on the Queen's Speech. That was churlish because she could not reply to him at the time because of her voice, and it was right that he should repeat them.
We strongly welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement that the over-30-months scheme will restart. Farmers in many parts of the country have pressed for that. However, a large number of cattle are over 30 months only because they could not be moved off their farms as prime beef. We await a Government decision on whether those farmers will receive compensation.
The right hon. Lady also referred to the green belt and produced a lot of statistics, but it is not size that matters with the green belt. It is no use expanding the green belt on the outside if we allow it to be eaten away on the inside, because it then ceases to protect villages and city centres, for which the green belt is important.
Mr. Challen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: No, I shall not. We have tried hard to fit in a number of maiden speeches.
The development of the green belt and greenfield sites is a problem in my constituency. I do not understand why it is necessary for the Government to impose housing figures on local authorities. We have been told that we must have 2,800 new homes a year in the Cambridge sub-region, which is a higher figure than either the county council or district councils believe is necessary. The consequences of possibly creating a new town in the area are causing many people much heartache.
I deal now with agriculture, and agrimonetary compensation which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). Much of the debate has been about the livestock sector and my later remarks will deal with that, but we must not ignore the arable sector, which is also suffering. Last week, the figures for this year's area payments were fixed, as a result of the exchange rates during June. For cereals, the payment rate went up by 26 euros per hectare, but translated to sterling, the rate, including the penalties for over-production and the modulation, is at a standstill. That is another example of the increasing difficulties that British farmers are experiencing in trying to be on the same playing field as their continental competitors. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking on agrimonetary compensation.
As for livestock, an order on the fishmeal ban was laid before the House last week. It will have considerable cost implications for farmers and feed manufacturers. Of course we support the ban on meat and bonemeal, but it has been banned in this country for many years, whereas in the rest of Europe the ban is very recent, so we already have systems to control and authenticate fishmeal to ensure that there is no risk of contamination by meat and bonemeal. I understand that the Food Standards Agency's advisory committee on animal feedstuffs has said that the new proposal is unnecessary, so why is DEFRA continuing with that further cost increase for farmers?
I want largely to deal with the situation in our hills and uplands, to which the Secretary of State briefly referred. I look forward to what she will say when she considers the matter later this month, as she has promised to do. Two weeks ago, the Scottish Agriculture Minister said that the sheep industry was two months from meltdown. Does the Secretary of State share that refreshingly honest opinion? The reason for the crisis is that large numbers of

1029
lambs will be finished in the next two or three months and many of them, as hon. Members have said, would normally go to the Mediterranean trade and are not appropriate for the UK market so there will be a huge surplus of those animals.
In addition, between 5 million and 7 million lambs and draught ewes would have been sold at auctions throughout the country from August to October. That includes store lambs for further finishing in the lowlands, and ewe lambs and draught ewes bought for further breeding. On top of that, some 800,000 cattle would normally change hands in the autumn.
I have several questions for the Government. First, will they confirm that there will be no changes in the provisionally free area system? Will they allow any live sales to take place in provisionally free or at-risk areas? Will they clarify whether slaughtered-out farms can be restocked from within the infected areas with some of the lambs that I have mentioned? Will they amend the licensing rules, which at the moment allow movement only for breeding purposes, to allow movement for further growing and fattening? What is the Government's attitude to the Meat and Livestock Commission's protocols for various alternative trading options to try to assist with the problem? Will store lambs and cattle that do not find a market be eligible for a welfare scheme?
Will it be possible to designate corridors through infected and at-risk areas to provisionally free areas so that sheep from the highlands of Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) referred, can come down into English at-risk and provisionally free areas? The Government are already allowing transport to slaughter outside infected areas, so they appear to have accepted that the process of transportation carries minimal risk. I ask them to look carefully at the idea of designating corridors, perhaps just motorways or dual carriageways, along which sheep can be transported.
Finally, I turn to the issue of farmers putting the sheep that they would normally have sold out to other farms. As many hon. Members have said, the problem is that farmers have very little money with which to do that. Can we have an advance of the sheep annual premium, or something similar, so that farmers will have some cash to pay for over-wintering in the hope that those animals can be sold in the spring?
None of those ideas or questions are new. The industry has been pressing the Government for answers for weeks, but no decisions or guidance have been forthcoming. The concern voiced in Westminster Hall last week is that in the absence of information all sorts of rumours abound—and that, coupled with the Government's suggestions about buying back quota, leads farmers to believe that the Government want many of them to go out of business. I hope that that is not true, but farmers' fears are understandable in the absence of information to the contrary.
That view was intensified by reports of comments that the Prime Minister made to the chairman of the National Farmers Union of Scotland—apparently, the right hon. Gentleman said that farming was not one of his top 15 priorities—and exacerbated by the delay in producing
1030
a recovery plan. I have been looking back on the issue of a recovery plan. On 27 March, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
"any recovery plan—we are working on such a plan with the industry—must take into account"—[Official Report, 27 March 2001; Vol. 366, c. 845.]
and so on and so forth. A month later, he said:
"We … intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector."—[Official Report, 26 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 459.]
On 3 May, he said:
"We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations and the farming unions".—[Official Report. 3 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 1004.]
The current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on 26 June:
"Work is in hand on a farm recovery plan".—[Official Report, 26 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 524.]
Three and a half months later we are still waiting. All we have had is this week's announcement of £10.5 million of business advice.
We need information now. The farmers of this country want to know how to get through the crucial sales periods in the coming months. Three and a half months to produce a recovery plan is too long. It is time to stop considering, reviewing and listening; it is time to act and to make decisions.
6.46 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We have covered a lot of ground this afternoon, from the Angus glens to the rolling countryside of East Devon. We have also covered a great deal of ground in terms of substance: serious issues have been raised by Back Benchers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton). Some require a more detailed response than there is time for at this stage of the debate, when there is little time left; in such cases, I shall respond in writing.
I must start by commenting on the maiden speeches made today. I have particular sympathy with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) who experienced that awful moment towards the end of a debate when one waits to see whether one will be squeezed out. I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House for making sure that he had time to speak. The hon. Gentleman succeeds Andrew Rowe, a delightful man who was a great champion of charities and the voluntary sector; he will be difficult to replace. There is a vacancy for someone who engages with the sort of issues in which Andrew Rowe took a strong interest.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his maiden speech, which was a passionate promotion of the pubs of Henley. He was confident, assured and entertaining—the very qualities that inspire jealousy among listeners in the Chamber. It was the sort of speech that demanded the heckling and interventions that are forbidden during a maiden speech but that will, I am sure, occur on every future occasion that he rises to speak. Incidentally, I have to point out that it is the Government's policies on the countryside—and almost everything else—that are clear, whereas it is impossible to know what the Conservative party stands for. None the less, I look forward to many meanderings and excellent speeches in future.

1031
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) whose style was wholly different. Serious and thoughtful, his comments were rooted in his own experience and knowledge of the needs of people living in a rural area with a mining background, such as the area where he was born and which he is now proud to represent. He gave a mature and worthy speech in which he showed a sense of humour combined with decency.
In another first-rate speech, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) rightly emphasised the link between fanning and tourism. I agree with the link that he made and with the need to boost tourism. I have been involved in that for some 28 years. The issue is not just one of cash but of people having a sense of vision and direction. It is also about partnership between the different bodies and levels of government that can do something to promote the issue. I am certainly happy to accept his invitation to visit his region.
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made available £3.8 million for national and regional public relation', and marketing in tourism—a subject he emphasised. That timely action did much to restart the domestic tourism season. We also pledged additional funding of £14.2 million. That was supplemented by another £2.1 million which was redeployed by the British Tourist Authority from previous plans. The BTA sought that amount for 2001 after full consultation with the industry. The point about needing to kick-start and promote tourism is well made but one with which the Government are already very strongly involved.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) demonstrated a nice style and a sense of humour. Standards are improving in the humour stakes in this House. He seemed, however, to have some problems with travel. I can only commend to him consultation with the Minister of State, Scotland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is one of Labour's many rural MPs, a source of good advice and quite an entertaining companion.
Listening to the debate, it is difficult to know why the Conservatives chose the subject of the countryside as they had nothing new to say. We had hoped to hear something constructive, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was hardly churlish to criticise the opening speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), given that it was a rather pathetic attempt to promote the old myth that the Conservative party is interested in the countryside.
I must point out that it is Labour that has a practical and positive engagement with the needs of rural communities and the rural economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mock, but they should look at the results of the general election, at which Labour Members were again returned in force to represent rural areas. Conservative Members should consider the work undertaken by Labour Back Benchers in making constructive proposals to the Government. I look forward to engaging with many of my colleagues in promoting the Government's positive programme. The hon. Member for South Suffolk posed a string of questions on which he had
1032
clearly not done too much homework. The arrival of foot and mouth merited maturity and responsibility on both sides of the House. It has been disappointing to see how the Opposition have responded.
Our priority has been to eradicate foot and mouth disease—not easy, given the devastating nature of the outbreak in comparison to the previous experience in the country—then to alleviate the immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses and communities, and then to assist longer-term recovery. I am finding chairing the rural task force a most positive experience; we are dealing with difficult issues. All stakeholders have shown maturity and a willingness to engage, as they do in the stakeholders group in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes part, and that is extremely positive.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Alun Michael: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in trying to respond to the debate. The hon. Lady has not been with us this afternoon.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, we must learn the lessons of the outbreak. There is an attempt to make mischief by suggesting that the Government should respond by setting up an inquiry. We have made it clear that we want to learn the lessons and to be as open and inquiring as possible, but that we must do so in a way that enables us to move forward rather than delay learning those lessons.
It is important to look at longer-term trends and policies, to which some Members have referred. For some 20 years, rural communities have suffered a long-term decline in services. I must tell one or two Opposition Members who referred to the decline in some services in rural areas that they declined faster in the Conservative years than in any other period. The position is now the reverse: improvements in the past four years seek to make sure that small schools survive; we are putting more money into rural transport; and we are trying to make sure that shops survive in rural areas and that the Post Office engages with the need to provide services in rural areas.
Some of those things are not just about an individual service, but involve looking laterally at how to combine the needs of the community with commercial reality. I visited Waters Upton at the beginning of the week and saw just such an example: people had recognised the need for a small shop, information technology and broadband access in a rural community. They also recognised the need for mothers seeking to return to work to obtain training, and combined all those things in a project that certainly benefits from planning gain but will be advantageous for the rural community. The number of village halls has increased. The Government have therefore stopped the decline in services as far as possible, but we have much to do to create a secure and sustainable future for rural communities. The rural White Paper was published last November and we shall certainly take account of foot and mouth in its implementation; it provides a framework in which we can progress.

1033
I point out to Opposition Members that, in looking at recovery, we have already provided £10.4 million to extend the facilities provided by the farm business advice service, which enables farmers directly affected by foot and mouth to apply for five clays of free business advice rather than the three days provided under the previous scheme. That is vital, as statistics show. A survey of businesses in the west midlands showed that 80 per cent. of those which identified themselves as being directly affected by foot and mouth had not sought help or advice, and 60 per cent. did not decide to make any change in their business or its marketing, whether it was farm-related or another rural business. That is worrying, because there is a need to adapt and change. We must help, but industries must work with us if we are to achieve those changes.
I was surprised that Opposition Members raised the issue of crime. As a Home Office Minister, I set in train research into rurality, which led to additional money going to rural police forces to tackle the problem. We are providing extra resources—an additional £15 million last year and £30 million this year—and more officers can be recruited from the ring-fenced crimefighting fund. This year, we have seen the build-up to the second round of crime and disorder reduction strategies, which provide rural communities with a voice and engagement with the police and local authority in every area of the country. If adopted positively, that will create a partnership between people living in those communities, the police and local authorities to tackle and reduce crime. That is an appropriate response to rural areas and their experience.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who made a well informed contribution and was involved in the work leading to the White Paper, which seeks to provide a framework for delivering our aim of thriving rural communities in a protected and accessible countryside. We need to help people in rural areas to access key services, and have set in train moves that will give them that benefit. We must provide greater access to affordable new housing and support for farmers and rural business; we must make local government in the countryside more responsive; and, across government, we must engage with the needs of the countryside. The Government care about the countryside and will work with all who do to ensure that it has a sustainable and thriving future.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 277.

Division No. 24]

[7 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bacon, Richard

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Barker, Greg

Brady, Graham

Baron, John

Brazier, Julian

Barrett, John

Brooke, Annette

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bellingham, Henry

Bruce, Malcolm

Bercow, John

Burt, Alistair

1034

Butterfill, John

Lamb, Norman

Cable, Dr Vincent

Lansley, Andrew

Cameron, David

Laws, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Leigh, Edward

Letwin, Oliver

Carmichael, Alistair

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cash, William

Lidell-Grainger, Ian

Chidgey, David

Lidington, David

Chope, Christopher

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clappison, James

Llwyd, Elfyn

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Collins, Tim

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Conway, Derek

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cotter, Brian

Malins, Humfrey

Cran, James

Mates, Michael

Curry, Rt Hon David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Djanogly, Jonathan

May, Mrs Theresa

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mercer, Patrick

Doughty, Sue

Mitchell. Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Duncan, Alan

Moore, Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan, Peter

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Ewing, Annabelle

O'Brien. Stephen (Eddisbury)

Fabricant, Michael

Õpik, Lembit

Fallon, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Ottaway, Richard

Flight, Howard

Page, Richard

Flook, Adrian

Paice, James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paterson, Owen

Foster, Don (Bath)

Pickles, Eric

Fox, Dr Liam

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Francois, Mark

Price, Adam

Gale, Roger

Prisk, Mark

Garnier, Edward

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Gibb, Nick

Rendel, David

Gidley, Sandra

Robathan, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Goodman, Paul

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Gray, James

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Grayling, Chris

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Greenway, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Ruffley, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Russell. Bob (Colchester)

Hammond, Philip

Sayeed, Jonathan

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Selous, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Hayes, John

Simmonds, Mark

Heald, Oliver

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Heath, David

Soames, Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Spink, Dr Robert

Hendry, Charles

Spring, Richard

Hermon, Lady

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hoban, Mark

Steen, Anthony

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Streeter, Gary

Holmes, Paul

Stunell, Andrew

Horam, John

Swayne, Desmond

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Swire, Hugo

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Syms, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Jenkin, Bernard

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Keetch, Paul

Tredinnick, David

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

Trend, Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Key, Robert

Tyler, Paul

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tyrie, Andrew

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshim)

Viggers, Peter

1035

Walter, Robert

Wilshire, David

Waterson, Nigel

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Watkinson, Angela

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Weir, Michael

Wishart, Pete

Whittingdale, John

Yeo, Tim

Wiggin, Bill

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wiggin, Bill

Younger-Ross, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Mr. John Randall and

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Mr. Peter Atkinson.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cox, Tom

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Crausby, David

Ainger, Nick

Cruddas, Jon

Alexander, Douglas

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cummings, John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Atkins, Charlotte

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Austin, John

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Baird, Vera

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Banks, Tony

David, Wayne

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Barron, Kevin

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

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Dawson, Hilton

Beard, Nigel

Dean, Mrs Janet

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Denham, Rt Hon John

Bell, Stuart

Dhanda, Parmjit

Benton, Joe

Dismore, Andrew

Best, Harold

Dobbin, Jim

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Drew, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Drown, Ms Julia

Blizzard, Bob

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Efford, Clive

Borrow, David

Ennis, Jeff

Brennan, Kevin

Farrelly, Paul

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fisher, Mark

Bryant, Chris

Flint, Caroline

Buck, Ms Karen

Flynn, Paul

Burden, Richard

Follett, Barbara

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Burnham, Andy

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Galloway, George

Cairns, David

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Casale, Roger

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Caton, Martin

Hain, Peter

Cawsey, Ian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Challen, Colin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Chaytor, David

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hesford, Stephen

Clelland, David

Heyes, David

Clwyd, Ann

Hill, Keith

Coaker, Vernon

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Hoey, Kate

Coleman, Iain

Hood, Jimmy

Colman, Tony

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr Kim

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cousins, Jim

Hurst, Alan

1036

Hutton, John

Olner, Bill

Iddon, Dr Brian

Organ, Diana

Illsley, Eric

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Picking, Anne

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pond, Chris

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pound, Stephen

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Purnell, James

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Quinn, Lawrie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Kelly Ruth

Kemp, Fraser

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Khabra, Piara S

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kidney, David

Ruddock, Joan

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ryan, Joan

Laxton, Bob

Savidge, Malcolm

Lazarowicz, Mark

Sawford, Phil

Leslie, Christopher

Sedgemore, Brian

Linton, Martin

Shaw, Jonathan

Lloyd, Tony

Shipley, Ms Debra

Love, Andrew

Simon, Siôn

Lyons, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

McCabe, Stephen

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McCafferty, Chris

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McDonnell, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

MacDougall, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Soley, Clive

McIsaac, Shona

Southworth, Helen

McKechin, Ann

Spellar, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Squire, Rachel

McNamara, Kevin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Steinberg, Gerry

McWalter, Tony

Stevenson, George

Mahmood, Khalid

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mallaber, Judy

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Stringer, Graham

Mann, John

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Marris, Rob

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Tami, Mark

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Timms, Stephen

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Tipping Paddy

Meale, Alan

Todd Mark

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Touhig, Don

Miliband, David

Trickett, Jon

Miller, Andrew

Truswell, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moffatt, Laura

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Moran, Margaret

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Morley, Elliot

Tynan, Bill

Mountford, Kali

Vis, Dr Rudi

Mudie, George

Ward, Ms Claire

Mullin, Chris

Wareing, Robert N

Munn, Ms Meg

Watson, Tom

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

White, Brian

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Norris, Dan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wills, Michael

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

1037

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wood, Mike

Woolas, Phil Wray, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Wright, David (Telford)

Jim Fitzpatrick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports the Government's key priority to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible; regrets that the Opposition has failed to notice the Government's recent announcement of an enhanced Farm Business Advisory Service which encourages farmers to develop new income opportunities and an extension of the rate relief scheme to ensure further financial support to businesses in rural areas suffering most from the impact of FMD which will help councils to grant 100 per cent. rate relief to eligible small businesses up to the end of the year, as well as continuing other measures to help the rural economy to recover from the crisis; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved. —[Mr. Caplin.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
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. — [Mr. Caplin.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.— [Mr. Caplin.]

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE
Motion made,
That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform. —[Mr. Caplin.]
Hon. Members: Object.

2001 Census
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin]
7.14 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for my part in her having drawn the Thursday night short straw.
I have requested this debate because of the considerable significance of census data to all local authority areas. The collection of accurate information about the population and their characteristics is of incalculable importance, not least because the data that are collected now will form the basis for most of the standard spending assessment block calculations for the revenue support grant settlement in two years' time. The census statistics are the only source of much of the small areas data that local authorities draw on, especially data relating to ethnicity. This is, therefore, an issue of considerable importance to every Member of Parliament, every councillor and many others.
As the representative of an inner-London constituency, I am acutely concerned about this issue. Areas such as mine, in north Paddington and north Kensington, combine all the risk factors associated with poor data collection with all the factors contributing to high and complex levels of demand for services. This is particularly important in respect of ethnicity, because the service requirements of communities in which dozens of languages are spoken within a small area are quite different from and more complex than the needs of communities of similar social and economic characteristics in which there is perhaps only one language group.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the strong population growth in London in recent years, as measured by the mid-year estimates, demonstrates that the population growth is overwhelmingly young. That young population is, by definition, likely to consist of people who are having children now or will do so in the near future, for whom they will naturally expect nursery provision and education. The planning of those services is incredibly sensitive and important. This subject is dear to my heart at the moment because, as of a couple of weeks ago, 250 primary school children in one small area of north Westminster were still awaiting the allocation of a school place for this September.
Under-enumeration in the census, leading to a lack of reliable planning data and, possibly, to financial consequences in terms of grant allocation, has very serious consequences. Yet there can be little doubt that, in some small areas, serious under-enumeration has occurred.
I shall give some examples of where things have gone wrong in my area, and I would like to set them in context. I understand how hard the process is. Dealing with populations of inner-city constituencies such as mine involves assessing accommodation in multiple-occupation houses and in an increasing number of short-let tenancies, both of whose populations are extremely hard to keep track of. This places a huge responsibility on census enumeration, and it is no coincidence that the areas in which I suspect there is a serious problem of

1039
under-enumeration following this year's census are exactly the same areas as those where we also have the most critical problem of electoral registration. for example.
The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is aware of this problem, and has taken on board the fact that its current electoral registration process is problematic, and that a great many people may have lost their ability to register to vote as a consequence. I am certainly not saying, therefore, that all the problems arising from census enumeration can be laid at the door of the census and the Office for National Statistics. This is a very difficult job indeed.
I am also aware that the problems that we experienced in 2001 are not unique. The census also had huge problems in 1991, rooted in the effect of the poll tax. At that stage, there was clear evidence that a great number of people, particularly young people and those in inner-city populations, were deliberately avoiding the census because of the possible implications for registration for the poll tax. This time round, however, deliberate avoidance of being recorded in the census was negligible. In fact, members of the ethnic minority communities in my constituency, about whom I shall say more later, have stressed to me how keen they were to participate. There is a real awareness in those communities of the importance of their existence, extent and characteristics being recorded by the census, and they went out of their way to do everything possible to ensure that enumeration levels were high. Despite all that, we had some serious problems in some areas.
I received dozens of complaints, not least when on the doorstep in the election campaign. I have already referred many of them to the Office for National Statistics. However, clusters suggest the possibility of a deeper problem. For example, the Westway travellers site was missed out despite repeated requests for forms. The Catholic Children's Aid Society, which works closely with the travellers, took up the matter. That was resolved—I am pleased about that—but only after the Catholic Children's Aid Society had approached me and I had gone to the chief executive of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who ensured that enumerators got into the travellers site.
In Westminster, the residents association of the Fisherton street estate in NW8 wrote:
"While allowing for the distress caused to residents on the Lisson Green Estate" —
the subject of a front-page story in my local newspaper on census problems —
"please note the equally considerable distress caused to 99 per cent. of the residents in Dickens House (20 flats), Huxley House (20 flats), Landsmeer House (16 flats), Lilestone House (16 flats), Capland House (16 flats), Selena House (16 flats) and Gibbon House (16 flats) … despite requests, phonecalls, follow ups and assurance, not one word has been forthcoming to explain why an entire estate seems to have been excluded.
Of note, I also wish to point out that enquiries and reports coming to me suggest that the way in which the Census, or lack of it, was handled in the multi-cultural and economically sensitive area of London deserves some sort of apology and explanation for the Bureau".
1040
The director of Westminster Race Equality Council told me that scores of families from Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afro-Caribbean and other minority communities did not get forms. Abdul Toki, the chair of Marylebone Bangladeshi Association, said:
"Families came to me saying no forms had been issued … I volunteered my time to accompany officials to flats at the beginning of May. I heard nothing."
Since details have been passed to the ONS, action has been taken in those specific cases. I am grateful for that, and to people who have been active in local community organisations and gone out of their way to work with enumerators.
I also pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of enumerators who did an excellent job. It is not an easy task, and they did as well as they could. However, the fact that I received such complaints from well organised groups such as the Marylebone Bangladeshi Association and residents associations makes me wonder about the extent of non-contacts in more diffuse areas. My greatest anxiety is about those who live in streets of properties in multiple occupation. Those people are not part of well defined and cohesive residents or ethnic minorities organisations.
I received several complaints about the difficulties of accessing the hotline and the lengthy delays in waiting for translation facilities on it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux drew attention to the hotline problems, such as short holding times and restrictions on access for disabled people.
There were many problems, some of which have been redressed. I am not wholly confident, however, that we will not end up with pockets of significant under-enumeration. That is my key point. The census coverage survey, which will ascribe imputation figures to the populations, may constitute a robust and excellent statistical process. I have no doubt that it is, and that clever people will ensure that door-to-door under-enumeration is assessed accurately. But I am concerned that the characteristics that those numbers represent may not be properly reflected in the census coverage survey, simply because it is highly unlikely that such a survey can correctly ascribe the characteristics of the dozens and dozens and dozens of minority communities and language groups in such a hugely diverse community.
That is the nub of my case and I want the Minister—later, if not now—to assure me that the census coverage survey and the use of imputation figures will ensure that the numbers are both accurate and an adequate reflection of the diversity and characteristics of an under-enumerated population.
I hope that the Minister will do her best and work her hardest with the ONS to plug the gaps where she can through whatever possibilities remain in the direct process and through the census coverage survey. When the census data are published and used for rebasing the mid-year estimates, we will therefore be able to be confident that the hard pressed inner-city authorities that usually do an excellent job of providing services receive the resources that they require for the populations whom they serve. Those authorities are always looking for the complex pattern of demands made of them to be recognised, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
7.27 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate and I assure her that I am delighted to respond.
The 2001 census is important for my hon. Friend's constituents, the Government and the country. It is a vital source of information on the number and characteristics of the population. The information it gathers is used by the Government, local authorities and health authorities to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and, in particular, to distribute resources effectively at a local level. As she said, the results will be the evidence base that informs policy in many key areas for the next decade, so it is important that the information paints an accurate, authoritative and comparable picture of the UK's population and its needs.
Although we shall not have exact figures for the number of people counted until autumn next year, I believe that the census was successful. The return of census forms has been extremely high; the Office for National Statistics estimates that 95 per cent. have been returned and that the overall response will be as high, or higher, than that in 1991.
The 1991 census faced genuine difficulties in accurately counting some groups, and about 2 per cent. of people were not counted. By international standards, that is not a bad performance. Indeed, such under-coverage would not be a significant problem if it were evenly spread between groups in the population, as those missed could be assumed to share the characteristics of the others, but I believe that particular groups were not fully represented in the results.
In the example of young men in inner London and other cities, as many as 20 per cent. or more were missed, so our first challenge in planning the 2001 census was to ensure that those groups were properly counted. Since 1991, changes to population patterns have added to the difficulties that the ONS faces in compiling accurate census data on them. The size of some groups that are more difficult to count has increased, the number of people living alone and in properties with entryphone or other security controls has increased, which makes establishing contact more difficult, and life styles have become more varied, which makes it difficult to catch people at home.
My hon. Friend helped the census by pointing out many of those difficulties to my predecessor and I thank her for the work that she did to ensure that those groups were properly represented. As she said, the groups that are difficult to count accurately during the census are often those that need particular support from the Government, so under-counting has a disproportionate effect on the resource decisions made on the basis of census data. That is why planning for the 2001 census began with the establishment of a coherent strategy to ensure that those groups were accurately counted, and why the final results presented a representative picture of local and national populations.
The main aims published in the census White Paper in March 1999 were to ensure that the questions asked would provide useful information, to ensure that the results would be of good quality and would be produced according to a sensible timetable, to ensure that the whole
1042
operation was acceptable to the public and to ensure that the census represented value for money. A key priority was to reduce under-counting of particular groups, and to ensure that the results of the census would command the confidence of those who rely on them. That is most critical when the results are used for resource allocation to local authorities and health authorities.
The plans for the 2001 census took on board a range of lessons learned from difficulties encountered in the 1991 census. They also recognised the impact of changes in society and changing needs for information, among Government and others.
The plans for the census were subject to full and open scrutiny before being approved, and were properly developed and funded well in advance. The strategy for the conduct of the census had two main parts. We wanted to ensure that the highest possible enumeration was achieved., paying particular attention to the groups most likely to be under-counted. We also wanted to compensate for any bias by producing a final set of figures giving an accurate picture of the real population in the groups and areas that were under-counted.
Let me explain how we attempted to achieve high returns. For the census in England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics established a range of procedures to ensure good coverage of all members of the population. It was expected that major urban areas, especially in London, would present a major challenge. Areas with high levels of ethnic-minority populations, multi-occupancy accommodation, estates with poor-quality housing or apartments protected by entryphone and other security systems would require particular attention. Arrangements were made to enumerate special population groups including the forces, students, rough sleepers, refugees and asylum seekers. Planning for the census was aimed at ensuring all those groups and areas were properly enumerated, including areas in which there had been significant under-counting in the 1991 census.
The ONS adopted a variety of approaches to overcome specific difficulties. A major initiative was the local community liaison programme, in which the ONS worked with minority groups, charitable organisations and local and health authorities to encourage participation in the census and to help to identify sources of potential field staff. The questions and guidance on the census forms were translated into 24 languages, with a further two, Korean and Tamil, added during the fieldwork period. Interpreters were available to be used where necessary. Census materials were prepared in Braille, in large print and on audio tape. A publicity campaign sought to encourage universal self-inclusion. Publicity was also targeted at sectors of the community in which there had been significant under-enumeration in the 1991 census.
Recruitment for the census aimed to ensure that local people who understood the local area carried out the work. Finding the right number of staff with the right qualities proved particularly tough in some inner-city areas. A number of local authorities, including Westminster city council, gave the ONS a great deal of support to ensure that recruitment was effective.
Once they were recruited, training given to field staff emphasised the importance of making contact with householders. Census enumerators were required to make a number of calls during the census operation in order to make initial contact and to follow up households that had

1043
not responded. At the end of the main enumeration period, there was a further follow-up by team leaders and district managers of households that had still not responded. Enumerators in inner-city areas were given smaller work loads, so that they could spend more time on making contact and returning to households that had not responded. Collection of forms used a team approach that had been shown in tests to improve morale and overall response in hard-to-count areas.
That was the first leg of the strategy. It was designed to target resources on the more difficult areas, in order to increase response and reduce differential under-coverage.
The second part of the strategy was to put in place a robust and accurate method for taking proper account of the people who inevitably were missed and to produce a single set of numbers that everyone could trust. It was critical to produce final figures that were authoritative at local authority level. To ensure that the procedure adopted would command confidence, a steering committee for this part of the project was established, involving academics with international reputations in the field, other experts and representatives of central and local government as well as the census offices.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the census coverage survey was central to this strategy. The survey was conducted immediately after the census. It sought to measure how effectively the census counted households and people by interviewing a cross-section of the population and carefully matching the results from this survey with the census. In England and Wales the survey covered approximately 300,000 households in 20,000 postcodes selected to form a representative sample capable of producing reliable figures for each local authority area. I emphasise that the census coverage survey was broad enough and independent enough to be reliable at individual local authority area level. That was an important feature.
By using the findings of the coverage survey in combination with the findings from the census, the characteristics of those groups that were missed can be imputed and added to the original census database. While small pockets and particular groups of people may have been missed from the original census, the characteristics of the groups from which they are drawn should be covered by the combination of the census and the census coverage survey. It will then be up to the individual local authority to allocate its resources according to its local knowledge and to make up for any small gaps that it thinks may have occurred.
The whole approach was thoroughly tested in a dress rehearsal for the census in 1999, involving some 150,000 households. The areas chosen for the tests included a cross-section of the population and types of housing found in the country as a whole. They included areas with high levels of multi-occupancy, student accommodation, hotels and holiday accommodation, and various ethnic minority groups.
The final element of the strategy involves a series of plausibility checks against other information. For example, by rolling forward the number of births and deaths and adjusting for migration effects it is possible to get a high-level estimate of the numbers in each age group. By looking at the numbers receiving child benefit or retirement pensions it is possible to assess the aggregate numbers and locations of people in each of
1044
these groups. These plausibility checks form part of a comprehensive quality assurance process that has been designed to reflect the inevitable difficulties that would be encountered, especially among hard-to-count groups. Of course, the real test of this two-stage strategy will be how well it works in practice.
The enumeration itself began in April. London was always expected to present particular difficulties in getting a good level of response, and special attention was focused on it during the planning stages. The procedures that were put in place to ensure the best possible response had a significant effect and there have been good reports from across the capital. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised with my predecessor, for example, show the type of situation that arose. Census staff were ready and prepared to follow up concerns so that the job was done as well as possible.
It was inevitable that planning for an operation on the scale and complexity of the census would not cover all the circumstances that could arise, but throughout the census period ONS sought to respond to issues of concern as they emerged.
I note my hon. Friend's point on the census helpline. It was planned to cope with a threefold increase in calls compared with 1991, but the interest was such that 250,000 calls were received on just one day in the week before the census—as many as were received during the entire period last time. ONS installed large numbers of extra lines within 48 hours and the service was improved.
An additional factor was that in this census the public were asked to post their forms back as soon as possible after the census day on 29 April. There was an extremely high return of forms, which the ONS estimates as being close to 90 per cent. of the forms delivered.
Ms Buck: Although I accept the point that the helpline was improved, on a number of occasions people left messages or made contact saying that they had not received a return call, or said that it had taken many, many calls to secure information. I do not expect an immediate answer, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could let me know what monitoring was carried out of the information received through the helpline, so that we can establish why some cases were not followed up promptly and accurately and forms were not despatched.
Ruth Kelly: Of course, I shall take note of the points made by my hon. Friend. I can assure her that I shall look into that issue and reply to her.
As I was saying, there was an extremely high return of forms—about 90 per cent. of the forms delivered. Field staff returned to households, as planned, to retrieve forms that were not returned by post. The ONS estimates that 95 per cent. of all forms are now back and that most of the remaining 5 per cent. relate to vacant addresses.
Following the census, the census coverage survey took place between 24 May and 17 June. The outcome was better than the rehearsal, with a national response rate of more than 90 per cent. The exact figure for the number of people counted in the 2001 census will be available in August 2002, when information from the census forms, the enumerators' books and the results of the census

1045
coverage survey will have been analysed. The ONS is confident that the overall response will be as high, if not higher, than in 1991.
When the results of the census and the census coverage survey have been analysed there will be a set of figures for each local authority area that will be comparable and consistent. Any under-counting of particular groups will have been kept as low as possible and, where it exists,
1046
will have been taken into account in the final results. Despite the best endeavours of all, some people will have been missed, but the strategy is designed to ensure that they will not lose out in resource allocation.
I believe that the census will meet its objectives and that local authorities, including Westminster, will not lose out when the final count is in and the strategy as a whole bears fruit.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Organic Farming
[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Agriculture Committee Session 2000–01 HC 149–1 and the Government's response thereto HC 410.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Angela Smith.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Curry: I am delighted that the report by the Select Committee on Agriculture is the first to be selected for debate in the new Session of Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is beginning to know the architecture of the Room quite well—no doubt he will know it even better by the end of the debate.
As there is a debate on agriculture in the House, I am sure that you will understand Madam Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members pay some attention to that as well as to this debate, particularly given recent cases of serious foot and mouth disease in our constituencies, which is clearly a major preoccupation. As Shakespeare might have put it, there are also things happening in another part of the Palace.
The Agriculture Committee report was preceded by bovine spongiform encephalopathy and followed by foot and mouth disease. In the light of two such terrible experiences, there has been a lot of reflection about the nature and the direction of modern farming, some of which has been fairly far-fetched, some more realistic. People have occasionally forgotten that European policy remains the main framework for agriculture, and have spoken as if there is enormous national discretion. Devolution will, I suspect, give more national discretion within the framework of the common agricultural policy, as consumers in different countries react differently to their priorities. BSE will probably be more of a determining factor in the long-term shaping of agricultural policy than foot and mouth disease, because it is more clearly associated with problems of food as opposed to problems of farming, and has had a wider effect in the European Union.
There has been general reflection on modern farming and on the mechanisms and direction of support. Over the past 10 years or so, there have been attempts to introduce more environmental elements into farming—the countryside stewardship scheme, for example, has been expanded by the Minister, but it originated under the previous Government. There have also been attempts to crystallise the value and the product that we want from farming. Elements remain of a policy that is driving output up while trying to get other assets out of the system. The relationship between agriculture and the environment has again been brought into focus, above all as regards the demands and aversions of the consumer. The supermarket has done more to change agricultural policy than all the politicians of Europe put together. A consumer-led policy is both likely and desirable.
316WH
The Agriculture Committee looked at organic farming not unsympathetically, but in a fairly hardheaded and unsentimental way. Most of us were sympathetic to those who were pushing towards organic farming and who will be the pace makers. We felt that we should look at organic farming increasingly as a business, rather than as a religion. It was understandable that organic farming in its early stage was evangelised. I have no objection to people who wish to cast their farming experience in that light. The Committee felt, however, that as organic farming becomes more and more a part of mainstream agriculture, evangelism should be supplanted by marketing. It felt that as organic farming became an increasingly mature part of the agricultural economy, it should be based on sustainable economics as well as being ecologically sustainable. No matter how many other claims are made, organic farming cannot be sustained if there is no marketplace.
We recognised that there is a temptation to categorise different agricultural systems in language that is too clear cut and exclusive, as if each sort of agriculture had exclusive attributes that were not shared by any other system. Practical experience on the ground suggests that the opposite is true. "Conventional" farming can be very environmentally friendly, and organic farming can be very intensive. Integrated farming—in a sense, a minimum input system—can be highly profitable. No system trails behind it exclusive attributes. We felt that a great deal was happening in so-called conventional farming that was moving it towards greater sustainability, just as organic farming has moved out of the "three acres and a cow" period of its development and is becoming a more mainstream part of production.
We recognised that some claims for organic production, including that it has health benefits, could not be scientifically proven. However, we felt that the claim that organic production was environmentally friendly was the easiest to maintain, even if the categorical scientific evidence did not support it.
Our belief in the need for sustainable systems led us to a set of assertions. There is a need to recognise the danger that farmers may convert to organic production because of financial inducement and not because a marketplace has been identified. We all know that agriculture has suffered very difficult economic conditions and that farmers have been desperate to find a way to maintain their businesses. Inevitably, some will look towards organic farming as an escape from the financial imprisonment of present economic circumstances. We wanted to ensure that those who did convert had drawn up their business plans, were confident that they could sustain them and would not abandon them if economic circumstances became more favourable in broadly conventional farming.
We expressed a distaste for setting targets for organic production, which we felt could lead to distortions and prescriptions. Nevertheless, one should be aware of erecting a counter-CAP that, in practice, depends on the same mechanisms as the CAP.
Mr. Mark Todd: The Select Committee found interesting evidence that the organic movement itself is far from united on the idea of targets for organic farming. Much of the organic movement

317WH
expressed considerable doubts, as did a substantial part of the retail sector. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Curry: That is true. A few days ago, I discovered, somewhat to my alarm, that I had drawn fifth place in the private Members' ballot. I immediately demanded a recount, but that made no difference. I have since been inundated with demands that I put forward an organic targets Bill. I do not want to make a public announcement that would disappoint many people, although it would have the effect, I hope, of clearing the e-mail on my computer. I am, however, sorry to say that I am not disposed to put forward that Bill. I may, inescapably, have to espouse many other meritorious causes because of the error of listening to the Whips and signing for the blessed thing in the first place.
We question whether a buoyant market sector needs conversion grants. A Select Committee must sometimes question basic assumptions, one of which is that organic farming is increasing. Everyone told us that there was increasing demand for organic products, that supermarkets could not get enough of them and that we spent too much on organic imports. If that is the case, would the public subsidise the opposite of market failure: market success? At the end of the day, we thought that there was a case for Government support, if it were directed at clear market opportunities and given on the basis of clear measurable objectives. We certainly thought that supermarkets had a role in procuring supplies, but doubted whether the public purse was required to subsidise the commercial activities of major supermarket groups.
Mr. Todd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a strand of policy that one would like to see developed is supermarkets sharing the cost of conversion for organic farmers? After all, they are recruiting people to supply their customers. Simply turning to the state for automatic support would seem inappropriate when we seek a market-led solution.
Mr. Curry: We agree, which is why we decided that we should examine that proposition. It is true that the supermarkets are important forces in determining consumer preference. They respond quickly to consumer taste; the whole experience with genetically modified crops demonstrated the speed with which they react to consumer sensitivities. We thought that, if they are anxious to procure more organic product, they should play a part in commissioning it. Such relationships between the farmer and the retailer are necessary and helpful throughout the food chain. In the agricultural sector there is too great a tendency to regard the supermarkets as ogreish enemies. Some very senior people in the Government have occasionally succumbed to the temptation to subscribe to that thesis.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Why should British supermarkets become involved in that exercise, perhaps to the extent of subsidising a British farmer, if they can import organic food from other countries that has been subsidised by the Governments of those countries?
Mr. Curry: There are two reasons why. First, the supermarkets believe that there is an argument for
318WH
security of supply. Secondly, the consumer demands reassurance about origin and quality. One of the things that concerned us while compiling the report was the variety of certification procedures. We were concerned about how the consumer could be assured that the stated quality was genuine in cases of procurement from a diverse range of countries.
Mr. Michael Weir: Farmers say to me that they are under extreme pressure in dealing with the supermarkets, particularly on price and quality of goods. If the supermarkets were to become too involved in organic production, would not the suppliers suffer quickly due to the disappearance of an organic premium from the supermarkets? Moreover, the supermarkets tend to demand uniform produce. Could that be supplied at reasonable costs through an organic production scheme?
Mr. Curry: We must be careful about the notion of an organic premium. Organic products have a price, as do so-called conventional products. We would all like the price for conventional products to be better. For example, the price of milk has been low for a long time and that has caused serious difficulties to milk producers. Organic milk is probably fetching about 30p or 31p a litre for farmers. That is a good 10p to 12p above the price of other milk. I would not object if dairy farmers—those who are left—were getting 24p a litre for their milk. That may influence some who would otherwise convert to organic production, but I am concerned that farmers should undertake those activities for which there is a market so that they can sustain their production at a profitable level.
The role of the supermarkets is to offer an assurance of outlet in return for an assurance of supply. We have seen that increasing significantly. It may be that, as part of the aftermath of foot and mouth disease, we will have to look at the future of the live auction marts, which will be one of the inescapable issues that emerges from the experience of the disease. Long-term contracting between supermarkets and producers may become more common, and we may see a more broadly established pattern of interdependence between those two parts of agriculture, which would be helpful.
Mr. Weir: Is that not part of the problem? Farmers tell me that long-term contracts mean that the supermarkets can put too much pressure on them. If markets change, the supermarkets press down the price as art insurance of supply. That is one of the problems of long-term financing for conventional farmers at the moment, and I am worried that if we go down that route, those problems might extend to the organic sector.
Mr. Curry: We have to decide that the organic sector will either remain a boutique sector of agriculture that has a completely separate pricing structure, or become more mainstream. Iceland Frozen Foods tried to introduce organic produce at a conventional price. That was a mistake, because the public wanted a choice. Iceland fell on its face because the public did not wish to have that choice made for them. It is inescapable that supermarkets' contracts will not specify a constant price; price will vary according to demand and economic

319WH
conditions. However, an assurance of quality supplies can be much more long term, which would benefit the sector.
Mr. Todd: One way to correct the market imbalance to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is to use cooperatives to bring together farmers' interests to support a particular objective. That idea is well developed in the organic sector. The Agriculture Committee heard evidence of both successful processing co-operative activity and successful farming cooperation, particularly in the dairy sector.
Mr. Curry: That is certainly the case. A totally fragmented farming sector does not need to face that great corporate power, the supermarket. That would be possible if farmers were more organised and could more effectively deliver the quantity of supplies required. Moreover, supermarkets would probably support the idea. We should encourage the co-operative movement in agriculture, which is more developed on the continent than in the United Kingdom. Great benefits would accrue from that, not least that the co-operatives could manage some of the schemes themselves—a proper form of devolution.
We recommended that the Government devise proposals for an organic stewardship scheme as the centrepiece of their review of organic farming support, which forms part of the 2003 review of the English rural development programme. That would enable farmers to receive payments that recognise the benefits that they bring to the environment, which is relevant. However, the stewardship scheme would also mean that all the various schemes could be integrated more easily. Farmers could be monitored for stewardship, for adhering to various support schemes and for their organic qualifications in the same inspections.
The organic stewardship scheme is commendable and is becoming one of the Government's flagship programmes. I commend the recent trials to try to get more benefit out of some of the arable areas and to develop the environmental experience. That development has been extremely positive, and I am glad that the Minister plans to expand that, although I have no doubt that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will describe it as being "rolled out". Everything appears to be "rolled out" these days. I have noticed that even seminars on the aftermath of foot and mouth disease will be "rolled out" by Lord Whitty, which makes the mind boggle. "Rolling out" is clearly part of the Government's modern jargon, about which an article will no doubt appear at some stage.
I look forward to the expansion of those programmes. It makes sense to bring the various schemes within as limited a framework as possible, provided that administrative convenience does not overtake the need to ensure that local particularities and conditions are recognised.
We were concerned about a number of certifying bodies and the different standards that they set. We recommended that the Government ensure that standard-setting procedures in the organic sector were harmonious and rigorous, and that the Government encourage a streamlining of certification and inspection processes. At first, we were tempted to say, "These
320WH
schemes are barmy. Why don't we tell the Government that there should be fewer of them?" However, the sensible thing was not to question the number of schemes, but to ensure that we understood what they told us and that they served a purpose. Organic farming is essentially a process. Certification involves certifying that process, not its output. Therefore, it is a guarantee not of qualitative objectives, but of a process. There can be a number of schemes as long as people are clear about what they stand for and the differences between them. We should not be tempted by the administrative convenience of the elimination of schemes.
Clear information for the consumer is what is important. The qualities that the consumer may attribute to organic production may be different to the quality that is certified. As I said, certification relates to process. A consumer may attribute all sorts of things to a product: he or she may think that the food tastes better, is healthier or is environmentally friendly. Some of those attributes may be true, but we have no scientific basis on which to assess those claims, although we may eventually be able to do so. It is important that the information that arises from certification be made available to the consumer. The consumer may attribute other properties to organic food but that is a matter for his or her perception.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned heavy dependence on imports. It is important that consumers are not led to believe that organic products guarantee absolutes—of environment, husbandry or quality—wherever they may come from. We must be vigilant and ensure that products from Mexico or Paraguay are subjected to the same rigorous examination of their use of the word "organic" as those from Shropshire or Worcestershire.
The report made a common-sense contribution to the debate on organic food. It was well timed. The sector began as a small, peasant—I use the word in its continental, non-pejorative sense—industry, delivering to the same market as do the French with their designated products of local origin. Business grew rapidly, and the sector gained a larger market share, serving considerable consumer demand. It was sensible to write a report that treated organic farming as an important economic sector that would be significant in the future, rather than as a picturesque element of agriculture.
We wish to support and promote organic farming to aid diversity in agriculture, for its qualities and for the choice it provides to the consumer. Organic farming shows that innovation is important to the mechanisms of agriculture, and will increasingly be a hallmark of policy in the aftermath of the diseases that we have mentioned. We commend the report to the Government and are pleased to find that they broadly support our views.
2.51 pm
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the Select Committee and its Chairman on the report, which is timely. His presentation has been interesting.
There was some consensus on what was said and given as evidence. The Government have responded positively to many of the report's recommendations. As the Labour party frequently says, a lot has been done

321WH
but there is much more to do. I refer primarily to recommendations 23 to 37, based on paragraphs 69 to 91.
I take issue with the opening paragraphs of the report. Paragraph 5 states:
"We have seen no evidence to enable us to state unequivocally that any of these claims are always and invariably true."
The report attempts to apply stricter criteria to the sector than to others. Tests such as that one at the beginning of the report are detrimental to the rest of the document, which is written more moderately.
It is over the top to characterise the organic industry as messianic. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to religious fervour, and said that he did not mind too much about that. The hard-nosed men and women of the marketing teams at Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Tesco would not say that they were messianic. However, I can understand such passion from the farmers themselves, who may feel that they have something wonderful to offer in a sector where there has been so much distress and despair.
We should bear it in mind that the organic sector delivers on all the major United Kingdom agriculture policy objectives outlined by the Government. Those include greatly reduced use of pesticides and veterinary medicines in food production; greatly reduced environmental pollution; and protecting the UK's soil and water resources. There is evidence that organic farming offers improved food quality and safety, high standards of animal welfare, rural regeneration, including increased rural employment, reduced cost to the state of agricultural support through market contribution, and a market-oriented farming system.
Mr. Todd: Has my hon. Friend seen evidence that casts doubt on the points that were made about veterinary medicines? The worry is that, in certain sectors and particularly in upland areas, the controls for which the organic sector is looking might not benefit animal welfare.
Joan Ruddock: There are some differences, and I am aware of such evidence. However, other reports make it clear that there are real benefits, as I said at the outset. The temptation is to say that the organic sector must be perfect, otherwise we cannot support it. Of course, not everything is perfect, but there is much that is problematic in the conventional farming sector. When considering the balance in such matters, we should recognise that organic farming is ahead.
The evidence in respect of organic farming is growing. I doubt whether any hon. Member present would disagree with its biodiversity benefits, and good data are already emerging from other European countries. Last year's review of European Community literature made it clear that organic farming brings benefits in terms of not only biodiversity but nitrate leeching: compared with conventional farming, nitrate leeching is 40 to 57 per cent. lower per hectare, and CO2 production is 40 to 60 per cent. lower. In the light of such evidence, we should be careful not to apply tests that are so difficult that the sector is given less recognition than it properly deserves.
322WH
There is evidence that the health benefits are becoming clearer. The Soil Association will shortly publish a new review of a small number of valid comparisons of organic and non-organic food, suggesting that, on average, there are nutritional and health benefits in consuming organic food. However, I wholly acknowledge that, as the Select Committee said, there is a need for much more research in this area. Let us get on with it, ensure that the Government listen to the report and that such research is undertaken.
Currently, only about 2 per cent. of agricultural research funds, which total more than f100 million, is invested in the organic farming sector. That is not good enough. It is far less than the organic sector's projected share of United Kingdom agriculture, which, as the Government acknowledge, could be as much as 6 per cent. by 2006.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I hope to deal with that point in more detail in my reply, but as one is always pressed for time I should perhaps emphasise now that it is a mistake to regard the percentage of research and development devoted to the organic sector as 2 per cent. of the total budget. We are paying for an enormous range of research and development that directly benefits the organic sector. The benefit to it is much greater than the 2 per cent figure suggests.
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I look forward to further discussions with him on the subject. Despite what he says, those of us who argue with some enthusiasm for the organic sector believe that there is much to be gained from it. However, the Government and the Select Committee say that the current evidence is not clear. If so, we need to get clear evidence. If necessary, more money must be put into the pot so that research can be done. The questions can be answered, and they need to be answered urgently.
There is no doubt that, in the wake of the successive crises in United Kingdom agriculture to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has already alluded, public and political support for the development of organic fanning and food is very high. According to an NOP poll conducted in March, 86 per cent. of the public feel that the Government should be doing more to develop the sector in the United Kingdom. Two thirds of the public would like 10 per cent. of the country's farming to be organic—greater than the Government's target for organic agriculture—and more than half of the public would like that figure to be more than 30 per cent.
Mr. Todd: I share many of my hon. Friend's views and agree entirely with the content of the report. However, bearing in mind the figures that she has quoted, can she explain the difficulties that Iceland Frozen Foods had in converting wholesale to organic food, and in persuading its customers to accept that change? She implies that there is widespread, committed and money-led enthusiasm for organic produce.
Joan Ruddock: Iceland Frozen Foods may be a special case because of the particular market with which it deals. Some of us, although greatly approving of its

323WH
desire to promote organic farming, felt that to offer all the organic produce as frozen food was not entirely consistent with the philosophy of many of us who want fresh, quality food.
Iceland Frozen Foods was dealing with a special market. In other retail outlets, demand cannot be met. Imports have risen from 70 to 75 per cent. during the past year, and there is considerable growth in the market for organic foods. Iceland Frozen Foods cannot be the yardstick by which we measure public desire for organic produce. Fresh organic produce is tremendously popular and there are shortages of it. I try to buy only organic food. On many occasions, I have been unable to get the food that I required from local supermarkets.
There is both public and political support for organic farming. I cannot participate in the debate without mentioning the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, given that I first presented it to Parliament. I must tell the Chamber that the early-day motion tabled in support of that Bill was the second most popular early-day motion during the previous Parliament: it was signed by 268 MPs, representing all parties in the House. Despite what has been said, targets represent an argument for significant growth in the organic sector, and there is a lot of public and political support for that.
Since the Select Committee report was compiled, my hon. Friend the Minister has signed the Copenhagen declaration calling for a Europe-wide effort to develop organic farming. There is huge impetus behind growth in the sector.
The Select Committee made some specific and constructive recommendations, primarily in paragraphs 69 to 91 of its report. It recommends
"that the Government devise proposals for an organic stewardship scheme as the centrepiece of its review of organic farming support."
That would be tremendously welcome. Nearly all other European Union countries provide on-going payments for organic farming after conversion. Those who have embarked on such enterprises gave consistent evidence that there was a need for continuing support. Given the huge benefits for the public domain of organic farming—they range from the reduction in pesticide run-off into water supplies to environmental and biodiversity benefits—there is every reason why proper public support for the sector should be extended beyond simple conversion.
Mr. Michael Jack: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Why was it appropriate for the organic sector to embrace the use of copper sulphate as a treatment for disease—for example, blight in potato crops—when that substance is known to be one of the most toxic available?
Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman will know that copper sulphate is being phased out, and his point is not relevant to my argument for continuing support through organic stewardship payments. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response on that issue.
Mr. Todd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Joan Ruddock: I give way. I seem to have become the target of every member of the Select Committee.
Mr. Todd: At least those who are not prepared to write a speech for themselves.
324WH
Another idea that the Committee entertained, at my suggestion, was that water companies should give a commitment to reduce charges to organic farmers who are able to demonstrate that, by their particular form of cultivation, they are reducing the amount of pesticides and other pollutants going into the water system. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sort of continuing support?
Joan Ruddock: I concur with that imaginative proposal, which is clearly linked to public benefit. [Interruption.] The Minister is asking for my constituency: it is Lewisham, Deptford.
The Select Committee made several positive recommendations, including the proposal that the Government should consider increasing their R and D budget. The Minister has alluded to that, and I hope that we shall hear more good news when he winds up the debate. The Select Committee also recommended that the Government scrutinise the organic supply chain for bottlenecks and imbalances and devise ways to remedy them; that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now DEFRA—review the conversion costs and aid rates of the different sectors and consider targeting aid at the sectors that were lagging; that the advice to producers be reviewed to ensure that it was adequate; and that the Government ensure that rural development plans are channelled into organic marketing and training initiatives. Those proposals are much to be applauded. It is intriguing that when they are put together, they begin to look like the basis of a strategy, yet we do not have such a strategy from the Government. That may be a failure of the report and—although I hope that officials may be working on it—of Government policy.
Despite everything that has been said about targets, they are a means of focusing the attention of a variety of sectors and operators—Government, farmers, whoever—so that it is possible to pull together and to define clear policy aims. It is no coincidence that the four countries in Europe with the highest levels of organic farming—Denmark, Austria, Finland and Sweden—have all adopted targets for the sector. That is significant. Whether we should accept targets is another matter, but it has concentrated minds elsewhere. We need a coherent strategy, which is lacking.
Help is on the way. The Soil Association has been working in the broad coalition that brought together the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill and plans shortly to produce an outline organic action plan, which I am sure the Minister looks forward to with great enthusiasm. It will argue that six areas—information, the supply chain, market development, financial support for production, standards and social and institutional issues—must be dealt with simultaneously to bring about a co-ordinated approach to driving forward the sector. That is vital, because there is huge potential there.
My final point—it may have been mentioned in the report, but I could not find it—concerns the Government's public purchasing strategy. The Government are currently greening public purchasing policy, but I do not think that they have yet addressed public purchasing policy in the catering sector. The European Commission has clarified that it is legal for public bodies to specify organic food in their contracts.

325WH
The Government may find through their research, or by reviewing the research of others that health benefits exist. I hope that the Government will consider whether there is a role for specifying some organic content in our public purchasing policies: for example, organic fruit to schoolchildren. That would respond to public demand and assist the market; I believe that there needs to be a market-led approach to the sector.
The public benefits are such that there should be continuing and increased Government support for many of the proposals in the Select Committee report. I hope that the Minister will give us more comfort in his winding-up speech, so that those of us who are enthusiastic about the sector can continue to express our enthusiasm in the House.
3.11 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) because, last year, I also followed her in promoting the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill. I shall say something about the targets issue, but I hope to get away from that because it is rather narrow. Although I agree with the hon. Lady that many countries have found targets a useful tool, targets are not the only way forward. We must recognise that.
It is true that we have a target in this country. We now seem to live in a prime ministerial or presidential country. On 1 February, the Prime Minister went to the National Farmers Union and committed the Government to a target of trebling the amount of organic food produced in this country by 2006. I do not know if the target was for the beginning or end of 2006, but it has been set. I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister is attending this debate; he has a long-standing commitment to helping the sector, which he has displayed in opposition and in office. Such commitment is not maintained by everyone who is transferred from one to the other. I congratulate him on that.
I agree with much in the Select Committee report, but I want to identify one or two issues on which I think it is lacking. That is meant as no disrespect to the Select Committee—or to Committee members present—as I think that it has done a wonderful job. I pay tribute to it and particularly to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who led it so effectively. I hope that he will not suffer at the hands of those nameless people in the usual channels who are doing such dirty work at the crossroads at the moment.
The issue of trade imbalance, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford referred, is important. Although I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, I do not think that the Select Committee gave the issue sufficient attention. With organic food, as with everything, the proof or the pudding is in the eating. We have had an increase in expenditure and research, but we have not increased the percentage of organic food from home-grown producers that reaches the shelves of supermarkets and other shops. Quite the opposite has happened, as three quarters of the organic food that is produced for the very demanding consumer now comes from abroad. Indeed, the import figure has increased from 70 per cent., when I was promoting the Bill, to 75 per cent. now.
326WH
There is something basically, intrinsically and philosophically mad about bringing organic food across the world to our shores when so much can be produced in our own climate and soil by our own skilled farmers and market gardeners using their excellent farming practices. Perhaps too much attention has been paid to the agriculture sector and not enough to the horticulture sector. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will agree that there is probably greater scope for expansion, and for rapid expansion, in the horticulture sector than there is in agriculture. I therefore hope that more attention will be paid to horticulture.
Mr. Colin Breed: Does my hon. Friend accept that the climate change levy may be restricting organic production in horticulture?
Mr. Tyler: I think that it is and that we shall encounter consequent difficulties. Although many market gardeners can operate competitively now that our climate is, supposedly, warming up, there are others who will find the going extremely difficult. That will be a problem if—as seems still to be the case even within the European Union-other countries are enabling their horticultural sectors to compete more effectively on cost, particularly on energy cost.
Although the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about trying to sustain the level of certification and public confidence in the criteria that we are applying are, of course, perfectly true, we can be confident that there are standard certification levels within the European Union. What there are not are standard levels of support, and that is something that must concentrate our minds.
I hope that the Minister will respond to this point when he replies to the debate. Despite the Copenhagen declaration, we cannot claim to have harmonised the support that we provide with the best-practice support provided to the organic sector in other EU member states. That is critical because we shall not make progress until our main European Union competitors are unable to undercut us with the supermarkets. If supermarkets do not have an assurance, which they can pass on to their consumers, that they can obtain products with certainty and confidence at a subsidised price, they will surely continue to buy from abroad, especially within the European Union, rather than buying from British producers. That is the central point, which brings us to the nature of the support that we shall give.
I welcome the consensus which seems to be developing that the way forward is an organic stewardship scheme. The Select Committee recommended such a scheme, and the Government have made encouraging noises about the operation of one. I am sure that that is a good way forward as the issue is not only about product, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, but about process and continuing process. It is about ensuring that the way in which food is produced meets certain standards, so that those standards can be maintained in the longer term. We do not want a hit and run arrangement, trying to take advantage of a quick conversion, that we would slide out of when market conditions change.

327WH
It is important and helpful that we are moving towards such a scheme, which I hope will be linked to some form of targeting. I do not care how that is done, but as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said—she has argued this case eloquently both in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House—we must establish a competitive framework so that those who want to go into the sector know that there is a long-term advantage in doing so. Farmers in their current state will not have the confidence to enter the sector. They certainly will not have the deep pockets to do so, and they will be unable to persuade their bankers to help them unless there is a long-term commitment.
I agree with much of what has already been said, but I should like to touch on a couple of other issues. I am unconvinced by the argument that the research budget is relevant to the organic sector. It is unnecessary to increase the budget, which is, after all, very small. We know from other walks of life that if it is left to the market to determine where research should take place, research will be undertaken by organisations with deep pockets rather than on behalf of the consumer or the public purse.
Under the Thatcher regime, the Government pulled back from near-market research. That was a mistaken policy. Indeed, there would be a different attitude to many current food and farming issues if the position had not been changed. It provides a classic example of why it is sometimes better to maintain a public interest in research, rather than to leave it to the vagaries of the free market. Supermarkets should not be allowed to determine on their own the sources of their organic food supplies. If we allow them to do so, British farmers and consumers will suffer. That is why the research and development budget is so important.
Finally, I turn to the issue of consumer reaction. When I was promoting my Bill, I was amazed at the extent of public interest in the matter. The amount of coverage that the subject receives in the press and the broadcast media shows that there is huge public interest in where food comes from. That is the sole encouraging consequence of the BSE and foot and mouth disasters. Who is most sensitive to that public interest? The answer to that question is not, I fear, Members of Parliament, let alone Ministers. Retailers are most sensitive to the public's interest in that matter, and they rapidly responded to it. However, they responded not by trying to improve the standard of British produce, but by sourcing their produce from abroad. They did that for a variety of reasons, many of which have been mentioned.
The Government have a responsibility, particularly in the aftermath of the BSE and foot and mouth crises, to try to ensure that the important interests of consumers and of primary producers in horticulture and agriculture hold sway over those of the huge international and multinational giants of food processing and retailing. I do not believe that it is at all inevitable that those giants will deliver the goods to the people of our country.
Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I am about to finish my speech.
As the newly re-elected Government are so focused on delivery, I hope that they will consider delivering to consumers, who want better, British organic products on their shelves.
3.21 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and also my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who convinced me of the benefits of the Organic Targets Bill—but I shall say no more about that, as there were jousts among various Committee members, and although I was in the minority I tried to fight my corner, and shall continue to do so.
I welcome the Minister to his new position. I am unsure whether there is a term for someone who has spent four years as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—although someone has just suggested that purgatory might be an appropriate word. The Minister now represents the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am sure that he will listen to everyone who has agricultural interests, and I am certain that we will have plenty of opportunity to continue to discuss agricultural matters.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who chaired the late lamented Agriculture Committee. I am sure that he will return in a different guise, and that there will be many further opportunities for us to discuss food, farming and related matters, now that there is a truly integrated Department.
I also wish to mention our former clerk, Lynn Gardiner, and Dr. George Turner, the former Member for North-West Norfolk, who was not returned to Parliament. He worked hard on the matter under discussion, and it is surely not beyond the rhyme and reason of the way that Parliament works to ensure that a copy of our proceedings is sent to him, and that mention is made of his excellent work.
Initially, it appeared that the debate would not be well attended, but I am pleased that so many hon. Members are present—especially because the issue that we are discussing is of considerable importance.
I will concentrate on a number of points that directly follow on from the comments that were made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Unless my eyesight betrayed me on Monday night, I noticed that he attended the public meeting that I went to at Conway hall in Holborn. It was a packed meeting on food policy, although it approached the subject from a wider perspective than the present debate, as the politics and policies relating to food in the context of globalisation were discussed.
At the meeting, we listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), Tim Lang and a number of other people, who put into perspective what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said. This is politics in the raw—people are interested in food. They have always been interested in food, but they are now much more interested in how food is produced and distributed and make their decisions accordingly. I am sure that that interest will grow. I hope that it will be reflected in the new Select Committee and in Government policy.

329WH
The report is a good one. It is easy to consider the issues to which it did not refer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford rightly picked us up on the sourcing through the public sector. We should perhaps have dealt with that matter. However, I think that the report does all the things that a good Select Committee report should do: it covers the ground, enhances the debate and draws on a lot of evidence, and it gave members of the Committee the opportunity to see, as well as to hear about, what is happening out there. It is generally objective, and the recommendations have met with a good deal of interest and elicited a positive response from direct stakeholders such as retailers and producers, and from the general public.
Organic farming not only affects health and environment but has a major impact on rural areas. Building a more sustainable agricultural system will have more impact than anything else on our rural areas. That is why the new Select Committee can help to regenerate rural areas.
Hon. Members have not spoken much about how we can remove some of the bottlenecks in the system. Several sections in the report highlight how we need to ensure that we help the production process as much as possible, rather than putting barriers in its way. We are, as always, indebted to the Soil Association for enabling us to put into context the distance we need to cover, and whether we should support the Organic Targets Bill. It is fair to say that the amount of organic production in this country is far too low. About 3 per cent. of United Kingdom farm land is allocated to organic produce, of which only 1 per cent. is actually certified. We have heard some of the arguments about the definition of "organic".
We need to do more, but at least the consumer is turned on to the issue. We know that from what people are buying and from the polling evidence, which is not always as inaccurate as some people would have us believe. Most people would want to buy organic as long as it is available, it is priced reasonably and they can trust that it is genuinely organic and produced in a humane way that conforms to the consumer welfare standards that they expect.
Mr. Todd: Although I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said, I draw attention to the Iceland argument in the intervention I made on—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I am partially deaf, but I have just checked with the Clerk, and he cannot hear either. Will hon. Members please speak up a little so that we can hear?
Mr. Todd: Perhaps it was something to do with the microphone. I will stand a little closer to it. I am sorry for that.
I was going to say that some members of the Select Committee were troubled by the implications for poorer consumers of the price increases that a wholesale shift to organic farming might cause, and I would welcome my hon. Friend's thoughts on that.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend and shall likewise try to speak up. He raises a fair point. I remember
330WH
having a debate in this Chamber on food policy, and I want us to move towards a genuine food policy, not simply an organic food policy. If we are genuinely to tackle food poverty, we must deal with those who do not have the means to ensure that they get quality food. That is a fair and important issue to raise at this point.
I said that I wanted to speak about the Organic Targets Bill—not in order to reopen old sores, but to deal with a misunderstanding. It is not simply the target that is important, but the planning behind it. It was good that the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accepted that point in his speech to the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester, and we must not lose sight of it. If we can get the action plan right, the target becomes much less important. I hope that those involved in writing the original Select Committee report and other hon. Members here today accept that.
We have alluded to other important matters, but we could make more of them. One such issue is the support that needs to be forthcoming for organic farmers. I totally support the emphasis on moving towards an organic stewardship scheme, but again the issue is how we get there. We are fooling ourselves if we think that that will happen overnight—a great deal of work needs to be put in, which goes back to the issue of planning.
I want to consider a few issues that link into support for organic farmers. This is more of a personal reflection on the needs of farmers who have converted, who are in the process of converting or who, more particularly, are worried about what would be involved and have held back from converting. There is clearly a need for advice and education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford touched on that in respect of academic support, but training must also be important.
The conversion process in this country is still very difficult—let us not misunderstand that. People are taking a risk and might go without income for a time. We all know that the scheme has been bedevilled by the fact that it has been something of a stop-go process. There is much more demand to convert than we have been able to deliver. Perhaps the situation is as it should be, and people are truly tested. Regardless of whether one believes that we are talking about a philosophical conversion as much as a practical one—I do not want to go into that too much, because it was well covered in the House of Lords report on the subject—one needs to lock into place the way in which people will be subsidised for a time. The issue is not only how they will forgo income in the short run, but what guarantees they will need subsequently: it is all about market openings and what comes with them.
Of all the members of the Select Committee, I was, in many respects, the most scathing about the Iceland conversion, and we need to learn some lessons from it. Iceland was incredibly naive in thinking that people were locked into such a market opportunity and that the company was shooting at an open goal. As some of us tried to tell Iceland, it proved not to be as easy as that. I should hope that the organic movement could learn from it, without being too despondent. The organisation was naive and a little flip in trying to score such a goal. I am more persuaded by the approach taken by Sainsbury's, in studying the subject overall, in a more considered and practical manner.

331WH
Sometimes we consider the different sectors—milk, meat, fruit and vegetables, eggs, arable and the processed sector—as though they are all parts of a great organic movement. We must understand that those sectors have different needs and that the help that they need, from the Government and other sources, will vary. Their needs will change and evolve in various ways. The report covered that issue well, and perhaps it has not been discussed as much as it might have been.
I am still confused, even though I sat in on the evidence, about the issue of regulation, certification and standard setting. We put our finger on an important point in finding that the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards is rather underpowered. That needs to be sorted out urgently and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what is happening about the UKROFS review. I know that the quinquennial review is under way and an update would be valuable. We all wanted clarification.
There is confusion about who is setting standards and how much standards differ. That is a problem both nationally and internationally. The report is encouraging about the idea that countries exporting to this country should sign up to the standards of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Some hon. Members would no doubt consider those standards in need of tightening, so that people buying organic food of UK origin or from abroad could be sure of the standards being applied. Confusion and conflict between different organisations was evident. There was majority agreement and I did not push the matter, but despite our belief that there was value in the present diversity and competition, there was a need for clarification for consumers. I hope that that will he forthcoming.
There is a relationship between organic and other forms of agriculture. It is wrong to see organic agriculture as in direct conflict and competition with conventional farming. I know that conventional farmers sometimes get upset at some of the statements of the organic movement, and I shall tread gingerly into that area. There is clearly a role for conventional farming. With the best of intentions, if we reached our 30 per cent. target that would still leave 70 per cent. doing other things. We must keep reminding ourselves of that.
The sector is important, but it is not the whole of agriculture. Some hon. Members were quite taken by the integrated management systems at the Co-operative Wholesale Society farm at Stoughton. That approach may have lessons for the organic movement as well as the conventional movement about ways of improving food production and, by research and efficient organisation, ensuring appropriate agricultural progress. We must decide on some priorities about what was learned in preparing the Select Committee report.
There are degrees of purity within the organic movement. I have tried to explain the biodynamic movement, and if the explanation is wrong, that is my fault, because they are my own words. There is a biodynamic farm in my constituency, Kolisko, at Brookthorpe, just outside Stroud, and I am firmly persuaded that the people involved have a role to play in the wider organic movement. Long may that continue.
332WH
A disillusioning fact that came home to us—as has already been made clear—is that a lot of people tend to buy organic food because they have the notion that it is wholesome and local. I shall not address the issue of wholesomeness, but much organic food is certainly not local. It might well be imported. Most people seem to want us to pursue the idea of sourcing produce locally. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us how we are helping the organic movement to re-establish local access? It can be done through farmers markets, which have taken off strongly. That is mentioned in the report, and is always referred to as one of the great successes of the Government: we have set up a new structure enabling people to buy other than through the normal retail outlets.
We have a strong farmers market in Stroud. I have mentioned it many times before, so I shall not dwell on it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us how, indirectly, we can help organic production—which seems to be one of the mainstays of the farmers market movement—how we can further improve on what is happening, and how we can make sure that resources go into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned the co-operative possibilities. I am a Co-operative as well as a Labour Member. We greatly underestimate the opportunities that we have to restructure in every area—production, distribution and, dare I say, retailing—in a co-operative way. That can be the answer to some of the conflict that has previously occurred between different sectors. Will my hon. Friend the Minister look ahead and consider ways in which the Government can, by sensitive delivery of grants and in other ways, help potential developments?
It might be something that Members are nervous about in terms of the role of Government, but the Government can set, as a guiding light, the way in which they hope organisations will move, and subsequently fall back.
A key statement in the report is that the Committee is
"not in favour of a 'dirigiste' approach to agriculture in the UK".
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will agree with that. Perhaps I am more of a pragmatist and an interventionist. I think that organic farming is both popular and necessary for the way in which we want to restructure our agricultural system. Any help that the Government can provide is very welcome.
3.43 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Chairman of the Committee, on his elegant and excellent summary of the report's findings. It was very interesting.
One of the advantages in preparing the report was that we did not just listen to evidence in the Committee Room but went out and got our shoes dirty by visiting a number of organic producers. We went to Helen Browning's farm and saw what she did, which was an example of high-quality, meticulous farming, using some of the best techniques available. It made us think about that particular farming regime. In so thinking, we contrasted it with the CWS farm in Leicestershire that we visited and which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has mentioned. That was an example

333WH
of—on the same site, cheek by jowl—conventional agriculture, integrated crop management and organics working alongside each other. We could see the lessons from each form of agriculture affecting the others.
Our trip to that farm raised some interesting questions. For example, what are the objectives of organic farming? Some may argue, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has, that there are advantages in terms of health, safety and consumer confidence. We touch on all those matters in our report. Some have argued that the objective of organic farming is improvements in the agricultural regime. However, I found it difficult, and I have just re-examined the detailed evidence taken by the Committee, to get a definition of "organic". It seems to mean many different things to different people.
We took evidence from Dr. Nicolas Lampkin, who was, to say the least, evangelical in his view of organic farming. He spoke about the ethical nature of it, as if it were a question of organic growers being good people and other kinds of growers being bad people. However, that is not the case. The integrated crop management approach of CWS, in the context of certain environmental and quality targets, could also be described as good farming.
The case of CWS raised interesting questions. One might decide, for example, that environmental targets such as those for the release of CO2 into the atmosphere were farming objectives in one's agricultural regime. Believe it or not, integrated crop management with no-till agriculture, even using genetically modified strains, would be more environmentally beneficial—if reducing CO2 emissions were one's objective—than a full plough-up and use of natural manuring facilities as would be employed in an organic regime. The question of which agricultural regime is the right one to follow is very much determined by the targets that one sets oneself.
That leads me to a conclusion about the report. We must not see organics as in a battle with mainstream or any other form of agricultural regime. It is complementary to other types of agriculture. It responds, very properly, to the desire of some consumers—usually those who, at this stage, can afford to pay a premium for their food—to have some of their food produced in a way different from that used in mainstream agriculture.
I was in horticulture before I came into Parliament. I understand what it is like to work in the non-subsidised sector of agriculture and what it is like to have to respond to consumer demand. I understand what it means to undertake research and development in new crops without subsidy. I know that it can be done because, although our horticulture is now somewhat smaller than it was, it has survived. We are now seeing it fight back to retake, with better product such as vine-ripened tomatoes, markets that would formerly have gone to the Dutch competition.
It can be done, and I see parallels between that and the organic movement. To a degree, the whole debate has had an unstated sub-plot. We have been talking about the arable sector, which would benefit from the grants that are available, because it comes under IACS—the integrated arable control system. Likewise, livestock
334WH
would benefit, because that comes under the same system. However, fruit and vegetables would not, because they do not qualify. The development in the take-up of organic production has perhaps been slower in horticulture, because there were no transitional grants. Even the very proper reference to the idea of a stewardship scheme linked to organic objectives would not benefit those sectors. So we have to be careful, when we make pleas to the Government for help, that we know exactly which parts of the agricultural regime will be helped.
A number of Government responses talk about the English rural development plan, particularly in the context of marketing. In the light of the huge demands that will be placed on the resources available for improvements in areas such as co-operation and marketing, and considering the vast array of outputs from UK agriculture, does the Minister think there will be enough left to sustain and develop, and to meet all the objectives that right hon. and hon. Members who have so far contributed to the debate suggested should apply to organic production?
What are our objectives? The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford made several claims about the benefits of organic production. However, when considering the health attributes of organic food, one question that begs an answer is whether it would be better for people to consume, regardless of their source, more fruit, salad and vegetables every day rather than to press on saying that some of those attributes can be achieved only if the products are organic. When I walk into my local branch of Tesco, I wonder whether everything is about to have an organic regime—even organic boot polish—because of the company's desire to achieve more choice in its catalogue.
In fairness to them, the much vilified supermarkets have expanded the market; they have pushed on. In our report, we mention the evidence of the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative—OMSCo—the collective organisation that deals with the marketing of milk. In that context, Sainsbury's has tried to put a floor in the market by guaranteeing the price. The question of premiums is important because, in those products in which it is difficult to be fully subsidised, making the transition to organic farming is difficult. When dealing with the market for objectives, the Government's response includes the comment that we should be careful about not having too much over-supply in a sector.
The points that have been made so far about farming enterprises having a business plan are important. It is no use farmers rushing into organics, thinking that it is the failsafe way to cope with falling agricultural prices, only to find that it was fool's gold, that premiums have collapsed, that supermarkets have dragged in products from places with lower costs and that, bing-bang, the market has gone and they are back where they started. If anything, the premiums are illusory. One bit of information that we acquired—it was not in our evidence—was the view of some producers that the premiums represent the prices of five years ago. Producers in all sectors were complaining then that the prices were not enough. For commercial reasons, people must be careful when making the move to organic production.

335WH
We have heard of some important environmental attributes of organic farming. I have an allotment; it is almost organic, but when those nasty bugs start chewing away at my brassicas, I feel that I have to use the bug gun. However, I am now busy picking off the tops of my broad beans to ensure that I do not have to spray them for black fly this year, and I dig in my organic farm manure. The exercise is good for me, and I feel very virtuous doing it, but it makes me realise how narrow is the dividing line between having and not having an entirely organic farm.
I have a pretty good environmental regime on my 51 ft by 21 ft plot, but I realise that if the bulk of the population—of this country and others—are to achieve a regular maintained supply of food at an affordable price, they will still be dependent on mainstream agricultural production. We should not always do ourselves down. In the days of ignorance and DDT, we did a lot of damage, but we have learned from that and it has been getting better. For example, minimisation techniques in pesticides and herbicides make them too expensive to chuck on as if they cost only tuppence a tonne. People are now learning to manage their growing regimes in a much better way.
Successful agriculture entails having enough money to be properly aware of broader environmental responsibilities. What are the Government's environmental objectives? Where do they want to see the greatest gains? If the Minister can answer those questions, we shall be able to argue about the strategy needed to achieve those gains. The Helen Browning farm shows that organic farming can make a great contribution—for example, in the context of biodiversity—but so can others, such as the CWS farm, which has integrated good stewardship of the land and of the adjoining landscape features with crop management. Horses for courses is a useful expression in that context. We should not regard organic produce as good and everything else as bad. If handled properly, everything can contribute.
My next point is on consumer confidence. Other hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chairman in his opening remarks, said that the fact that BSE was followed by foot and mouth was quite properly bound to make people question how their food was produced. The less intensive regime with more attention to detail that underpins much organic production has plenty to commend it. It enables consumers to know where their food comes from and about techniques of production. Such intimacy with the food chain does not lend itself easily to a supermarket. If someone asks a shelf stacker where a product comes from, he will find considerable ignorance. Much work must be done to educate the public to ask the right questions about what food they should buy with confidence.
I got into deep trouble last Christmas when I saw a large container of organic milk in my fridge at home. It belonged to the wife of my brother-in-law. I was feeling bolshie at the time, so I asked the dear lady, Narissa, why she had bought it. She replied that it had no chemicals in it and talked about its production. I should add that my wife remonstrated with me for being overly aggressive in our argument about the organic regime. Narissa is a lovely person, and I shall have to be careful in case she reads the report of our debate. She had
336WH
bought the organic milk because she thought that it was the right thing to do to shield her children from nasty antibiotics and chemicals that she thought were bad.
In fact, the organic regime allows an organic cow to be given two prophylactics if it is in difficulty, as the evidence shows. Why two, rather than three or one? It is an interesting question, and there are other such questions about definitions and people's exact understanding of what organic means. It does not mean without chemical substances, but it may mean no synthetic chemicals. We must try to educate people about the fact that organic production techniques are often underpinned by a philosophy, but that it may not be a common philosophy. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about different standards. All seven different accreditation bodies come to the definition of "organic" from different standpoints. The majority will pray in aid the Soil Association, but some think other definitions better. Around the world, the different definitions multiply, which provides some interesting questions.
When I went to Ashford for the Horticulture Research International conference on fruit, I learned that chemicals that we do not allow can be used on fruit crops in Germany. There are other such examples. There must be greater honesty and openness, and I back the finding in the report on beefing up the resources of UKROFS, the accreditation body, so that it can do its job.
I am conscious that there will be a Division in the House in a few minutes, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. I fully associate myself with the findings of the report on the subject. It is fascinating to ask the difficult questions about what organic means and how organic production is implemented. I strongly support developing the movement, but at the pace that the marketplace wants to absorb the product. Let us be aware that there is no battle between a good regime and a bad regime, but that organic production has a following that we should try to encourage.
3.58 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: I shall be brief. I have a few points, especially on organic standards. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and other hon. Members mentioned the confusion between the various organic standards. It has been said that we can be reasonably certain of standards, at least across the European Union. I draw attention, however, to paragraph 57, which deals with EU livestock standards. Tesco recently found itself in some difficulty particularly because of the EU pork standards. It demonstrates that organic standards that are acceptable in other parts of Europe are not necessarily acceptable in the United Kingdom.
Other examples include organic eggs that came from battery birds raised on organic feed. We in the UK would not usually recognise those eggs as organic, but they are accepted as such elsewhere. In the United States, an attempt was made to change organic standards to encompass genetically modified food. Such a change would be unacceptable to most people in this country. We must therefore be careful when we talk about organic standards worldwide. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that the standards should be the same for Venezuela, Mexico

337WH
and Worcester. Unfortunately, there are differing standards around the world and, to reach agreement on an international standard, we would have to use the lowest common denominator. That would be dangerous for the organic movement.
We already have a problem with international marketing. When I first started buying organic food some years ago, I could buy a tin of baked beans with the Soil Association symbol on it, which assured consumers that it complied with organic standards. Now, when we now go into supermarkets, we see numerous—
4.1 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.16 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Weir: Before the Division, I said that, at one time, one could be assured of organic quality by buying products marked with the Soil Association symbol. Now, supermarkets sell a wide range of organic goods that are labelled with the stamps of different regimes. It is difficult for consumers to know what is truly organic and what standards apply to the products that they buy. As pointed out in paragraph 42 of the report, even within the UK, there are seven or more different certification authorities under the Register of Organic Food Standards. We must guard against a dilution of standards for organic produce if we are to keep consumer confidence high and boost the organic sector.
The right hon. Member for Fylde made a good point: at present, those who buy organic products tend to belong to a niche group. If organic agriculture is to increase, the challenge is to expand sales to the bulk of the population. However, we must accept that there will be a major cost if we take that route. If we are to tackle food poverty, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to, the increased cost of organic produce will affect the budget of almost every Government Department and, if we do not accept that there will be an increased cost, farmers might be in danger of trading one financial nightmare for another. They will be under the same pressure to provide organic food as they are now to provide conventional food, and that would leave farmers in the same position; it would bring agriculture no further forward.
We should consider a two-stage process. We should move toward organics, but, as an intermediate stage, we should promote a better form of conventional agriculture and encourage farmers to cut back on the use of chemicals. The supermarkets, which are much vilified in the debate, can play a part in that; for example, I note that the Co-operative supermarkets have said that they want reduced residue levels in the food that they sell. I wish to put in a quick plug for early-day motion 82 on the subject. Supermarkets can help without moving totally into organic produce, which was such a disaster for Iceland. There is a middle way that will take farming forward without immediately committing all farmers to the organics path, which would be completely unsustainable and would only substitute one disaster for another.
4.19 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the Committee on its comprehensive report, which is also a very good read. I hope that it will have a wider circulation than other, similar reports, which are not read by as many people as they should be.
Organic farming has come a long way in the past 20 or so years. At that time, I worked for an organisation called Dartington, near Totnes. It was the centre of an alternative lifestyle, which included alternative medicines, education and so on. Organic farming was then considered a strange alternative activity. A restaurant that opened at Dartington, which introduced organic food to the restaurant trade, perpetuated that idea by calling itself Cranks.
Various food scares helped to encourage organic farming, but there was a false start about five years ago, after BSE, when in spite of the demand for organic products they were not promoted and marketed by the supermarkets, which bought the food but shoved it into a relatively small corner of their operation. Organic food was expensive and not attractively presented, and after a few months the supermarkets said that there was no market for it. Fortunately, in more recent times, that has begun to change, and the supermarkets have responded accordingly.
Although the market is growing, there are not a significant number of well-informed, educated consumers. Many people buy organic food because they believe that it has certain properties, which it probably does not have. They take an emotional decision to buy organic food, perhaps for their children or because it is fashionable and they think that it is the right thing to do. Therein lies a danger, because those are thin reasons to purchase such products. A growing market needs to be much more educated and informed. Consumers need to be aware of what they are buying.
Although not necessarily science-based, it must be taken that organic farming offers some public good in respect of the environment and of human and animal health. We need to put that over in a much more realistic and easily understood way, because if the consumer is well informed about organic food and well motivated to purchase it the market will continue to grow.
I hope that the report, our debates on the subject and subsequent Government policy and strategies will help to accelerate the sector's momentum so that with maturity it develops on a solid basis and becomes a serious, although not necessarily huge, part of agriculture and food production.
I agree with much of the report and with what hon. Members have said. The big, magical figure of 70 to 75 per cent. of organic products coming from abroad is often quoted. but as a considerable amount of organic fruit cannot be grown here, it would be more helpful to have figures that show what could genuinely be grown in this country as a substitute for the imported food.
Supermarkets are part of the solution rather than the problem. They need to be brought on board in a much clearer and more concise way, especially in respect of the branding and labelling of information. There is a problem with certain words and I shall use the word "quality" as an illustration. Obviously, there has been a big debate on that issue. Supermarkets often use the term to refer to colour, shape, shelf life or

339WH
packaging. I was amazed to see square watermelons being grown so that they could be packed more economically. I hope that that does not affect their quality as consumers understand that term. When consumers look for quality, they are looking for freshness, taste, texture and the absence of residual chemicals on the skin.
Quality can have two entirely different meanings. We must ensure that consumers get what they understand to be quality produce, not what supermarkets want to impose on them. Shelf life and colour are advantages for supermarkets rather than what consumers want. I hope that we can begin to have a debate about the quality of food that involves education, because our children should grow up with an understanding of food quality, taste and so on.
In addition, supermarkets must not monopolise or dominate the market. For example, they already buy all the grade 1 fruit that they can, allowing very little to be available in other outlets. The supermarkets may not sell all that fruit, but they deny others the opportunity to compete in the market because they cannot physically buy the produce. We must not let that happen in the organic sector. Supermarkets must not become so powerful that they can scoop up all the organic produce, decide what they will sell and even throw away quite a lot of it. We must ensure that local outlets, box schemes and the other ways in which people can access and buy organic produce are preserved, protected and enhanced. Local markets must be strengthened to enable them to sell not only local organic produce, but organic produce generally.
I certainly support the idea of an organic stewardship scheme to create a more level playing field in respect of support, but it must be based on getting established public goods, as with other stewardship campaigns. That might be a little more difficult, and we need to consider how we can proceed. That is linked to the old chestnut of not gold-plating regulations from Europe. As our organic farmers move into the sector, we must ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way, including by our Government's imposing increased costs and hurdles on them. We must ensure that our farmers have a good opportunity to compete, which relates partly to certification. Organic produce can be grown in slightly different circumstances abroad, perhaps at lower cost. We need an agreed certification system, which will create a level playing field.
Various hon. Members have referred to increased research into the sector, which I very much support. It is a question not so much of amount as of how the research is conducted. I well remember a considerable number of MAFF research centres in my part of the world, the south-west, virtually all of which have closed down. The centre that was very close to where I live is now a major manufacturer of pasties, mainly because it had a wonderfully large facility that could create a huge heat or go right down to the minus scale. It was an amazing facility used mainly for testing seeds.
That has now all gone, but we must recognise that independent research is becoming increasingly important. Conflicting research material affects too many aspects of Government policy, which confuses the general public and the consumer. It applies to economics, where different accountancy firms or universities may reach vastly different conclusions
340WH
about the effects of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy. It also applies to the environment when different estimates of the effects of mobile telephone masts are made. On organic issues, we do not want research emanating from one particular standpoint being juxtaposed with different research undertaken perhaps by a commercially biased organisation.
It is easy to become cynical because if a sponsor offers a large sum of money to produce a report, it is often expected that it would broadly reinforce whatever the sponsor wants to prove. That undermines public confidence in the integrity of so-called independent reports. We must return to a genuinely independent research tradition undertaken and funded directly by the Government. Far too many commercial pressures are placed on research institutions to produce the right results. Cost hypothecation occurred under the previous Conservative Government, according to which industry should cover the cost of its own research and regulation. That is all right up to a point, but when it starts to become polluted by commercial bias, the integrity and value of the research is undermined.
We need education and training if we want consumers to be informed. Organic farming is not for everyone. It demands a high standard of farming. We must devote the time and effort necessary to ensure that those entering agriculture have the requisite training to operate in the marketplace. Otherwise we shall always be susceptible to imports.
4.32 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I, too, congratulate the Chairman and the members of the Agriculture Committee on an excellent report. We are pressed for time, with important developments taking place elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, so I shall be extremely brief.
The report is excellent on more than one count, as it seems to have satisfied all the various parties interested in this important issue. We congratulate the Government on what they have achieved so far and we welcome the various aid schemes. The first organic aid scheme was initiated by the previous Government and continued, as the organic farming scheme, by the present Government. They may have been bounced into reopening the scheme, but we welcome it nevertheless. Such has been its attraction since the launch in January that by May the farming community had already taken up two thirds of the earmarked £13 million.
The expansion of interest among those in the agricultural sector has been matched by an expansion in the market. Organic production and marketing has increased all over the world. Within the European Union the likely demand for organic products far exceeds the supply of land. Within the United Kingdom organic farming has continued to increase, at a rate of about 25 per cent. per annum since the 1990s. The growth in demand is likely to continue to increase rapidly over the next five years. According to Tesco, Britain's biggest supermarket chain, its sales of organic food will quadruple and be worth approximately £1 billion a year by 2005. Its consumer research also suggests that one in four households now try organic products, mainly because of concerns about children's health.

341WH
Paragraph 5 of the report's introduction states:
"Many claims have been made for organically produced foods, ranging from food quality, food safety, animal welfare, support for rural communities and fair trade, and benefits for the environment."
Such claims have been mentioned in today's debate and many of them are widely accepted by the public as honest and accurate. However, the report continues:
"We have seen no evidence to enable us to state unequivocally that any of these claims are always and invariably true."
That point was made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
The report is right to proceed with caution. That caution has also been expressed in this debate. That view is endorsed by no less a person than Sir John Krebs, the chairman of the Food Standards Agency. When interviewed by the BBC he said of consumers who went for organic produce:
"They are not getting value for money, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Food Standards Agency, if they think they are buying food with extra nutritional quality or extra safety. We don't have the evidence to support those claims. I think the organic industry relies on image and that image is one that many consumers clearly want to sign up to. However, I do think they should be aware of what they're getting when they pay quite a substantial premium in the shops."
Joan Ruddock: In quoting Sir John Krebs, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that the jury are out on nutritional value, but will he recognise that there is a body of evidence to suggest that there are real environmental benefits that the consumer is right to accept?
Mr. Moss: I do not dispute that point. I am simply endorsing the view expressed in the report about some of the claims that are made. I am convinced that there are environmental benefits from organic farming, but it must be right to exercise a little caution.
Value for money is important. Despite pledging to reduce the price of organic produce, many of the supermarkets acknowledge that organic goods will continue to be more expensive, as they say it costs farmers more to produce organic food. Despite the concerns that I have expressed, the statistics show that the market is increasing. However, the majority of organic produce sold in our shops is imported. The figure is about 70 per cent. and rising according to the Soil Association. Sir John Krebs argues that the dominance of imports in the organic market raises further doubts over claims of its advantages, simply because we do not have the checks on the quality of that food and its production before it is imported.
The National Farmers Union recently warned that imports would continue to supply the bulk of the UK organic market unless significant changes were made to the support offered to organic farmers in Britain. According to the NFU, in spite of the rising demand for organic food, the number of UK farmers applying to convert is levelling off or even falling after several years of steady growth. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that. In the light of that decline in conversion rates, the NFU persistently calls for further conversion support for UK farmers.
342WH
It was notable that the Committee could not unequivocally state that the many claims regarding organic farming are true. Despite that caution, the Committee concluded, and I agree, that the opportunity for agriculture is enormous. It found that it is vital that the organic sector develops it ability to market its products effectively so that it appeals not to sentiment but to proven benefits.
The thrust of the recommendations was towards marketing, not production support. We fully support the Committee's recommendation that the Government encourage the further development of local marketing schemes such as farmers markets—I mention Stroud in that regard, because it is always mentioned in such debates—and box schemes. The Committee recommended that the Government work with those responsible for the promotion of organic production to ensure that rural funds are channelled into the development of supply partnerships and farmer-controlled co-operatives. We also support the Committee's call to the Government to stimulate the development of new small abattoirs. We do not want to go down that road too far this afternoon, but it is as important an ingredient to the organic scheme of things as it is to our livestock farmers.
The Committee highlighted the problem of certification and common standards. We agree with the recommendation that the Government should encourage the effort of the organic certification bodies to co-operate more closely with each other, perhaps ultimately leading to some mergers. Seven bodies in the United Kingdom can certify organic products, of which the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards is just one. The Committee also advocates discussion between the farm assurance schemes and the organic sector so that common standards and protocols can be met. We believe that to be right. While the Committee did not advocate a single or exclusive scheme, its point about common protocols and standards is vital.
Consumers buy British organic produce because they believe it to be of the highest quality. The Government should work towards establishing an international standard, such as that of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements. After all, under British regulations, it takes two years for produce to be designated as organic. That is far stricter than the rules that apply in many other countries. Yet again, British producers seem to be operating on an unlevel playing field. If and when international standards are agreed to, they should be replicated for food labelling.
The point was made earlier that the CAP reforms and the move towards extensification should benefit organic farmers because of the less intensive and more environmentally sustainable methods that will come in their wake. However, those are medium-term rather than immediate benefits. The Opposition would go further than the Committee recommended on support. All European Union member states support farmers converting to organic methods and we believe that Britain should match the help afforded our continental counterparts. We would fund increased payments

343WH
through redirecting the rural development regulation and seek our share of the redistribution of the tobacco subsidies paid under the CAP.
We agree with the Committee's recommendations in paragraphs 31 to 34 on research and development. Research should be increased. The Government's agriculture and research development budget has been skewed by their over-hasty efforts to endorse the movement to genetic modification. We would redirect £120 million of the agricultural research and development budget, to augment the £2.1 million that is currently spent on research and development for organic farming. If one listens to farmers who have attempted to join the organic farming scheme, one finds that there have been hiccups and mismanagement. Far too often, farmers spend money to start the conversion process, only to learn that funding has run out. The Government need to reform the system of conversion support, to guarantee support to suitably qualified farmers before they embark on conversion.
We agree with the recommendation that the Government should give British organic produce priority in public purchasing, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said.
4.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have had an interesting debate, and I appreciate the way in which it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The Select Committee's report was challenging, thoughtful and pragmatic. It reflected the views of those who made representations, and we responded to the challenges in our response to the report.
I am pleased to participate in the debate, in which all speakers agreed that we should encourage development of the organic sector. There is no disagreement between the Government, the Committee and those who participated in the debate. The issue is how to encourage that development and apply the policies.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) rightly referred to the popularity of the organic sector and its enormous expansion, which hon. Members may be interested to know is greater in the United Kingdom than elsewhere in Europe. We should recognise that, but we cannot ignore the way in which foot and mouth disease has affected the organic sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the trend in conversion, which has been downwards, but that is almost entirely due to the disruption caused by foot and mouth disease. There has been a problem with getting people onto farms and with compliance with standards for the production of organic livestock. However, the regulatory body—the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards—has provided mechanisms to cover the worst effects on affected farmers. Even with the current problems facing agriculture, in the current year to July, 687 farmers have converted, at a cost of £8.7 million, and we have funds available for more conversions this year.
344WH
UKROFS is undergoing its five-yearly review, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said. The review is close to completion and I expect to receive it shortly. I am sure that it will examine some of the issues that he raised. It is important to achieve high quality of service delivery and to make services more responsive to the needs of those who use them. The review does not directly address the shape of the organic sector, so it does not, for example, consider how individual operators should be certified. However, that matter was raised during the debate and we must consider it. The review considers how regulation of the sector is best dealt with, how the interface with European standards is best handled and how advice to Ministers and Departments is best delivered. The answers to those questions will set the framework in which the organic sector operates in future, so it is important to get that right, and the Agriculture Committee examined that closely.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who referred to standards: it is important in the European context to ensure that people understand them. We must also discuss the contribution of organic farming and how to deliver it. Some hon. Members suggested that one way might be to set targets for conversion of land to organic farming or the production of organic food. Targets have a role and can be useful, but we must think carefully about their effects, particularly if they are arbitrary and no one quite knows whether they are desirable or achievable. There have been debates on targets in the organic sector, and there are differing views there about their value and whether they can have a detrimental effect on prices and the strength of the market. I think that the Select Committee's conclusions on targets are correct.
I agree that there is a need for a strategy. We agreed at the Copenhagen conference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) mentioned, to sign the declaration on organic standards. Work is taking place on that: meetings are being held on developing an EU-wide strategy. We are considering how to put together an organic farming strategy.
That strategy might be influenced by our manifesto commitment to set up an independent policy commission on achieving the aim of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and foods sector within a thriving rural economy. I am sure that that commission will examine a whole range of issues, including organic farming. That will be useful in influencing the debate on how we develop and shape a strategy.
The Agriculture Committee's report provided an important contribution to the debate, especially as we approach the mid-term evaluation of the English rural development programme, which will take place in 2003. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South-East Cornwall and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), spoke about the role of an organic stewardship scheme. The Government do not rule out the possibility of such a scheme, which has much stronger justification than, for example, on-going maintenance payments of the kind provided by some European countries. However, many people in the

345WH
agricultural world recognise that automatic production support for agriculture is giving way to more sophisticated, flexible, diverse and targeted support.
An organic stewardship scheme would have to deliver environmental benefits. It could not be a scheme to which people could simply sign up and get money for nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said that organic farming can deliver environmental benefits, and I accept that. Much independent research demonstrates that, and I think that organic farming lends itself to organic stewardship schemes, but there are difficulties, for example with the horticultural sector, as the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) rightly said. The horticultural sector is unsupported. It is very adaptable and has a long record of innovation, but in terms of organic development, it is discriminated against by the nature of subsidies. They do not help it towards organic conversion. We should think about that, but the answer probably lies in general reform of the common agricultural policy, which is one of the Government's objectives.
Mr. Drew: I want to tease out the Minister's meaning. I understand completely that horticulture is outside the subsidy regime, but is he saying that we might be able to renegotiate the basis on which support is given? Could we make progress, for example, through using environmental schemes that already exist?
Mr. Morley: One advantage of the way in which we have been developing the countryside stewardship scheme is that it can be targeted at different outcomes and objectives. Horticulture is quite a challenging sector in terms of environmental benefits. It competes with other food sectors that receive production subsidies, which means that making choices is difficult for it. If we have CAP reform, a more unified market opportunity might make things easier for it. That is all I was saying.
Research and development is an important subject, and some confused issues surround it. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, who talked about redirecting the research and development budget into the organic sector, seems to misunderstand the budget's role. It is true that we have doubled the budget for organic R and D, and I am very pleased about that. However, at present 25 per cent. of our R and D budget is committed to agri-environmental research, from which the organic sector will receive benefits. Moreover, research into projects such as biological control, pest and disease forecasting, animal health and welfare, farm waste management, plant nutrition and conservation is funded by our general R and D budget, from which the organic sector receives considerable benefits.
It is sometimes said that the biotech sector gets more funding than the organic sector, but even that is misleading. Biological pest control, for example, which is very important to organic management, is included under the heading of biotech. People get confused when they look at budgets in terms of headings. In fact, we are giving broad-based benefits to the whole agricultural sector. Such benefits go beyond the allocation of particular budgets. We are taking such efforts further. We are funding current projects to discover how to apply some of the conventional sector R and D to the
346WH
organic sector. In trying to adapt existing R and D to make it relevant to the organic sector, we are maximising the available resources.
Joan Ruddock: I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says, but why, then, does the organic sector feel that the Government are not funding necessary research into organics? Is he open to, or has he received, submissions from the sector about research that the Government are not currently prepared to fund in any of the ways that he has described?
Mr. Morley: I am sure that we have received submissions, although I have not seen any detailed ones myself. As with every other sector, we are always open to suggestions and ideas on how budgets are applied. Of course, the organic sector's point is that it would like more money to be spent on it. That is not an unusual request—it is made by all the sectors with which we deal.
In keeping with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, we accept the Committee's recommendation that consumers be given sound information on which to base judgments on what to buy. Part of our R and D is based on that principle. We also accept that the Committee is asking for organic and conventional agriculture to be seen as interdependent. Indeed, the way in which we apply R and D is an example of that interdependency. We strongly support the view that the agricultural sector needs to be seen in the round, and that each part of it should contribute to diversity of practice and to consumer choice. We further accept that the issue of sustainability—on which the organic sector places great emphasis, of course—is at the heart of the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned imports, and I accept what he says. Of course, we are stronger in some food products—eggs, meat and milk, for example—than in others. It is in respect of fruit and veg and cereals that a lot of work needs to be done.
I also accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said about our former colleague, George Turner, who made a very significant contribution to the Committee and to agriculture in general. I hope that that is recognised.
The right hon. Member for Fylde raised the issue of horticulture, with which I have dealt. He also asked about environmental objectives. One agriculture objective that we have built in, and which we have made very clear, is our public service agreement target for increasing the number of farmland birds.
The hon. Member for Angus referred to standards and validation, on which I have touched, and they are important issues. A whole range of organisations are involved in providing standards. There is nothing wrong with having such a range, but given that various quality assurance schemes and types of labelling exist these days, there might be an argument for considering some consolidation over time. We understand the point that was made, and I am sure that changes—perhaps resulting from the UKROFS review—will occur that might encourage such consolidation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will amend the means by which charges for services provided by the Defence Export Services Organisation are calculated to ensure that the full cost is recovered. [2709]

  Dr. Moonie
  The policy of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) is to raise charges against industry for activities undertaken on its behalf where Government independence from industry is not essential and when costs can be directly identified, calculated and recovered from individual companies. On this basis charges are raised for a proportion of the costs of demonstrations of defence equipment; market research and publications; DESO symposia and seminars; and inward visits.

  In addition, the full costs of operating project offices in support of Government-to-Government sales are offset by receipts from customer Governments. In 2000–01 DESO's costs were as follows:

  £ million

  Expenditure

  56.01

  Receipts

  41.68

  Net Operating Costs

  12.36

  These net operating costs are more than offset by benefits to the Defence budget, estimated at over £400 million a year, arising from DESO's activities. These benefits include reductions in overhead costs for UK Procurement as a result of longer production runs, receipts from Commercial Exploitation Levy and disposal of surplus MOD equipment. Against this background, there are no plans to amend the charging policy for services provided by DESO.

  ITAR Exemptions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which issues in the negotiations on ITAR exemptions(a) have been agreed and (b) remain unresolved; and if he will make a statement. [2718]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government warmly welcome the decision of the US Administration to continue to pursue the Defence Trade Security Initiative, including a limited International Traffic in Army Regulation Waiver for unclassified US exports to the UK announced in May 2000. These measures, if put fully into effect, would be 582W
  significant steps towards achieving the objective agreed between the Prime Minister and President Bush at Camp David in February 2001 of

  "… increased co-operation in transatlantic defence trade and to the removal of unnecessary barriers and impediments to such trade."

  Negotiations resumed with the new Administration in May.

  Progress has been made in establishing that US and UK export control systems are comparably effective and that there is a high level of commonality between the US Munition List and the UK Military List. The proposals for the introduction, under the Export Control Bill, of UK export controls over electronic transfers of military technology will further increase convergence between the two systems. Key issues remain to be resolved concerning detailed terms for implementation of an agreement. Given their complexity early progress is not to be expected but discussions are continuing, constructively and amicably.

  Defence Estates
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence estates have been sold since 1997; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of training areas and accommodation space for British forces. [3008]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Since 1997 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has conducted in excess of 500 disposals. These range in size from airfields and barracks to small areas of land and individual houses.

  Following the publication of "In Trust and On Trust: A Strategy for the Defence Estate" in June 2000, the MOD has embarked on a major "core sites" review covering all our 4,000 or more sites. This will determine how the estate can best be used to satisfy our long-term military needs and also guide future investment. Associated with this work, we are also considering the supply and demand for training as part of a Strategic Planning Study for the Army Training Estate (SPATE), which is largely concerned with the rural training estate. This should not be confused with the Defence Training Review, which is an advanced element of the "core sites" review and relates largely to the built estate.

  While the MOD has no current plans to acquire significant additional areas of land, we do from time to time purchase land adjacent to existing training areas where this allows more efficient or effective use of the land we already own.

  We recognise that some single living accommodation is below modern standards and the Secretary of State recently announced a huge programme of new investment in this kind of property, amounting to £1 billion over 10 years.

  Sonar 2087
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what particular mitigation measures have been implemented to take account a marine life, human divers and swimmers in the operational procedures relating to Sonar 2087; and if he will make a statement; [3296]
  583W
  (2) when the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to Sonar 2087 will be completed; what evidence from outside bodies will be taken with regard to this assessment; what assessments have been made of the United States Navy's studies into the environmental impact of low frequency active sonar; and if he will make a statement; [3295]

  (3) what frequencies Sonar 2087 and Sonar 2193 will operate at; and if he will make a statement; [3293]

  (4) what independent studies his Department has commissioned or intends to commission into the effect on marine life of Sonar 2087 and Sonar 2193; at what cost; and if he will make a statement; [3292]

  (5) which areas have been identified for the use and testing of Sonar 2087 in the United Kingdom and surrounding waters; what exclusion zones have been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [3291]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sonar 2087 is designed to detect submarines at distances greater than those from which potentially hostile submarines could engage our forces. Sonar 2193 is a mine-hunting sonar and will operate at short ranges. The exact frequencies the sonars will use are classified. I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations. I can tell you, however, that in order to achieve detection at long distances, Sonar 2087 will operate at frequencies lower than systems currently employed by the Royal Navy, whereas Sonar 2193 will operate at high frequencies to achieve fine discrimination between objects.

  As underwater noise can adversely affect the marine environment, the MOD is committed to using both Sonar 2087 and Sonar 2193 in an environmentally responsible manner.

  The draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Sonar 2087 was conducted for the Department by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at the Southampton Oceanography Centre (SOC). The EIA was informed by a number of other studies of the possible effects of sonar noise on humans, mammals and fish. The total cost was in excess of £2 million. The EIA will continue to be developed during the demonstration and manufacture phases of the project, taking account of trials information. It will continue to be informed by evidence from leading experts both in the UK and US; this includes exchange of information on studies conducted by the US Navy. We also monitor relevant scientific and environmental research around the globe. The final EIA will be completed by the planned 2006 entry into service and will be subject to independent review. An EIA for Sonar 2193 has been commissioned, to be undertaken by QinetiQ at the SOC, at a cost of £143,000.

  Sonar 2087 is designed to be used world-wide. To date, the EIA indicates that, for initial trials, the vicinity of the North-West Approaches would be a suitable area. All our trials will be preceded by EIAs specific to the area concerned and they will be conducted using mitigation measures to take account of marine animal life and human divers/swimmers. These measures will be integral to our operating procedures and will include monitoring of the area which will begin before active transmissions are started and continue while the activity is under way and
  584W
  also for a period after transmissions have finished. Exclusion zones will he operated around known sensitive sites such as breeding grounds and sanctuaries; and we will begin transmissions at low output levels to give marine life the opportunity to move away. Similarly, a minimum range will be established from known diving sites.

  These measures will provide a sustainable balance between the requirement for essential trials and training and the equally important need to avoid causing significant adverse it impact on the marine environment.

  Kenya
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the lot numbers of the munitions used by the British Army at Archer's Post and Dol Dol in Kenya. [2781]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding information regarding the lot numbers of the munitions used by the British Army at Archer's Post and Dol Dol in Kenya, in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the threat of attack on the Menwith Hill radomes that would result from UK participation in the proposed US Missile Defence system; [3380]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the threat of attack on upgraded X-band radar sites at Fylingdales that would result from UK participation in the proposed US Missile Defence system. [3381]

  Mr. Hoon
  The US has stated that it has not yet decided how it will seek to proceed with deployment of a missile defence system and has made no request for the use of either RAF Menwith Hill or RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes. We have made clear we would consider any such request carefully in light of the circumstances at the time and taking into account all relevant factors, including security implications.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, in 1989 entitled, "The effect of Sarin (GB) on Contrast Sensitivity". [3400]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. The report to which the hon. Member refers was drafted but not completed. It is therefore unsuitable for publication.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, are entitled to receive a copy of films recorded by the establishment of the experiment in which they participated. [3403]

  Dr. Moonie
  Not all trials undertaken as part of the service volunteer programme were filmed, nor are the films catalogued in a manner which would assist the identification of volunteers. Porton Down volunteers are
  585W
  entitled to receive a copy of any film footage in which they alone are clearly identifiable. However, under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 footage which identified other volunteers could not be released. Requests for film footage will be dealt with on an individual basis.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 2W, on Porton Down, what the purpose was of the study involving RAF service volunteers at RAF Honington in 2000; what the conclusion of the study was; on what dates it was conducted; and for what reason it was conducted at RAF Honington. [3409]

  Dr. Moonie
  During August 2000 a study involving RAF volunteers took place on the Rapier Detachment Engagement Trainer at RAF Honington. The aim of the study was to assess the possible effects of miosis and ciliary spasm of the eye, from simulated exposure to low dose nerve agent, on the ability to operate the Ground Based Air Defence System Rapier.

  The study concluded that both miosis and ciliary spasm of the eye has profound effects on any military task involving target detection and/or identification under low illumination conditions.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 133W, on Porton Down, if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes, agenda and papers of the meeting between his Department's staff and the Medical Research Council staff on 30 May. [3402]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. No agenda or formal notes of the meeting were produced.

  Bermuda Regiment
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amendments to the Queen's regulations and rules relating to disciplinary matters apply to members of the Bermuda Regiment. [2499]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: The Bermuda Regiment is not part of the British Army, therefore The Queen's Regulations for the Army do not have any authority over this Regiment.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units of the armed forces are largely recruited from an overseas territory, and whose funding and command and control structure are comparable to that of the Bermuda Regiment. [2505]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: None. The Bermuda Regiment is not part of the British Army.

  HMS Daedalus
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of HMS Daedalus. [3636]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is expected that a decision on the future of HMS Daedalus will be made within the next few weeks. At that stage I will write to the hon. Member and all other MPs and stakeholders to inform them of the way forward.
  586W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from outside bodies about the future of HMS Daedalus. [3635]

  Dr. Moonie
  Many representations have been received from a wide range of statutory and commercial outside bodies and local interest groups, including those tenants currently residing on the airfield. Much of the commercial interest was generated through our agent's marketing campaign and subsequent referrals.

  Defence Estate, through the Daedalus Working Group, has always endeavoured to keep Gosport borough council, Fareham borough council and Hampshire county council informed of developments.

  MOD Sites
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to determine which MOD sites not used by the armed forces should be sold. [3637]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is our policy that the Defence Estate should be no larger than necessary to meet the operational and training needs of the armed forces. To this end, the overall size of the estate is kept under continual review, and rationalisation of our landholdings and the early sale of surplus property remains a key priority. Normally, surplus sites are identified through estate rationalisation studies, as a result of changing operational requirements or from changes in policy. Before a site is offered for sale steps are taken to ensure there is no alternative defence use.

  In the future, the rationalisation of the estate will be shaped by the emerging 'core sites' approach which is currently being developed as part of our Estate Strategy ("In Trust and On Trust: A strategy for the Defence Estate") which was launched on 7 June 2000. It is the intention that 'core sites' will become the focus for future development and investment.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the applicability of(a) the European Court of Human Rights and (b) the Human Rights Act 1998 to sovereign base areas in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [2976]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestine
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the UK Government have contributed to the food aid provided by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to Palestinians in and around the Israeli-occupied parts of the West Bank and Gaza. [3235]

  Clare Short
  We have contributed £10 million to UNRWA' s Emergency Appeals in response to the growing social and economic hardship in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a result of the current conflict. Our funds are not
  587W
  specifically earmarked for food; UNRWA's emergency operations also include employment generation, and other urgent social welfare provisions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Car Licences
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the diplomatic car licence plate numbers allocated to embassies and high commissions in the United Kingdom used to identify the country. [1683]

  Mr. Straw
  I am unable to release the information requested into the public domain as this could compromise the security of diplomatic missions and their personnel in the United Kingdom.

  United Nations Security Council
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions in the last five years in which the United Kingdom's veto power in the United Nations Security Council has been(a) used and (b) threatened publicly to be used; and what the subject matter was on each occasion. [2708]

  Peter Hain
  This Government have not used the veto since coming to power in May 1997. However the United Kingdom has used the veto 30 times since 1946, with regard to the following issues:

  October 1956 (twice) The Palestine question (Suez)

  September 1963 Syrian-Israel Dispute: Palestine

  March 1970 Rhodesia

  November 1970 Rhodesia

  December 1971 Rhodesia

  February 1972 Rhodesia

  September 1972 Rhodesia

  May 1973 Rhodesia

  October 1974 Relationship between UN and South Africa

  June 1975 Situation in Namibia

  October 1976 Situation in Namibia

  October 1977 (three times) Question of South Africa

  April 1981 (four times) Question of Namibia

  June 1982 Question of the Falklands

  July 1985 Question of South Africa

  November 1985 Question of Namibia

  April 1986 US raid on Libya

  May 1986 South African raids into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe

  June 1986 South African attacks on Angola

  February 1987 South Africa

  April 1987 Question of Namibia

  March 1988 Sanctions against South Africa

  January 1989 Shooting down of Libyan aircraft

  December 1989 The invasion of Panama.

  It is not Government practice publicly to threaten the use of the veto.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for imports to Iraq have been blocked in the United Nations Sanctions Committee for(a) less than three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) more than one year. [2712]

  Peter Hain
  Most applications to export goods to Iraq are made under the 'oil for food' programme established by United Nations Security Council resolution 986 (1996). The vast majority of applications are approved by the United Nations sanctions Committee. As at 6 July 2001 around 19,700 applications worth over $28.7 billion had been received by the UN since the programme began in 1996. Only 1,350 were on hold by the Committee (see table for breakdown). The majority of Committee holds are imposed because applications are submitted with insufficient information for the Committee to be able to assess whether the goods could be used in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programmes. Where there are serious concerns in this regard, assurances of end-use or in-country monitoring are often sufficient to lift the hold.

  Months on hold

  Number of holds

  Value of holds (US$ billion)

  0–3months

  301

  1.24

  3–6months

  197

  0.62

  6–9months

  220

  0.62

  9–12months

  170

  0.32

  Over 12 months

  461

  0.59

  Total

  1,349

  3.39

  Embargoes
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the arms embargoes implemented by the United Kingdom prohibit the temporary export to embargoed destinations of protective clothing by UN personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian workers for their personal use. [4271]

  Peter Hain
  The Government do not interpret those arms embargoes implemented by the UK as prohibiting the temporary export for personal use by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media or humanitarian workers of protective clothing on the UK Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended. The Government will therefore consider, or a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing criteria, all applications for licences for the temporary export of military helmets, body armour, bullet-proof or bullet-resistant clothing, flak suits and specially designed components for any of these goods.

  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government will take at the 24th Session of the Ad Hoc Group on the draft protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention to enable a legally binding
  589W
  compliance regime to be agreed at the fifth Review Conference; what changes to the chairman's text the Government will be proposing at the 24th Session of the Ad Hoc Group; and if he will make a statement. [3297]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At the next session of the Ad Hoc Group in Geneva, the UK will continue to press for completion of the BWC protocol and resolution of the outstanding issues identified by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group, Ambassador Toth. There are a limited number of specific items in his "composite text" where further work is required. These are to be found in the sections on Definitions, Declarations, Visits, Measures to strengthen the implementation of Article III of the Convention, Investigations and Legal issues. The UK will continue to work closely with the Chairman and other Delegations to attempt to find solutions to these issues which are acceptable to all.

HEALTH

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his timescale for the introduction of the new strategic health authorities. [1840]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities are to be in place by April 2002, with all related changes to the intermediate tier of National Health service management completed by April 2003.

  Health authority1

  Composite Years of Life Lost index2

  Health inequalities for health authorities at or above 137 on Years of Life Lost index £000

  Health inequalities funding for health authorities with Health Action Zones £

  Total health inequalities adjustment £

  Manchester

  181.30

  2,013

  2,428

  4,441

  Liverpool

  178.57

  1,997

  2,350

  4,347

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  174.07

  1,476

  1,678

  3,154

  East Lancashire

  167.76

  2,069

  0

  2,069

  West Pennine

  167.63

  1,827

  0

  1,827

  County Durham

  166.41

  2,424

  0

  2,424

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  165.35

  1,374

  1,602

  2,976

  Barnsley

  164.33

  925

  1,061

  1,985

  Bury and Rochdale

  163.45

  1,528

  1,705

  3,233

  Wirral

  163.15

  1,246

  1,398

  2,644

  Tees

  162.92

  2,166

  2,547

  4,713

  Sandwell

  162.02

  1,180

  1,364

  2,544

  Sunderland

  162.01

  1,112

  1,376

  2,488

  North West Lancashire

  161.36

  1,748

  0

  1,748

  Salford and Trafford

  160.90

  1,723

  2,009

  3,732

  North Cumbria

  160.73

  1,226

  1,256

  2,482

  South Humber

  160.67

  1,188

  0

  1,188

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  159.24

  1,778

  2,201

  3,979

  Northumberland

  159.00

  1,175

  1,249

  2,424

  Doncaster

  156.99

  1,106

  1,307

  2,412

  North Staffordshire

  156.40

  1,752

  1,608

  3,360

  Wigan and Bolton

  156.18

  2,158

  0

  2,158

  Sefton

  155.00

  998

  1,161

  2,159

  North Cheshire

  153.17

  1,151

  0

  1,151

  Wolverhampton

  151.42

  872

  1,081

  1,953

  North Nottinghamshire

  150.63

  1,376

  0

  1,376

  Wakefield

  150.46

  1,190

  1,414

  2,604

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  150.29

  1,744

  1,842

  3,585

  Lincolnshire

  149.82

  2,301

  0

  2,301

  Morecambe Bay

  149.79

  1,101

  0

  1,101

  North Derbyshire

  149.60

  1,308

  0

  1,308

  Isle of Wight

  149.30

  436

  0

  436

  East Riding

  148.75

  2,054

  2,350

  4,404

  Walsall

  148.42

  900

  1,102

  2,003

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the interim report on the supply of residential and nursing home care in England will be published. [2673]

  Jacqui Smith
  The study of the supply of residential and nursing home care that we are undertaking involves a number of research projects commissioned from the Personal Social Services Research Unit. We are currently considering an interim report on the rate, causes and consequences of home closures. A final report on this issue is expected later this year.

  Health Inequalities
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the rate on the Years of Life Lost index used for the interim health inequalities adjustment in 2001–02 allocations, indicating which health authorities received an allocation under the health inequalities adjustment. [2956]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table ranks health authorities by the Years of Life Lost index used for the health inequalities adjustment and shows the adjustment received with 2001–02 allocations.

  £70 million was shared between the 47 health authorities with rates at or above 137 on the Years of Life Lost index. This supplemented the £60 million health inequalities funding for health authorities with Health Action Zones.
  591W 592W

  Health authority1

  Composite Years of Life Lost index2

  Health inequalities for health authorities at or above 137 on Years of Life Lost index £000

  Health inequalities funding for health authorities with Health Action Zones £

  Total health inequalities adjustment £

  Rotherham

  147.16

  854

  1,065

  1,919

  Camden and Islington

  144.22

  1,358

  1,841

  3,199

  South Lancashire

  143.79

  1,081

  0

  1,081

  Bradford

  143.52

  1,686

  2,165

  3,851

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  141.51

  1,967

  0

  1,967

  Herefordshire

  140.53

  560

  0

  560

  Shropshire

  140.36

  1,450

  0

  1,450

  Coventry

  139.82

  1,067

  0

  1,067

  Sheffield

  139.72

  1,787

  2,377

  4,164

  East Kent

  139.69

  1,962

  0

  1,962

  Leeds

  139.38

  2,471

  3,142

  5,614

  Nottingham

  138.29

  2,124

  2,668

  4,792

  Dudley

  137.32

  1,010

  0

  1,010

  East London and the City

  136.92

  0

  3,217

  3,217

  South Cheshire

  136.81

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  136.79

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  136.57

  0

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  136.51

  0

  0

  0

  South and West Devon

  135.63

  0

  994

  994

  Stockport

  134.85

  0

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire

  134.83

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  133.99

  0

  3,607

  3,607

  Barking and Havering

  133.71

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  133.66

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  133.11

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  131.38

  0

  0

  0

  South Derbyshire

  131.26

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  130.58

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  130.45

  0

  0

  0

  Worcestershire

  130.18

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  130.18

  0

  0

  0

  Bexley and Greenwich

  129.67

  0

  0

  0

  North and East Devon

  129.42

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  128.60

  0

  1,149

  1,149

  West Kent

  127.65

  0

  0

  0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  126.48

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  125.71

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  125.39

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  125.38

  0

  0

  0

  South Essex

  124.75

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  124.39

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  122.80

  0

  682

  682

  West Sussex

  122.52

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  122.42

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  121.96

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  121.10

  0

  0

  0

  North Essex

  121.07

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  120.88

  0

  0

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  118.96

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  118.18

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  117.88

  0

  0

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  117.82

  0

  0

  0

  West Surrey

  117.75

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  117.56

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  116.24

  0

  0

  0

  East Surrey

  115.76

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  115.54

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  115.01

  0

  1,002

  1,002

  West Hertfordshire

  114.44

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  113.10

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  112.96

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  109.71

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston and Richmond

  108.58

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  105.57

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  100.00

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  —

  70,000

  60,000

  130,000

  1 April 1999 boundaries

  2 The Years of Life Lost index is a composite of the three-year average (1996–98) of rates of years of life lost under 75 for circulatory diseases, all cancers, accidents, suicides and undetermined injury.

  593W
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank all health authorities in England and Wales on the basis of an age-standardised Years of Life Lost index, indicating which health authorities received an allocation under the health inequalities adjustment.

  Health authority1

  Age standardised Years of Life Lost index2

  Health inequalities adjustment for health authorities at or above 137 on Years of Life Lost index £000

  Health inequalities funding for health authorities with Health Action Zones £

  Total health inequalities adjustment £

  Manchester

  195.4

  2,013

  2,428

  4,441

  Liverpool

  173.6

  1,997

  2,350

  4,347

  East Lancashire

  159.2

  2,069

  0

  2,069

  West Pennine

  159.1

  1,827

  0

  1,827

  Bury and Rochdale

  155.8

  1,528

  1,705

  3,233

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  154.5

  1,476

  1,678

  3,154

  East London and the City

  153.1

  0

  3.217

  3,217

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  152.4

  1,374

  1,602

  2,976

  Sandwell

  151.8

  1,180

  1,364

  2,544

  Tees

  151.5

  2,166

  2,547

  4,713

  Barnsley

  150.2

  925

  1,061

  1,985

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  148.6

  1,778

  2,201

  3,979

  Salford and Trafford

  148.4

  1,723

  2,009

  3,732

  Sunderland

  147.9

  1,112

  1,376

  2,488

  County Durham

  147.9

  2,424

  0

  2,424

  South Humber

  146.3

  1,188

  0

  1,188

  Wirral

  145.1

  1,246

  1,398

  2,644

  Camden and Islington

  144.6

  1,358

  1,841

  3,199

  Wigan and Bolton

  144.4

  2,158

  0

  2,158

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  144.2

  0

  3,607

  3,607

  North Cheshire

  143.8

  1,151

  0

  1,151

  Doncaster

  142.8

  1,106

  1,307

  2,412

  Bradford

  142.7

  1,686

  2,165

  3,851

  North West Lancashire

  141.1

  1,748

  0

  1,748

  North Staffordshire

  140.4

  1,752

  1,608

  3,360

  North Cumbria

  140.4

  1,226

  1,256

  2,482

  Wolverhampton

  140.4

  872

  1,081

  1,953

  Birmingham

  137.9

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  137.7

  1,190

  1,414

  2,604

  Northumberland

  136.7

  1,175

  1,249

  2,424

  Coventry

  135.9

  1,067

  0

  1,067

  East Riding

  135.1

  2,054

  2,350

  4,404

  Rotherham

  134.7

  854

  1,065

  1,919

  North Nottinghamshire

  134.6

  1,376

  0

  1,376

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  133.3

  1,967

  0

  1,967

  Walsall

  132.8

  900

  1,102

  2,003

  Morecambe Bay

  132.4

  1,101

  0

  1,101

  Sefton

  132.0

  998

  1,161

  2,159

  Leeds

  131.6

  2,471

  3,142

  5,614

  South Lancashire

  130.1

  1,081

  0

  1,081

  Sheffield

  129.5

  1,787

  2,377

  4,164

  North Derbyshire

  129.3

  1,308

  0

  1,308

  Nottingham

  129.3

  2,124

  2,668

  4,792

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  129.2

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  128.6

  0

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  128.3

  2,301

  0

  2,301

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  128.0

  1,744

  1,842

  3,585

  Bexley and Greenwich

  126.1

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  125.6

  1,450

  0

  1,450

  Isle of Wight

  125.0

  436

  0

  436

  Northamptonshire

  124.5

  0

  0

  0

  East Kent

  123.4

  1,962

  0

  1,962

  Barking and Havering

  123.0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  121.9

  0

  0

  0

  Herefordshire

  121.1

  560

  0

  560

  Leicestershire

  120.8

  0

  1,149

  1,149

  Warwickshire

  120.8

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  120.5

  1,010

  0

  1,010

  South Derbyshire

  120.4

  0

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire

  120.0

  0

  0

  0

  South Cheshire

  119.9

  0

  0

  0

  594W
  Mr. Hutton
  The table ranks health authorities in England on the basis of an age-standardised Years of Life Lost index and shows the health inequalities adjustment received with 2001–02 allocations.

  Questions about health authorities in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  595W

  Health authority1

  Age standardised Years of Life Lost index2

  Health inequalities adjustment for health authorities at or above 137 on Years of Life Lost index £000

  Health inequalities funding for health authorities with Health Action Zones £

  Total health inequalities adjustment £

  North Yorkshire

  119.8

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  118.7

  0

  0

  0

  South and West Devon

  118.7

  0

  994

  994

  Bedfordshire

  118.5

  0

  682

  682

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  117.9

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  117.7

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  117.3

  0

  0

  0

  West Kent

  117.2

  0

  0

  0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  116.8

  0

  0

  0

  Worcestershire

  115.6

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  114.4

  0

  0

  0

  South Essex

  113.7

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  113.3

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  113.3

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  113.2

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  113.0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  113.0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  112.8

  0

  1,002

  1,002

  Cambridgeshire

  112.3

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  112.1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  111.7

  0

  0

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  111.3

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  110.6

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  110.6

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  110.4

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  110.3

  0

  0

  0

  North and East Devon

  109.6

  0

  0

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  108.5

  0

  0

  0

  North Essex

  107.8

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  107.5

  0

  0

  0

  West Hertfordshire

  107.2

  0

  0

  0

  West Surrey

  106.9

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  105.3

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  104.5

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  104.3

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston and Richmond

  103.7

  0

  0

  0

  East Surrey

  102.4

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  100.0

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  70,000

  60,000

  130,000

  1 April 1999 boundaries

  2 The Years of Life Lost index is a composite of the three-year average (1996–98) of rates of years of life lost under 75 for circulatory diseases, all cancers, accidents, suicides and undetermined injury.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list health authorities in order of their distance from target in 2001–02, showing(a) the cash amount and (b) the percentage increase on their baselines directed towards moving under-target authorities closer to their weighted capitation targets for (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [2958]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table lists health authorities in order of their distance from target in 2001–02 and shows, in cash and percentage terms, the increase on their baselines

  Distances from targets

  Increase directed towards moving under target health authorities closer to target

  Health authority1

  2001–02 Percentage

  1999–2000 £000

  2000–01 £000

  1999–2000 Percentage

  2000–01 Percentage

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  -10.90

  7,919

  6,605

  3.01

  2.28

  East London and the City

  -7.15

  8,868

  6,051

  1.95

  1.22

  Bedfordshire

  -4.40

  5,071

  3,968

  1.74

  1.26

  Berkshire

  -3.36

  6,696

  4,834

  1.67

  1.09

  Oxfordshire

  -3.14

  4,635

  2,901

  1.52

  0.87

  596W
  directed towards moving under target health authorities closer to their weighted capitation targets for 1999–00 and 2000–01.

  For 2001–02, the distribution of extra resources was on the following basis:

  (a) every health authority received a general increase to meet the pressures they all face calculated pro rata to their baselines;

  (b) funding for implementing the NHS Plan was issued pro rata to their weighted capitation targets.

  (No funding was specifically directed towards moving under target HAs to target.)
  597W 598W

  Distances from targets

  Increase directed towards moving under target health authorities closer to target

  Health authority1

  2001–02 Percentage

  1999–2000 £000

  2000–01 £000

  1999–2000 Percentage

  2000–01 Percentage

  Cambridgeshire2

  -3.10

  NA

  3,673

  NA

  0.91

  Barnsley

  -2.95

  2,252

  1,664

  1.55

  1.07

  Wigan and Bolton

  -2.84

  5,511

  3,883

  1.58

  1.04

  Buckinghamshire

  -2.83

  4,926

  3.805

  1.43

  1.02

  Barnet

  -2.82

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Leicestershire

  -2.44

  6,988

  5,224

  1.45

  1.00

  Walsall

  -2.35

  1,778

  1,193

  1.17

  0.73

  South Derbyshire

  -1.91

  4,247

  2,509

  1.33

  0.73

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  -1.77

  4,533

  2,012

  1.02

  0.42

  West Pennine

  -1.73

  3,453

  2,260

  1.24

  0.76

  Nottingham

  -1.55

  5,273

  3,533

  1.45

  0.90

  Shropshire

  -1.39

  2,247

  1,676

  0.97

  0.67

  Croydon

  -1.33

  2,198

  1,290

  1.16

  0.63

  South Essex

  -1.26

  6,426

  3,073

  1.65

  0.72

  Avon

  -1.25

  6,233

  3,733

  1.14

  0.63

  South Staffordshire

  -1.24

  0

  1,358

  0.00

  0.42

  County Durham

  -1.20

  5,363

  3,326

  1.40

  0.80

  North Staffordshire

  -1.10

  4,152

  2,329

  1.46

  0.76

  North Essex

  -1.04

  4,894

  2,133

  1.04

  0.42

  Enfield and Haringey

  -1.03

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  East and North Hertfordshire

  -0.98

  2,842

  1,933

  1.04

  0.66

  Bradford

  -0.96

  3,770

  1.981

  1.29

  0.63

  Hillingdon

  -0.88

  0

  794

  0.00

  0.51

  Wolverhampton

  -0.82

  1,803

  1,275

  1.20

  0.79

  Coventry

  -0.79

  3,101

  2,001

  1.66

  0.99

  North Yorkshire

  -0.74

  3,975

  2,178

  0.97

  0.50

  North Nottinghamshire

  -0.65

  2,540

  2.059

  1.15

  0.86

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  -0.58

  5.471

  0

  1.02

  0.00

  Tees

  -0.57

  3,813

  2,349

  1.10

  0.63

  Dudley

  -0.53

  1,893

  1,312

  1.10

  0.71

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  -0.49

  2,175

  1,345

  0.98

  0.57

  Bury and Rochdale

  -0.49

  2,717

  1,191

  1.17

  0.47

  Rotherham

  -0.47

  1,543

  1,006

  1.04

  0.63

  Norfolk2

  -0.46

  NA

  0

  NA

  0.00

  Stockport

  -0.43

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Sunderland

  -0.34

  1,978

  1,223

  1.05

  0.61

  West Sussex

  -0.34

  4,603

  2,345

  1.05

  0.50

  Lincolnshire

  -0.33

  0

  2,266

  0.00

  0.57

  North and Mid Hampshire

  -0.18

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  West Hertfordshire

  -0.11

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Sandwell

  -0.09

  2,267

  1,202

  1.18

  0.59

  North Cumbria

  -0.07

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Brent and Harrow

  -0.06

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Wakefield

  0.04

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Worcestershire

  0.20

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Camden and Islington

  0.21

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Herefordshire

  0.23

  0

  450

  0.00

  0.45

  East Lancashire

  0.29

  3,393

  1,925

  1.03

  0.55

  Northamptonshire

  0.30

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.32

  2,514

  1,557

  1.05

  0.61

  Southampton and South West Hampshire.

  0.35

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Wiltshire

  0.46

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.49

  2,939

  0

  0.95

  0.00

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.51

  0

  1,571

  0.00

  0.42

  North Derbyshire

  0.58

  2,021

  1,104

  0.94

  0.48

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.68

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Northumberland

  0.75

  1,701

  896

  0.92

  0.45

  West Kent

  0.76

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Somerset

  0.85

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  South Lancashire

  0.92

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Solihull

  0.92

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Suffolk

  1.06

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1.12

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Doncaster

  1.14

  1,706

  856

  0.92

  0.43

  Warwickshire

  1.14

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Birmingham

  1.18

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Leeds

  1.27

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  North and East Devon

  1.27

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Barking and Havering

  1.45

  2,525

  0

  1.05

  0.00

  East Riding

  1.46

  3,473

  1,512

  1.03

  0.42

  599W

  Distances from targets

  Increase directed towards moving under target health authorities closer to target

  Health authority1

  2001–02 Percentage

  1999–2000 £000

  2000–01 £000

  1999–2000 Percentage

  2000–01 Percentage

  North West Lancashire

  1.52

  2,952

  0

  0.98

  0.00

  South Cheshire

  1.58

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Bromley

  1.63

  1,631

  0

  0.95

  0.00

  West Surrey

  1.74

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  East Surrey

  2.15

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  North Cheshire

  2.22

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  2.25

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Salford and Trafford

  2.48

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  South Humber

  2.52

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  East Kent

  2.69

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  South and West Devon

  2.80

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Sheffield

  2.81

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Dorset

  2.86

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Manchester

  2.89

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  3.01

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Liverpool

  3.13

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  3.39

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3.60

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Wirral

  3.65

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Gloucestershire

  3.71

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Sefton

  4.18

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Morecambe Bay

  4.37

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Bexley and Greenwich

  7.27

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Isle of Wight

  7.70

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  1 April 1999 boundaries

  2 New health authorities established 1 April 1999.

  Drug Addicts
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the treatment protocol is for long-term injecting drug addicts over the age of 40. [2819]

  Ms Blears
  Treatment is provided on the basis of clinical need. Hence, treatment of adult drug misusers should not vary according to age. Guidance on the standard to which treatment should be provided is contained within the Department of Health publication "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management", which is available in the Library.

  Ambitious targets have been set under our 10-year anti-drugs strategy to prevent drug misuse, and to help those with drug problems overcome them. A key target is to increase the participation of drug misusers in drug treatment programmes that have a positive effect on health and crime by 66 per cent. by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision of car parking for(a) staff, (b) patients and (c) visitors as part of new hospital building schemes. [3223]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's policy is to require a transport plan that incorporates car parking arrangements for staff, patients and visitors as part of the business case approval process for new hospital building schemes. This will take into account local circumstances and the need to maximise accessibility by public transport to minimise the need for car parking, particularly for staff, while at the same time providing good access arrangements for emergency vehicles and those who need to use cars.
  600W
  It is also important that those considering new health facility developments have early discussions with the local authority on car park requirements and transport planning as a key part of the planning approval process.

  Herceptin
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to direct NICE to issue guidance on the use, of Herceptin in combination with taxanes for the treatmeat of women with breast cancer who are over-expressing the HER 2 marker; and if he will make a statement; [3264]

  (2) if he will li5t the health authorities in England and Wales that are awaiting a decision from NICE on Herceptin before they will fund the drug for the treatment of women with breast cancer who are over-expressing the HER 2 marker; [3265]

  (3) if NICE has completed its appraisal of the use of Herceptin in combination with taxanes for the treatment of women with breast cancer who are over-expressing the HER 2 marker; [3263]

  (4) when he expects NICE to issue guidance on the use of Herceptin in the treatment of women with breast cancer who are over-expressing the HER 2 marker. [3290]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 11 July 2001]: We understand that the publication date for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance in the use of trastuzumab (Herceptin) and vinorelbine for breast cancer has yet to be confirmed but is unlikely to be before the end of the year. Once the date is confirmed, details will be published on the Institute's website. We would expect NICE guidance to relate to the current licensed uses of trastuzumab.
  601W
  We do not hold a central list of the authorities which are awaiting a decision from the National Institute before they will fund trastuzumab. However, we expect that health authorities will continue an arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies in line with Health Service Circular 1999/176 issued in August 1999, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Colorectal Cancer
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health authorities in England and Wales that are awaiting a decision from NICE on Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed before they will fund these drugs in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; [3287]

  (2) what plans he has to direct NICE to issue guidance on the use of Irinotecan as second-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; and if he will make a statement; [3285]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the length of time between the decision to uphold the appeal against the appraisal by NICE on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and the next review of draft guidance by the Appraisal Committee of NICE; and if he will make a statement; [3281]

  (4) when NICE will issue guidance on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; [3282]

  (5) when the appeal against the appraisal by NICE on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer will be heard; when the Appeal Board decided to uphold the appeal; and when this decision was announced; [3279]

  (6) what guidance he intends to give to health authorities following the appeal being upheld against the appraisal by NICE on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, and prior to formal guidance being issued by NICE; [3283]

  (7) if NICE has completed its appraisal on the use of Irinotecan as second-line treatment or advanced colorectal cancer; [3284]

  (8) when the appraisal committee of NICE will meet to review the draft guidance on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. [3280]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 11 July 2001]: We referred the appraisal of Irinotecan to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 12 July 2000.

  Details of the process for a particular treatment are a matter for NICE. However, we understand that an appeal panel heard appeals against the final appraisal Determination on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer on 23 May 2001 and that the panel's decision was forwarded to the Institute on 27 June 2001. The panel's decision was distributed to consultees on 28 June and was published on the Institute's website on 2 July.
  602W
  The appraisal committee will review its final appraisal determination on the use of Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin and Raltitrexed in the light of the appeal panel's decision and recommendations. It was asked to do so on 27 June when the Institute received the appeal panel's final decision. The date on which it will meet to review its final appraisal determination is to be confirmed, as is the proposed date the Institute will issue its guidance. We understand that when these dates are agreed they will, in line with the Institute's usual practice, be published on the NICE website.

  The length of time between the decision to uphold the appeal and the next review of draft guidance is a matter for NICE. It is aware that the final guidance should be issued as soon as possible but that due process should be followed.

  We do not hold a central list of the authorities who are awaiting a decision from NICE before they will make these drugs available. However, we expect that health authorities will continue arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies, in line with Health Service Circular 1999/176 issued in August 1999, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Follicular Lymphoma
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health authorities in England and Wales that are awaiting a decision from NICE on rituximab before they will make this drug available for the treatment of eligible patients with follicular lymphoma; [3277]

  (2) when the next Appraisal Committee of NICE to review draft guidance on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma will meet: [3272]

  (3) when the appeal against the appraisal by NICE on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma was heard; when the appeal board decided to uphold the appeal; and when this decision was announced; [3271]

  (4) when NICE will issue guidance on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma; [3274]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the length of time between the decision to uphold the appeal against the appraisal by NICE on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma and the next review of draft guidance by the Appraisal Committee of NICE: and if he will make a statement. [3273]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 11 July 2001]: Appeals are a part of the process used by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for developing robust and reliable guidance. Details of the process for a particular treatment are a matter for the Institute. However, we understand that an appeal panel heard appeals against the final appraisal determination on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma on 21 May 2001 and that the panel's decision was forwarded to the Institute on 27 June 2001. The panel's decision was distributed to consultees on 28 June and was published on the Institute's website on 2 July.

  The appraisal committee will review its final appraisal determination on rituximab for follicular lymphoma in the light of the appeal panel's decision and recommendations.
  603W
  It was asked to do so on 27 June when the Institute received the appeal panel's final decision. The date on which it will meet to review its final appraisal determination is to be confirmed, as is the proposed date the Institute will issue its guidance. We understand that when these dates are agreed they will be published on the Institute's website in line with normal practice.

  The length of time between the decision to uphold the appeal and the next review of draft guidance is a matter for the National Institute. It is aware that the final guidance should be issued as soon as possible but that due process should be followed.

  We do not hold a central list of the authorities who are awaiting a decision from the Institute on rituximab before they will make this drug available. However, we expect that health authorities will continue arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies, in line with Health Service Circular 1999/176 issued in August 1999, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he intends to give to health authorities following the appeal upheld against the appraisal by NICE on the use of rituximab for the treatment of follicular lymphoma and prior to formal guidance being issued by NICE. [3275]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: None. We issued Health Service Circular 1999/176 in August 1999. It asks National Health Service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is not available at the time the technology first becomes available. It also advises that these arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank health authorities in England in order of the highest waiting times for hospital operations, using as the measures(a) those waiting over six months for inpatient treatments and (b) those waiting over 12 months for inpatient treatments. [3052]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: Patients awaiting operations are not identifiable separately. The table shows, for all patients awaiting admission to hospital, numbers of patients waiting more than six months and more than 12 months in each health authority in England as at 31 May 2001.

  As part of the NHS Plan, the National Health Service is working towards reducing the current maximum inpatient wait of 18 months to 15 months by March 2002, 12 months by March 2003, nine months by March 2004 and then ultimately six months by the end of 2005.

  Patients waiting more than six months for admission to hospital as on 31 May 2001

  Health authority

  Number

  West Kent

  7.796

  West Sussex

  7,141

  Avon

  6,603

  North Essex

  6,537

  Hertfordshire

  6,167

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  5,910

  604W

  Patients waiting more than six months for admission to hospital as on 31 May 2001

  Health authority

  Number

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  5,806

  West Surrey

  5,484

  East Kent

  5,348

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  5,101

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  4,628

  South Essex

  4,571

  Norfolk

  4,481

  Suffolk

  4,406

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East

  4,380

  Hampshire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  4,028

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4,019

  Cornwall and Isles of Silly

  3,961

  South and West Devon

  3,929

  Leeds

  3,908

  South Cheshire

  3,896

  Buckinghamshire

  3,808

  South Staffordshire

  3,792

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  3,758

  Berkshire

  3,667

  Salford and Trafford

  3,587

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  3,579

  Northamptonshire

  3,507

  Wiltshire

  3,491

  Cambridgeshire

  3,472

  North and East Devon

  3,448

  North Yorkshire

  3,434

  East Riding and Hull

  3,400

  Barking and Havering

  3,191

  East London and City

  3,171

  Leicestershire

  3,143

  East Surrey

  3,102

  Wigan and Bolton

  3,077

  Bedfordshire

  3,049

  South Derbyshire

  2,977

  North Cheshire

  2,973

  East Lancashire

  2,962

  Somerset

  2,954

  Manchester

  2,947

  Oxfordshire

  2,901

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2,778

  Liverpool

  2,702

  North and Mid Hampshire

  2,689

  Worcestershire

  2,664

  Sheffield

  2,496

  Nottingham

  2,465

  Birmingham

  2,419

  Tees

  2,398

  Brent and Harrow

  2,360

  County Durham and Darlington

  2,325

  Bradford

  2,262

  Croydon

  2,196

  West Pennine

  2,175

  Kingston and Richmond

  2,105

  South Lancashire

  2,019

  Warwickshire

  2,019

  Wakefield

  2,005

  North West Lancashire

  2,003

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,995

  North Cumbria

  1,976

  Bury and Rochdale

  1,894

  South Humber

  1,877

  North Derbyshire

  1,808

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,779

  Sefton

  1,769

  Stockport

  1.726

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1,690

  Shropshire

  1,657

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,618

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1,477

  Morecambe Bay

  1,412

  Camden and Islington

  1,367

  605W

  Patients waiting more than six months for admission to hospital as on 31 May 2001

  Health authority

  Number

  North Staffordshire

  1,333

  Gloucestershire

  1,316

  Sunderland

  1,256

  Hillingdon

  1,096

  Wirral

  983

  Northumberland

  972

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  961

  Dudley

  875

  Coventry

  869

  Wolverhampton

  709

  Herefordshire

  693

  Barnsley

  588

  Solihull

  578

  Sandwell

  565

  Doncaster

  507

  Rotherham

  475

  Walsall

  399

  Dorset

  106

  Patients waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital as on 31 May 2001

  Health authority

  Number

  West Sussex

  1,816

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,603

  West Kent

  1,551

  West Surrey

  1,522

  Avon

  1,436

  Hertfordshire

  1,353

  North Essex

  1,331

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,160

  East Kent

  1,122

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East

  1,040

  Hampshire

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  1,040

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1,011

  Norfolk

  994

  Salford and Trafford

  849

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  839

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  811

  South and West Devon

  783

  Buckinghamshire

  777

  East Surrey

  754

  Wiltshire

  745

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  726

  Bedfordshire

  725

  South Staffordshire

  721

  North Cheshire

  717

  Manchester

  697

  North and East Devon

  689

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  685

  Northamptonshire

  623

  South Cheshire

  622

  Suffolk

  617

  Croydon

  606

  Cambridgeshire

  603

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  594

  Lincolnshire

  561

  East London and City

  536

  North and Mid Hampshire

  530

  Barking and Havering

  521

  Berkshire

  516

  Liverpool

  504

  South Essex

  493

  Oxfordshire

  487

  Wigan and Bolton

  484

  Kingston and Richmond

  448

  Brent and Harrow

  439

  606W

  Patients waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital as on 31 May 2001

  Health authority

  Number

  Worcestershire

  414

  Leeds

  367

  Leicestershire

  364

  Somerset

  357

  East Riding and Hull

  321

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  319

  Sefton

  287

  West Pennine

  285

  Shropshire

  280

  Camden and Islington

  263

  South Lancashire

  258

  Bury and Rochdale

  258

  Hillingdon

  250

  Stockport

  248

  Birmingham

  238

  North Staffordshire

  225

  South Derbyshire

  212

  Nottingham

  195

  North Cumbria

  188

  Morecame Bay

  183

  Wakefield

  173

  North West Lancashire

  171

  North Yorkshire

  168

  East Lancashire

  154

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  148

  Gloucestershire

  131

  Wirral

  128

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  112

  Herefordshire

  107

  Tees

  104

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  99

  County Durham and Darlington

  94

  Bradford

  88

  Dudley

  80

  Coventry

  77

  Warwickshire

  73

  North Nottinghamshire

  60

  Sheffield

  60

  Northumberland

  56

  North Derbyshire

  55

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  43

  Wolverhampton

  43

  Sunderland

  38

  South Humber

  37

  Sandwell

  28

  Walsall

  27

  Solihull

  21

  Barnsley

  18

  Dorset

  12

  Doncaster

  9

  Rotherham

  8

  Source:

  QFO1 quarterly returns

  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 290W, on NHS complaints procedure, on what date his Department received the report from York Health Economics Consortium. [3562]

  Ms Blears
  The final report of the national evaluation of the National Health Service complaints procedure by the York Health Economics Consortium and NFO System Three Social Research (formerly Public Attitude Surveys) was received by the Department on 28 February 2001.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were on 31 March(a) 2000 and (b) 1999, in each county of England and Wales. [2595]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The available information, showing vacancies at January each year, has been published in table 42 of the DIES publication "Statistics of Education: Teachers, England and Wales, 2000 edition". A copy is held in the House of Commons Library, and is also available on the DfES website at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0220/ index.html.

  Assessment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the recent statement by the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on the current assessment system. [3119]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) made a wide-ranging speech at the QCA Annual Conference on 26 June in which he made a number of observations about the possible future direction of the assessment system.

  QCA conducted a review of statutory assessment (ie at Key Stage 1, 2 and 3) last year at the request of Ministers. This review covered three areas: strengthening and improving the current tests; enhancing the role of ICT in the tests; and improving teachers' own skills in assessment. Ministers welcomed the range and scope of the recommendations which officials in QCA and the Department for Education and Skills are now taking forward.

  Head Teachers' Forums
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the remit of the new head teachers' forums within local education authorities will be; what guidance her Department has issued to local education authorities on setting up these forums; and if she will make a statement. [3024]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: My Department has no plans to establish head teachers' forums.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children are entitled to free school meals in(a) Church of England schools, (b) Roman Catholic schools, (c) schools of other Christian denominations (d) other religious schools, (e) non religious foundation schools and (f) other maintained schools. [3164]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  608W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals by religious character, January 2000

  Religious character

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  Church of England

  12.2

  11.8

  Roman Catholic

  17.2

  16.5

  Other religious schools1

  10.2

  7.1

  Non-religious schools

  20.2

  16.8

  1 Includes Methodist, shoots of mixed denomination or other Christian belief. Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and other religions.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many advisers have been recruited to date, and how many more will be recruited by 2005, to operate the Connexions Service; and if she will make a statement. [3365]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The 12 Partnerships that went live on 1 April 2001 are in a transition stage, building up their personal adviser staff from partner organisations, including the Careers Service and Youth Service and by recruitment of new staff. It is very early days, but preliminary figures reported by Partnerships at the end of May 2001 indicate that 991 full-time equivalent personal advisers were in post.

  The Connexions service will be rolled out nationally during 2002–03, but it has always been recognised that the service, including the number of personal advisers, would build up gradually over time. Significant additional funding—£177 million above the Careers Service baseline in 2000-01—has been announced for 2002–03. How this will translate into additional personal advisers will depend on a range of factors including locally determined rates of pay and the additional resources that Partnerships are able to secure from partner organisations. Funding for future years will be determined by the outcome of the CSR2002 exercise.

  Further Education
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the contribution of the further education sector in raising the skills base in the United Kingdom. [2988]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The further education sector makes an essential contribution to delivering the skilled work force our nation requires. We are working to ensure that it is flexible and responsive to employers' changing skills needs. The sector plays a particularly important role in delivering the skills we need for craft, technician and equivalent level jobs—skills that are vital to raise our skills base and to boost productivity. Over recent years we have widened participation and increased achievements while maintaining retention rates. We have also seen significant improvements in performance and a reduction in variations in quality across the sector. Nevertheless, we have ambitions to achieve more. We have significantly increased the Standards Fund, to support raising standards in colleges, and we are spending £100 million over the next three years to develop Centres of Vocational Excellence in the sector.
  609W
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of staff morale in the further education sector; and if she will make a statement. [2992]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The assessment of staff morale is a matter for colleges, as independent employers, to address in consultation with the relevant unions, just as the terms and conditions for staff are a matter for colleges to determine in discussion with relevant unions. We acknowledge that colleges need help to ensure that they have the right arrangements to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers. Starting this year, significant extra resources amounting to an additional £300 million over the next three years have been made available to the further education sector to reward high calibre staff through our Teaching Pay Initiative, £44 million of which will be shared by sixth-form colleges. The total figure is over and above the annual pay round. In addition, we plan to implement arrangements for FE teachers of shortage subjects to benefit from 'golden hellos' comparable to those already in schools and from arrangements we are piloting to help new entrants to the profession to pay off their student loans.

  Sure Start
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to authorise a further round of local sure start programmes. [3705]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I have today invited the following 105 districts in England d to set up 177 new sure start programmes:

  District

  Number of programmes

  Amber Valley

  1

  Arun

  1

  Ashford

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  Barnsley

  2

  Barrow-in-Furness

  1

  Birmingham

  6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2

  Blackpool

  1

  Bolton

  2

  Bradford

  3

  Brent

  1

  Bristol

  1

  Burnley

  1

  Calderdale

  1

  Cambridge

  1

  Camden

  2

  Cheltenham

  1

  Colchester

  1

  Coventry

  1

  Crawley

  1

  Crewe and Nantwich

  1

  Darlington

  1

  Dartford

  1

  Derby

  2

  Doncaster

  3

  Durham

  1

  Easington

  1

  Eastbourne

  1

  Erewash

  1

  Gateshead

  2

  Gedling

  1

  Gosport

  1

  610W

  District

  Number of programmes

  Gravesham

  1

  Great Yarmouth

  1

  Greenwich

  2

  Hackney

  3

  Halton

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Haringey

  3

  Hartlepool

  1

  Hastings

  1

  Hyndburn

  1

  Islington

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  Kettering

  1

  Kingston upon Hull

  3

  Kirklees

  2

  Knowsley

  2

  Lambeth

  3

  Leeds

  2

  Leicester

  3

  Lewisham

  2

  Lincoln

  1

  Liverpool

  4

  Manchester

  4

  Mansfield

  1

  Merton

  1

  Middlesbrough

  2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  Newham

  4

  North Cornwall

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  2

  North Tyneside

  Norwich

  1

  Nottingham

  3

  Oldham

  2

  Pendle

  1

  Penwith

  1

  Peterborough

  1

  Plymouth

  2

  Preston

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  Rochdale

  2

  Rother

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  Salford

  2

  Sandwell

  3

  Sefton

  2

  Sheffield

  3

  South Tyneside

  2

  Southampton

  1

  Southwark

  3

  St. Helens

  2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  3

  Sunderland

  3

  Tameside

  1

  Taunton Deane

  1

  Teignbridge

  1

  Thanet

  1

  Torbay

  1

  Torridge

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  Wakefield

  1

  Walsall

  2

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Wansbeck

  1

  Wear Valley

  1

  Wellingborough

  1

  Westminster

  1

  Wirral

  1

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Worcester

  1

  York

  1

  611W
  We have placed a copy of the guidance for this fifth wave of programmes in the Library.

  These new programmes are an addition to the 260 programmes which are already delivering services to young children and their families in disadvantaged areas or developing their plans for delivery from the autumn. This announcement brings the total number of sure start programmes so far announced to 437. They will become operational from summer 2002 when we will be well on schedule to meet the Public Service Agreement target of 500 programmes operating by 2004, reaching one third of all poor children aged under four and their families in England. This will be a significant contribution to the Government's aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extraditions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals have been extradited from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [2528]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No record is kept of the nationalities of those extradited from the United Kingdom. Total numbers extradited from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Total

  2000

  147

  1999

  38

  1998

  45

  1997

  43

  1996

  35

  1 The figure for 2000 does not include one further fugitive who was delivered to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  The figures relate to extraditions under the Extradition Act 1989 and do not include cases governed by the provisions of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. The latter are not collected centrally.

  Economic Crime
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to combat economic crime; and if he will make a statement. [2687]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government fully recognise the harm which economic crime inflicts on its victims, not only in terms of the financial loss but in terms of the frustration and inconvenience caused. Living off the proceeds of crime cannot be tolerated in a fair and just society, and the Government are determined that crime should not pay.

  The Proceeds of Crime Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech, will attack the profit motive which drives organised criminals. The Bill will contain measures to deprive people of money and property which they have obtained through criminal activity. These measures include reforming confiscation procedures and modernising the criminal law on money laundering and the creation of a new agency, the National Confiscation Agency (NCA), which will co-ordinate the activity of the
  612W
  police, Customs, the Inland Revenue and prosecutors to remove assets obtained illegally and to encourage international co-operation in this. Removing illegal gains from criminals not only acts as a deterrent but reduces their ability to fund further crime.

  A large proportion of economic crime involves credit card fraud. The Home Office is currently working closely with the financial institutions and the retail sector to reduce credit card fraud by the introduction of chip cards and personal identification numbers as security safeguards. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for policing of crime and community safety will be chairing a meeting with senior members of these industries to discuss credit card fraud issues later this month.

  In addition to this, a working group led by the Serious Fraud Office has been formed to investigate how we can improve the overall response to fraud. The group will be reporting to Ministers later in the year.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made for the cost of(a) credit card fraud, (b) other fraud and (c) all economic crime in each of the last six years. [2686]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The banking industry (the Association of Payment Clearing Services) estimated that the cost of total reported losses due to credit card fraud in each of the last six years was:

  £ million

  1995

  83.3

  1996

  97.1

  1997

  122.0

  1998

  135.0

  1999

  188.4

  2000

  292.6

  (b) A report commissioned by the Home Office and the Serious Fraud Office entitled 'The Economic Cost of Fraud' (copies of which have been placed in the Library) was published in March 2000 by National Economic Research Associates. This report recognised that the available data were patchy and infrequently gathered, but offered a low estimate of £6.6 billion and a high estimate of £13.6 billion for the total economic cost of other fraud (excluding credit card fraud) for the year ending 1999. These estimates include amounts defrauded, investigation and deterrence costs

  (c) There is no accepted definition of "economic crime". However, Home Office Research Study no. 217 "The economic and social cost of crime" (copies of which have been placed in the Library) estimated that in total, fraud, commercial and public sector victimisation and property crimes against households and individuals cost around £32 billion in 1999–2000. Estimates have not been made for previous years.

  Privacy Screens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide finance for privacy screens in cells which are used for eating, sleeping and integral sanitation. [2842]
  613W
  Beverley Hughes
  In June this ye; r the Prison Service approved funding of £1 million for a programme to install privacy screening in 6,500 or so cells across its estate currently without such provision. Arrangements are in hand to manufacture the screens to the newly approved standard. A programme of installation is expected to begin in this financial year and take about 12 months to complete.

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations giving immigration advice for profit are registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner; and how many such organisations are in the process of registering with the OISC; [3299]

  (2) what the planned total expenditure budget is of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner in 2001–02; [3301]

  (3) what the projected total income budgets of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner are for (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; [3302]

  (4) how many complaints against an immigration adviser have been (a) received and (b) determined by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner since 30 April; [3303]

  (5) if he will provide a breakdown of the staff complement of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. [3300]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that, as of 10 July 2001, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) had received 150 registration applications from immigration advisers in business for profit. Of these, 94 were from sole practitioners, of which 55 are now registered, and 56 were from organisations comprising two or more practitioners, of which 43 are now registered. Forty-nine applications are still under consideration; three have been withdrawn.

  The OISC total expenditure budget for the current financial year awaits approval by the relevant Minister of State. I will write to the hon. Member

  As of 10 July, the OISC had received 56 complaints since 30 April, of which five have been determined.

  In addition to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, the OISC currently employs 46 people, broken down as follows:

  Number

  Casework

  21

  Complaints

  9

  Registry

  4

  Support

  12

  Total

  46

  Based on the number of registration applications received so far, it is expected that total income from registration fees this financial year will be around £400,000. This may increase, depending on how many more registration applications are received. Registration fee income is expected to be broadly similar in
  614W
  2002–03 but this will be augmented by fees from designated professional bodies, which are to be set by the Secretary of State after the first full year of the OISC' s operation.

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future role of the UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator and his deputy. [193]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: We are currently in the process of re-appointing Keith Hellawell to a part-time role assisting with the investigation of, and advice on, international drug-related issues. Mike Trace, the former Deputy Co-ordinator, has taken a short-term appointment with the National Treatment Agency and will also continue to provide advice on relevant issues.

  Feltham Young Offenders Prison
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed at Feltham Young Offenders Prison in each of the last five years. [3128]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Full-time equivalents

  Number of staff in post at 31 March

  1997

  523.7

  1998

  538.7

  1999

  518.4

  2000

  622.6

  2001

  627.8

  Natural Cannabis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-schedule natural cannabis for medicinal use. [2371]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: We have no plans at present. The Government have made it clear that they would be willing to amend the misuse of drugs legislation, to allow the prescribing of a cannabis-based medicine, if current clinical trials into the therapeutic benefits of cannabis are scientifically established and lead to a medical preparation which is approved by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA).

  It would be premature to amend the legislation unless and until the quality, safety and efficacy of such a medicine have been demonstrated and a marketing authorisation has been issued for it by the MCA.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines and procedures govern the ability to hold an inquest in respect of(a) military aircraft accidents and (b) civil aircraft accidents (i) in advance of and (ii) following an air accident inquiry report. [3176]
  615W
  Beverley Hughes
  It is a matter for the coroner to decide on the conduct of his or her investigations and to proceed to an inquest. Where a death arises from a civil aircraft accident, the coroner will generally seek to ensure that inquiries are informed by any relevant reports or written statements from other agencies, including the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and, in relation to military aircraft, any reports produced by a Ministry of Defence Board of Inquiry.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been successfully sought since their introduction. [612]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 July 2001, c.7]: The figures for antisocial behaviour orders issued between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001 have been revised from 214 to 215 and the number of police force areas where such orders have been issued now stands at 34 not 33.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the annual report for the Forensic Science Service. [4240]

  Mr. Denham
  Copies of the Forensic Science Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 2000–01 have today been laid before Parliament.

  Performance against Agency Targets 2000–01:
  The Forensic Science Service had eight targets in 2000–01, of which seven were met.

  Financial targets:
  An 11 per cent. return on capital employed was produced against a target of 10–15 per cent.
  A three-year rolling efficiency gain of 9 per cent. was achieved against a target of 10 per cent. However, there has been a 10 per cent. improvement in efficiency gain in the last two years since Trading Fund.

  Timeliness targets:
  An average turnaround time of 26 days was achieved against a target of 27 days; this target was rebased from the original target of 24 days to take account of the change in mix of business and work content per job.
  93 per cent. of agreed delivery dates were achieved against a target of 90 per cent.
  A feasibility study on a target to achieve 99 per cent. agreed delivery dates on cases classified as urgent or critical was successfully piloted. As a result, an agreement was reached with the Association of Chief Police Officers on the definition of critical cases and procedures implemented to ensure cases submitted are correctly prioritised.

  Service level target:
  Three service level agreements, three best value agreements and 27 drugs best value agreements have been put in place with police forces.

  Customer satisfaction target:
  Improvements in customer satisfaction have been shown in a pilot of a transactional-based approach. This will be introduced as an Agency Target next year.

  Quality targets:
  External quality accreditation has been achieved and extended, including achieving the Investors in People award.
  616W
  Agency Targets for 2001–02:
  The targets for 2001–02, the agency's third year of trading fund, are as follows:

  Financial targets:
  Achieve a 10 per cent return on capital employed.
  Achieve a 3-year rolling target of a minimum 10 per cent. efficiency gain.

  Timeliness targets:
  Achieve a 26 day average turnaround time.
  Meet agreed delivery dates in 97 per cent. urgent and critical, 100 per cent. of Persistent Young Offenders.
  Achieve 93 per cent. of agreed delivery dates in all categories.

  Service level targets:
  Put in place agreements on levels of service with 90 per cent. of police forces.

  Customer Satisfaction targets:
  Establish a baseline overall measure putting into place routine and robust customer satisfaction measurement processes based on transactional approach, and for demonstrating year on year improvements in police (customer) satisfaction.
  Conduct a biennial customer satisfaction survey.

  Quality targets:
  Maintain external quality accreditation to International Standards Organisation (ISO) standards.
  Achieve 50 per cent. accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners in areas which it is registering people.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Communications White Paper
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to introduce legislation to implement the reforms to the regulatory structure proposed in the communications White Paper. [2045]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am pleased to announce that this afternoon the Government will introduce in another place the Office of Communications Bill. This Bill will be a paving measure related to the draft Communications Bill that was announced in the Queen's speech. The Communications Bill itself will be published in draft later this session.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by her Department to support manufacturing industry. [2047]

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by her Department to support manufacturing industry. [2068]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The platform of economic stability the Government have established, together with our policies to foster enterprise and help firms to innovate and grow, are the best way to secure the long-term success of UK manufacturing industry.

  Industrial Diseases (Compensation)
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress on the settlement of claims for compensation for chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger. [2048]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the "Minister for Industry and Energy has recently visited the respiratory disease testing centres in Newport and Ayr, as well as the Department's claims handling agents in Sheffield, to meet some of the 1,000 medical and claims processing staff employed by our contractors in the settlement of these claims and to discuss the progress that has been made over the last six months.

  In total we have now paid out nearly £470 million in compensation for respiratory and vibration related diseases, with over £33 million being paid in Scotland alone.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Production
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the level of new capital investment in UK offshore oil and gas production to date this year. [2050]

  Mr. Alexander
  The latest figures provided by the industry show capital investment in UK oil and gas production at some £860 million for the first quarter of 2001. This is 37 per cent. higher than investment in the first quarter of 2000, giving encouragement that the efforts of the Government/industry PILOT initiative are bearing fruit.

  Women (Public Life)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure Government Departments encourage more women to participate in public life. [2052]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are determined to achieve more equal representation of men and women in public appointments. Each Government Department has an action plan containing clear goals and objectives to help them achieve this aim. I will be encouraging my ministerial colleagues throughout Government to ensure that their Departments meets its goals.

  We are also committed to preparing legislation to enable political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life.

  Energy Supply
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on long-term changes in sources of UK energy supply. [2053]
  618W
  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 18W, that he has asked the performance and innovation unit to undertake a review of the options for meeting our long-term energy objectives. A key issue will be ensuring continued security and diversity of energy supplies over the long term, while addressing the challenge of climate change. I shall be chairing an Advisory Group for the project which will report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the end of the year.

  It would therefore be premature for me to make a statement on the long-term changes in sources of UK energy supply now.

  Renewable Energy
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on support for the renewables energy industries. [2054]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation on licensed electricity suppliers will provide a strong regulatory and financial incentive to the renewable energy industries. An order setting up the Obligation will be placed before Parliament later this year.

  The Government have exempted electricity from renewable energy from the climate change levy and are also providing over £260 million of direct financial support over the next three years for research, development and deployment of renewable energy technologies.

  Broadband Telecommunications (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the availability of broadband telecommunications in rural areas. [2055]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government have made a commitment to work to ensure that broadband is accessible in all parts of the country. In May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a major new project to determine how to speed up the roll-out of broadband services to individuals and businesses in rural and other areas that individual suppliers currently see as uncommercial. The project will establish how, by aggregating the public sector's demand for broadband services, we can best encourage telecoms companies to roll out broadband infrastructure to these "hard to reach" areas.

  Parliamentary Candidates (Women)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase the number of women candidates for Parliament. [2056]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have a made a commitment to prepare legislation to enable political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life.

  Minimum Wage (Wales)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of how the national minimum wage is benefiting people in Wales. [2057]
  619W
  Alan Johnson
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that 100,000 workers in Wales became entitled to a higher rate of pay when the national minimum wage (NMW) was introduced on 1 April 1999. The ONS estimates that around 90,000 workers in Wales will benefit from the increases in the NMW main rate and development rate to £4.10 and hour and £3.50 respectively on 1 October 2001.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to speed up coal-related compensation payments in the former east Kent coalfield area. [2058]

  Mr. Wilson
  As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), informed my hon. Friend at the end of last year, we recognise that the start-up of the respiratory disease scheme was too slow. We took a number of initiatives to tackle this and get money out more quickly.

  Significant progress is now being made, and since the beginning of the year the number of medical assessments GB-wide has risen to around 830 a week, with the total number increasing from 8,500 in January to over 24,000 now.

  In the south of England alone we paid out nearly £7 million in compensation for respiratory and vibration related diseases.

  Scientific Research Councils
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the joint workings of the scientific Research Councils. [2059]

  Ms Hewitt
  A quinquennial review of the six grant-awarding Research Councils was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 13 February 2001,Official Report, columns 82–83W. This review is in progress, and expects to report in the early autumn. The councils are being reviewed together as a group. One of the issues under consideration is how to encourage joint working among the councils, both at a strategic and operational level.

  Retail Businesses (Town Centres)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage new retail businesses to start up in town centres. [2060]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service, through the networks of 45 Business Links, encourages entrepreneurship across society and is placing particular emphasis on start-ups and micro-businesses. Business Link advisers are actively involved in helping such start-ups, including new retail businesses and in so doing address various factors, including finding a suitable location. This is often done in partnership with local authorities, who will have a detailed knowledge of town centre sites.

  Consumer Protection
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps her Department is taking to protect the interests of consumers. [2061]
  620W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Enterprise Bill will promote the interests of consumers through creating a more enterprising economy, taking swift action against rogue traders and clamping down on anti-competitive practices.

  Coal Industry
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of UK deep-mined coal in the context of competitive energy markets. [2062]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 18W, that he has asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a review of the options for meeting our long-term energy objectives. We will examine all aspects of energy policy, including the role of coal in our future energy balance. I shall be chairing an Advisory Group for the project which will report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the end of the year. It would therefore be premature for me to make a statement on the future of UK deep-mined coal now.

  Hat Industry
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the UK hat industry about its prospects. [2063]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not yet had an opportunity to discuss competitiveness issues with representatives of the UK hat industry but I can confirm that the Chairman of the British Hat Guild wrote to my right hon. Friend on the 19 June informing her of the problems facing the industry and seeking financial support.

  Officials in the Department's Consumer Goods and Services Directorate have been in dialogue with the Guild and as part of that process had a meeting with the Guild earlier this year. Officials are currently updating a competitiveness analysis of the sector with a view to identifying appropriate project opportunities for the Guild to develop. The letter from the Guild Chairman contributes to developing and continuing this constructive dialogue.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from business about the impact of the climate change levy on business. [2064]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for E-Commerce and Competitiveness to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess),Official Report, column 914.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Oftel concerning the cost of landline to mobile telephone connections. [2065]
  621W
  Mr. Alexander
  Oftel and DTI Ministers regularly discuss their respective responsibilities for telecommunications. In this context, the Director General of Telecommunications has briefed me on current Oftel issues. These include Oftel's mobile market review and calls to mobile review. Landline to mobile telephone connections costs are covered in the latter. A decision on this issue is solely a matter for Oftel

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of increased non-domestic gas prices upon UK manufacturing. [2066]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are very much aware that, despite the recent easing of wholesale gas prices, many manufacturing companies have seen a substantial increase in their gas bills over the past year. We consider that the main reason behind this price increase is arbitrage across the UK-Belgian interconnector with high oil related gas prices in Europe. This has been made worse by the lack of liberalisation in Europe and the consequent absence of competition between gas suppliers.

  The Government are pressing a three-point strategy to address this issue—working for greater liberalisation in Europe, improving the GB market, and taking action against any anti-competitive behaviour.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprise. [2067]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government's support for small and medium enterprises is delivered through the Small Business Service, which was created in April 2000 to act as the focal point within Government for all small business issues and services. During its first year, it has developed a number of new services in areas such as venture capital, support for farmers and services to tackle social exclusion and encourage enterprise. It has restructured the local Business Link network and developed a national Business Link network and developed a national Business Link contact centre and website. It has also ensured that the concerns of small firms are understood and promoted within Government. It will be further developing and extending these services in the current year.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of the TUC to discuss trade unions. [2070]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met Mr. John Monks, General Secretary of the TUC, on Monday 11 June.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what plans she has to publish details of her Department's financial support for Huntingdon Life Sciences; what precedent she intends her support to set; and if she will make a statement. [2322]
  622W
  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has undertaken to operate banking facilities for Huntingdon Life Sciences, which—owing to intimidation of bank staff by animal rights extremists—has been unable to find commercial facilities in the UK, while negotiations with banks continue. It is not giving overdraft facilities or other financial support to Huntingdon Life Sciences. My Department will be recovering the direct costs of providing this service from the company.

  My Department is operating the banking facilities in particularly unusual circumstances. The intimidation and harassment of providers of financial services to a particular company carrying out a legitimate and strictly regulated business is, the Government believe, unique. It is not intended that Government should become a "supplier of last resort" for any company that experiences temporary difficulties. However, the Government as a whole are determined that vital research and safety testing should not be disrupted and legitimate businesses should not be forced out of business by the criminal activities of animal extremists.

  Petrol Retailing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent analysis she has made of the state of competitiveness within the petrol retailing sector. [2049]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under UK Competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour.

  The DGFT has investigated the petrol retail industry a number of times in recent years and has found it to be competitive. He has said that he will continue to monitor the market very closely.

  Compulsory Share Purchase
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is her estimate of the value of shares which privatised companies were given the power to obtain compulsorily but which the shareholder refused to sell since 1991; what has happened to those shares and what the arrangements are under which they are held; what plans the Government have to end this compulsion element; and if she will make a statement. [2721]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No figures relating to the value of shares in privatised companies which have been compulsorily purchased under the terms of the Companies Act 1985 are readily available and any estimate of the value could only be ascertained at disproportionate cost. Shareholders who have refused to sell shares which have been subject to a compulsory purchase notice will have had their shares transferred to the purchaser and the money to buy the shares held in trust until it is paid over to them.

  The compulsory purchase of shares has been considered by the Company Law Review. The Review's conclusions will be set out in its final report which is due to be published in the summer.

  Consumers' Rights
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to promote consumers' rights. [2042]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Enterprise Bill will promote the interests of consumers through creating a more enterprising economy, taking swift action against rogue traders and clamping down on anti-competitive practices.

  Retail Code of Practice
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to implement a retail code of practice; and if she will make a statement. [2945]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: In its October 2000 report on the supply of groceries, the Competition Commission recommended that a code of practice be established governing the way leading supermarkets treated their suppliers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked the Director General of Fair Trading to agree a code with the relevant supermarkets. He has recently submitted his advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Cheque Shops
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has for monitoring the operations of cheque shops. [3061]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Money Lenders
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about extortionate credit; and if she will make a statement on her policy in this area. [3057]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: My Department has received many representations on this issue, mainly from consumer groups. I recognise that it is vital that consumers are protected against exploitative lending practices and I am now considering what action the Government can take to ensure this.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many Housing Benefit recipients are in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit; [1564]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the estimated number of Housing Benefit claimants also in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit, if the Working Families Tax Credit threshold was increased to (a) £120, (b) £150 and (c) £200. [1565]
  624W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the number of people claiming the Working Families Tax Credit who also receive Housing Benefit will be included in the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Annual Summary Statistics May 2000. These will be published on 26 July 2001 and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  These figures will be the first drawn from actual claims data. Any estimates made in advance of their publication will be substantially less accurate.

  Estimates of the change in numbers of Housing Benefit recipients also in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit caused by hypothetical changes to the Working Families Tax Credit threshold can be derived from the Department's Policy Simulation Model (2001–02). This information is in the table.

  Estimated number of recipients of both Housing Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit

  Working Families Tar Credit threshold

  Number

  £120

  30,000

  £150

  50,000

  £200

  70,000

  Notes:

  1. The estimated number of Housing Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit recipients is rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  2. The estimates calibrate survey totals using the numbers of non-Income Support working age families [with earnings] receiving Housing Benefit picked up on the Policy Simulation Model compared to administrative data, as a proxy for the Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit group.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the estimates of Housing Benefit fraud detected, expressed is a proportion of Housing Benefit expenditure for each local authority for 1999–2000, will be released. [2261]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The weekly benefit savings scheme provides a measure of benefit fraud detected by local authorities. A table providing the information requested expressed in terms of weekly benefit savings for the year 1999–2000 has been placed in the Library.

  We have announced that the weekly benefit savings scheme is to be replaced by a new, more comprehensive anti-fraud incentive scheme which aims to provide greater financial rewards to authorities which uncover more fraud and prosecute fraudsters. The new incentive scheme will also make extra prevision for those local authorities who operate the Department's Verification Framework. 63 local authorities lave adopted the new scheme from April 2001 with the remaining local authorities switching to the new scheme from April 2002.

  New Deal
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those aged over 50 years in each region and nation of the UK have returned to work with the support of the New Deal for the over-50s programme. [3091]
  625W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table:

  Results of the New Deal 50+ programme (April 2000-May 2001)

  Region

  Number returning to work

  Northern

  2,300

  North West

  4,700

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,300

  West Midlands

  3,700

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4,300

  South West

  4,000

  London and the South East

  7,700

  Scotland

  4,900

  Wales

  2,900

  Northern Ireland

  800

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. The Department for Work and Pensions is not responsible for the operation of the New Deal 50 + in Northern Ireland

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage and how many Incapacity Benefit claimants were re-tested after(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months, (d) two years and (e) three years in the period April 1995 to June 2001. [3157]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Information on the number of people claiming Incapacity Benefit who are re-tested is not collected separately.

  ELTEC
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the assets and financial surpluses that were transferred from ELTEC to the Learning and Skills Council for Lancashire. [3441]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  East Lancashire TEC (ELTEC) has transferred £7,000 worth of its computers and other equipment to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) for Lancashire as well as providing similar support to the new Business Link in Lancashire. The transfer of any c ash surpluses will be finalised after the TEC has completed its statutory accounts for the year ended March 2001 and appointed a liquidator to wind up the company.

  Current estimates suggest that some £1.4 million will be made available to the Lancashire LSC to take forward local initiatives in east Lancashire and a further £1.3 million will go to support Individual Learning Accounts for local people.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding the possibility of buying up sheep quota. [1714]

  Mr. Morley
  We have had no discussions with the Commission on buying up sheep quotas. We will be discussing more generally with the Commission the problems of the sheep market as a result of foot and mouth disease.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 9 April on behalf of his constituent Ms Halford. [3566]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on 10 July 2001.

  Fur Farming
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will issue the order that will specify the deadline for the end of fur farming. [3143]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The Government anticipate that the commencement order setting the date of the ban on fur farming under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be made at the same time as the order setting out the details of the compensation scheme. This is expected to be later this year, following consultation on the compensation scheme during the summer.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fur farms are(a) licensed and (b) currently operating in England and Wales; and if he will list their locations by county. [3144]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: As at 9 July 2001, there were the following mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Number of licensed mink farms currently operating

  Cornwall

  1

  —

  Dorset

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  5

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Total

  12

  6

  The number of fur farms in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. However, I understand that there are currently no licensed fur farms in Wales.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the total cost of(a) design, (b) stationery, (c) new name plaques and (d) other costs of the naming of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [3032]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Our records currently show the following expenditure as being related to the naming of the New Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
  627W

  £

  (a) Design

  Conceptual design and graphics

  4,200

  (b) Stationery

  Print-related expenditure

  21,804

  (c) New name plaques

  New name plaques

  4,763

  (d) Miscellaneous

  Production, installation of signage and photographic charges

  1,977

  Forms control costs (including software)

  950

  The preparation of designs, graphics manufacture and the production of signage with alternative departmental names, which were not chosen.

  14,798

  Note:

  All expenditure is in sterling and exclusive of VAT.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a statement on the causes and transmission of the foot and mouth epidemic. [1668]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain O) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of the introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the subject of continuing investigations, but is most likely to have been introduced in imported meat or meat products. The virus was primarily transmitted throughout a large proportion of the susceptible farm livestock population of Great Britain via sales of subclinically infected sheep through markets, via dealers and local sales between farms before 23 February when all animal movements were banned. The specific means of transmission between herds and flocks has been the subject of detailed epidemiological investigations of each infected premises. The results of these investigations are summarised in the following table.

  Number of cases

  Percentage of cases

  Airborne1

  7

  31

  Dairy tanker

  5

  31

  Infected animals

  84

  5

  Local spread

  1,381

  81

  Other fomite2

  9

  1

  Person

  60

  4

  Truck

  18

  1

  Under investigation

  142

  8

  Total

  1,706

  100

  1 Cases infected by windborne spread from infected pigs

  2 A fomite is defined as any inanimate object capable of carrying the virus

  3 Less than

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposal to prevent the movement of new animals from a farm for 20 days during the short market season, on farmers owning rams and breeding sheep; and if she will make a statement. [2670]

  Mr. Morley
  A standstill would have slowed down the rapid livestock movements that helped spread foot and mouth disease. The Government are reviewing their proposals in the light of responses to the consultation exercise; they have decided to make this issue part of a628W
  total approach to future disease control, which will also include biosecurity, animal identification and licensing. This will allow fuller veterinary and economic assessments to be carried out. In the meantime, current movement licensing controls will continue.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the verification procedures used in countries with foot and mouth disease to ensure that meat exported to the United Kingdom from the non-infected part of the country is not contaminated. [2748]

  Mr. Morley
  Community law requires any member state that has an outbreak of foot and mouth disease not to export fresh meat from within an infected area to any other member state. Responsibility for ensuring compliance lies with the competent authority of the affected member state. For third countries, EC rules require exports of all foot and mouth disease susceptible products to be accompanied by veterinary health certification that guarantees that the meat does not come from a region infected with foot and mouth disease. All imports from third C3untries of foot and mouth disease susceptible products must enter through UK Border Inspection Posts where they undergo checks to verify they comply with Community import conditions. It is the responsibility of the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission by means of inspection visits to ensure that member states are complying with Community law and that third countries have in place appropriate disease control measures to ensure they meet Community import conditions.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs what inspections her officials have made of countries with foot and mouth disease which are exporting meat and meat products to the United Kingdom; and if she will place the inspector's report in the Library. [2749]

  Mr. Morley
  The responsibility for animal and public health inspections of member states and third countries which export meat and meat products to the EU lies with the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission. The report of their inspections, which may include countries which have foot and mouth disease are available from the Commission's website at the following address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/index_en.html.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the countries which have had foot and mouth disease in the last six months from which Britain is importing meat or meat products. [2747]
  629W
  Mr. Morley
  The following countries have had outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the six-month period from 1 January 2001 and may export meat and meat products into the European Community including Great Britian:

  Brazil

  Uruguay

  South Africa

  France

  The Netherlands

  Republic of Ireland.

  "Vipers"
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the report entitled "Vipers", which was presented to the EU in August 2000. [2770]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials would be happy to assist the right hon. Member but it is regretted that a thorough search has been found no trace of a report entitled "Vipers" presented to the EU in August 2000. If the right hon. Member could provide further information my officials would be happy to look into this matter.

  Petrol Safety
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many underground storage tanks are considered to be at risk of leakage in the UK. [1580]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Environment Agency estimates that there are approximately 14,000 petrol stations in England and Wales with some 60,000–70,000 underground storage tanks. The risk of leakage at these facilities not only from the storage tanks but also pipework and pump delivery systems, including delivery of fuel to the site. HSE does not have information on the number of underground storage tanks at risk of leakage in the UK. However, local authority petroleum enforcement officers issue licences under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 to retail petrol outlets to ensure the safe storage of petrol. Conditions attached to these licences specify arrangements to prevent and detect leaks.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to introduce a new licensing agreement for petrol retailers using underground storage tanks. [1590]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE has no plans to establish new licensing arrangements but this topic will form part of the review currently being conducted into modernising petrol legislation.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many leakages from underground storage tanks have been reported in each of the past five years; how many have resulted in prosecution; how many have caused environmental damage; and if she will make a statement. [1583]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  630W
  HSE does not collect statistics on how many leakages from underground storage tanks have been reported. The Environment Agency's prosecution database runs only from January 1999 and does not provide narrative in respect of prosecutions. The failure to report leakage or the fact of such leakage from a storage tank would not therefore be specifically identified and case-by-case information would be disproportionately expensive to obtain. If leakage from a petrol tank occurred a prosecution would be likely to be based on the leakage itself and the resulting pollution or a breach of a licence condition.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to commission a full condition audit of underground storage tanks in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [1578]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE and the Environment Agency have no plans to commission a full condition audit of all underground storage tanks in the UK. There are a number of Environment Agency initiatives aimed at preventing pollution from such tanks and associated facilities. In general, these approaches focus on factors such as the condition of the facility, their age and environmental sensitivity, and the potential consequences of leakage in Environment Agency groundwater protection zones. In addition, local authority petroleum enforcement officers issue licences under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 to retail petrol outlets to ensure the safe storage of petrol. Conditions attached to these licences specify arrangements to prevent and detect leaks.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many field visits and inspections were made by environmental health officers to petrol retail outlets using underground storage tanks during each of the past five years. [1581]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE does not collect statistics on the number of field visits and inspections made by environmental health officers to petrol retail outlets using underground storage tanks. Local authority petroleum officers issue licences under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 to petrol retail outlets to ensure the safe storage of petrol.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish a new petroleum authority(a) to regulate and (b) license companies providing offsite wetstock monitoring to ensure they have adequate professional indemnity insurance. [1576]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE has no plans to establish new petroleum authorities but this topic will form part of the review currently being conducted into modernising petrol legislation.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received proposing the introduction of a regulatory regime for underground storage tanks used by petrol retailers; and if she will make a statement. [1589]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  631W
  HSE has not received any representations about the introduction of a regulatory regime for underground storage tanks but this topic will form part of the review currently being conducted into modernising petrol legislation.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial aid is available to small independent petrol retailers to help upgrade underground storage tanks and pipes to avoid future leakages; and if she will make a statement. [1579]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no financial help available in England and Wales. The Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise do offer assistance through the Rural Petrol Stations Grant Scheme, which is aimed at improving the environmental performance of such sites, by replacement and upgrade. Grants are available up to 50 per cent. of the cost of work. They are able to do this because Environmental protection is a devolved power (to Scotland).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will issue a code of practice for petrol retailers using underground storage tanks from which site managers can benchmark their performance. [1972]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  DEFRA is currently preparing a Code of Practice, with a view to public consultation, which should help petrol retailers comply with the requirements of the groundwater regulations as they impact on the storage of petrol in underground tanks. It is intended that the Code of Practice will be issued in due course. In addition, there is substantial guidance material available in the Institute of Petroleum/Association for Petrol and Explosive Administrators' document "Guidance for the Design, Construction, Modification and Maintenance of Petrol Filling Stations".

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by Railtrack in the creation of an in-house comparator for engineering work. [1021]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack has acknowledged that changes are needed to its relationship with its contractors as part of its new approach to infrastructure engineering. I understand that the company is undertaking a full review of this contractual interface, to establish what changes are needed to clarify responsibilities for safe and effective delivery, which asset management activities Railtrack should continue to outsource, and which can be managed more effectively by bringing them in-house.

  A565
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to maintain the A565 between Bootle and the Seaforth flyover. [3250]
  632W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mrs. Curtis-Thomas, dated 12 July 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to maintain the A565 trunk road between Bootle and the Seaforth Flyover.
  I am aware of your previous concerns about the appearance of the A565—which is currently a trunk road maintained by this Agency. As you may I know, we have announced proposals to "detrunk" this section of the A565 and it is planned that ownership and management responsibility for the road will transfer to the Local Authority, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, by June 2003. Until then we will continue to maintain the road through our Managing Agent, Lancashire County Council's Highways Consultancy.
  In my letter of 6 February (copy enclosed) I said that we intended to work with Sefton's Cleaning Services Manager to improve the standard of street sweeping and litter removal. Unfortunately, progress on improving the appearance of the Bootle to Seaforth Flyover section of the read has not been as swift as I would have liked, for which I apologise. We have inspected this stretch of road on several occasions since I wrote to you. The only significant issue concerns the ongoing problems with the standard of sweeping and cleaning of the road provided by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. As a result, we have, as an extra measure, instructed our Term Maintenance Contractor, Edmund Nuttall Ltd., to remove all weeds by hand and to clear the detritus within the next fortnight. In addition to this, we are in discussion with the Council's Cleaning Services Manager with regards to road sweeping and cleaning. Regular cleaning is important to inhibit weed growth, preventing the build up of material that allows them to grow, and increasing the effectiveness of spraying them. We expect to see improvements to the road's appearance as a result of these measures in the near future.
  If you would like any further information about this matter, you may wish to contact the Agency's Project Sponsor for this section of route, Alex Millet, as Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M1 4BE (telephone 0161 930 5627).

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress concerning the revision of planning rules and guidelines for mobile phone masts. [3150]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 17W.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if(a) car boot sales, (b) the use of existing farm buildings for commercial or residential purposes and (c) the development of small-scale residential buildings on existing farmland fall within his definition of farm diversification projects. [3174]

  Ms Keeble
  National planning policy for the diversification of farm business into non-agricultural activities is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 7 (PPG7):Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development. PPG7 does not include a definition of farm diversification, although Annex C to the guidance includes a non-exclusive list of examples of potential farm diversification. PPG7 was amended on 21 March to encourage local planning

  633W
  authorities to be more supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location. Local planning authorities should set out in their development plans the criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm diversification projects. It is a matter in the first instance for local planning authorities to consider each application on its own merits, taking into account their development plan policies and national guidance.

  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) grants a general planning permission for the temporary use of land for up to 28 days in any calendar year, subject to a number of restrictions and conditions. From car boot sales, the permitted use is limited to 14 days.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 3 July 2001 Official Report, column 140W, on the dome, what recommendations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive regarding public access to the dome building. [3202]

  Ms Keeble
  No recommendations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive it this regard. While decommissioning works are taking place at the dome, it is covered by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994, which relate to the execution of works and management of the site. As a result, there is currently no public access to the dome site.

  London Underground
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the preferred bidders for the London Underground will be handed operational control of their franchises. [3545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The private sector will not be handed operational control of the Underground. London Underground will continue to own and run the Underground. The successful bidders for three infrastructure contracts will work for London Underground, bringing their construction and project management expertise to achieve the modernisation and maintenance of the Underground, on time and on budget. The Government want to see London Underground complete its work to finalise the contracts as quickly as possible so that work can start soon to deliver a 21st Century Tube.

  Transport Direct
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary c f State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to introduce the transport direct booking and information system. [3456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport Direct is designed for people to plan their journeys and to compare routes and prices. It will cover all types of transport within the UK—air, rail, coach, bus and car.

  Transport Direct will do three things:
  tell the traveller what choices they have when they are planning their journey;
  634W
  allow the traveller to book and pay for their journey at the time of making their inquiry, and receive their travel authority/ticket(s); and
  advise the traveller about how their chosen travel option is performing in real-time before they set off.

  Transport Direct will be delivered in phases over a number of years. By 2003 we expect it to include:
  real-time train operating information (that is actual rather than timetabled);
  real-time information on many local bus services;
  internet travel information, covering road journeys as well as all forms of public transport at a single point of contact;
  internet booking of long-distance journeys involving different forms of transport; and
  development of internet-based maps that allow travellers to examine public transport options both for visiting a specific venue and for general travel around an area.

  Traveline, the national public transport information system and a precursor to Transport Direct, 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.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what actions his Department has taken in the past 12 months to improve bus frequencies and enhance off-peak and night bus services. [3544]

  Ms Keeble
  Outside London, it is primarily for local authorities to secure any necessary bus services not provided commercially. We are assisting by providing additional funding for buses through the continuation of the rural bus grant and challenge schemes—with 20 per cent. of the former now available to support existing services rather than entirely new ones—and the launch this year of the urban bus challenge scheme. These schemes help authorities to secure additional services where they are most needed. In London, responsibility rests with the Mayor.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 1 June on behalf of his constituent Mr. Ogles. [3563]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have now replied to the right hon. Member.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the multi-modal study programme. [4026]

  Mr. Byers
  The Multi-Modal Studies are looking at some of the most severe transport problems around the country. They are considering the contribution all modes of transport can make to solving these problems. They are also looking at the contribution existing, previously considered and new transport infrastructure can make.
  635W
  The key objective is to give decision makers the information needed to identify tailored, integrated and sustainable transport solutions. The studies will drive major investment decisions over the period covered by our 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  The studies are founded on our New Approach To Appraisal, launched in 1998 in our Integrated Transport White Paper. They weigh strategies and their component projects according to their economic, environmental, safety, accessibility and integration impacts. This ensures that costs and benefits are fully explored and understood before decisions are taken. This new approach to decision making is an important step forward. We will consider the contribution all types of transport can make to solving problems, not just roads.

  Each study is addressing very different problems so the strategies and the decisions that emerge will be unique. The impact on the environment must be a key consideration and in each case we will have to weigh up the benefits of a particular road or rail link and balance it against the environmental impact. The conclusion will vary in each case. No individual decision will set a precedent for others to follow.

  Decisions will be taken through the new arrangements for the development of Regional Transport Strategies within Regional Planning Guidance. Ministers need not accept all recommendations from Regional Planning Bodies. There may be instances where strategies or individual projects raise issues of national importance. Where this is the case my priority will be to ensure that final decisions reflect, and are properly co-ordinated with, our wider national policy objectives.

  South Coast Corridor Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Isle of Wight is covered by the terms of reference of the South Coast Corridor Multi-modal Study; and for what reason no representative of the Isle of Wight is a member of the steering group of the study. [3701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The overall aim of the study is to investigate congestion, safety and environmental problems of transport on the south coast between Southampton and Thanet. The Isle of Wight is not included in the core study area but is included in the study's "Area of Influence" to enable assessment of the effects that any proposed schemes might have on the wider area. Although no representatives from the Isle of Wight are present on the study's Steering Group there is a wide-ranging consultation exercise currently being undertaken which enables input from all interested parties. A number of representatives from the Isle of Wight were invited to a consultative working group in Fareham on 29 June and there is an opportunity to feed into the process via newsletters, and a website. In addition a briefing meeting for local MPs has been arranged for 17 July: the Member has been invited.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has considered the recommendations of the South East England Regional Assembly following completion of the Access to Hastings multi-modal study; and if he will make a statement. [4025]
  636W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State has today replied to the Chairman of the South East England Regional Assembly, and I am placing a copy of his letter in the House of Commons Library.

  Multi-modal studies represent a wholly new approach to the consideration of transport provision. The Access to Hastings Study is the first of these multi-modal studies to have been completed, and I am grateful to all who have contributed to it.

  The study contains a large number of recommendations designed to relieve congestion and safety problems in Kent and East Sussex and to contribute to the regeneration of the economy in the area around Hastings and Bexhill. I have considered the study's recommendations in light of the guidance for handling multi-modal studies outlined in the Secretary of State's parliamentary answer of today. I am able to accept most of these recommendations, although in some areas further work is required to develop proposals before any finding commitments can be given.

  The study has shown a wide measure of agreement that, in place of the proposed six lane off-line scheme on the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury, the Highways Agency should consider the feasibility of a four lane on-line scheme. I have asked the Agency to progress that work. There is also broad consensus that the proposed A259 Pevensey to Bexhill scheme may now be dropped, given the safety improvements which have now been put in place. I have asked the Highways Agency to continue to monitor safety on this stretch of road.

  I have also asked the Agency to prepare a draft programme of work to identify possible further measures on the A21 South of Pembury. I have stressed, however, that this work will need to bear in mind the environmental sensitivity of the area.

  The study has demonstrated the potential merits of public transport investment in bus and rail. GoVia has agreed to the electrification of the Ashford to Hastings rail route and to looking at the scope for further improvements. As a result of this study, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) have also agreed to look at improvements to the service between Wadhurst and Tonbridge and investigate what further measures are required on the rout to provide faster, better quality of service. I have asked the SRA to work with the local councils to consider proposals for a new station at Glyne Gap and proposals for Ore-Bexhill metro rail service.

  I am also inviting East Sussex county council to come forward with well thought out proposals for improving bus services in Hastings to tackle regeneration. They are now reviewing their Local Transport Plan and I look forward to considering their proposals.

  Although I recognise the strong views held by the Regional Assembly and others in favour of the proposed A259 Western and Eastern bypasses, I have decided not to proceed with these schemes. The study did not build a convincing regeneration case for the by-passes—it concluded that although the by-passes could possibly help to generate employment in the area this would not necessarily help those in most need. There would be reduced congestion in some areas of the town but the position would get worse in other areas. Against these rather weak arguments we had to place the evidently severe implications for the environment—two Sites of

  637W
  Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an inter rationally recognised wetland surround Hastings.

  I believe, therefore, we must look for alternative means to prevent the further decline of the area and to optimise its economic potential. Regeneration is an important priority for the Government—some wards in Hastings suffer from some of the most severe deprivation in England—but we do not believe the by-passes are the solution. A regeneration strategy for Hastings needs to be developed which shows clearly how transport and other measures may be implemented to ensure a sustainable economic future of the area. I have asked my officials to work closely with the South East England Development Agency and local partners on that.

  Representation of the People Regulations
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to lay the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations. [4024]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The consultation on the draft regulations, which ended last month, has shown that there remain widespread and often conflicting concerns about the proposals. The Government, therefore, do not consider it right to proceed now with the proposed draft, and as discussed with the Electoral Commission intend to consult further with interested parties with a view, subject to parliamentary approval, of making regulations in the autumn which will provide for a full and edited electoral register with effect from the 2002 canvass. The Government believe that this will allow an orderly and well-planned introduction of the new arrangements.

  To allow this year's electoral registration canvass to take place on the existing basis, we intend to make as soon as possible, subject to parliamentary approval of a draft, regulations prescribing for this canvass a registration form in the traditional format.

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government an in the Regions if local authorities can use Major Repairs Allowance to fund new affordable housing. [4104]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer to the answer that I gave in the Housing (London) debate on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 21WH, which is unfortunately incorrect—the reference to:
  "extra money through the new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA)"
  should have referred to the overall increase in resources available for housing investment. Where resources are made available for the provision of additional housing by RSLs this must come from authorities' Housing Investment Programme allocations or their own resources. The MRA is being provided to meet the on-going capital costs of maintaining council housing and is essential to delivery of the target to bring all council housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons the Government have chosen to stop publishing its annual report. [3483]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will continue to report to Parliament and the public on their performance through a variety of means such as reports, statistical bulletins, ministerial statements and parliamentary questions. The information in the annual report was in any event a collation of existing, publicly available material.

  Echelon Communications Group
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom is a member of the Echelon communications group. [3472]

  The Prime Minister It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on these matters.

  Engagements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he visited the United States of America in an official capacity since I January 2000; and on which of these occasions he met the President of the United States of America. [3401]

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited the United States on two occasions since 1 January 2000. I attended the UN Millennium Summit in New York from 5 to 7 September 2000. On that occasion I met President Clinton for bilateral talks on 6 to 7 September 2000.

  I also visited the United States from 22 to 24 February this year and met President Bush for bilateral talks at Camp David during that time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  "Mein Kampf"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will review the availability of "Mein Kampf" in public libraries; and if she will make a statement. [58]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have responsibility under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to ensure that library authorities in England meet their statutory duty to provide a "comprehensive and efficient" public library service, but the day-to-day management of public library services remains for library authorities, who must make their own decisions about the detailed nature of the library service they provide, based on local resources and priorities. Decisions on book selection are, therefore, entirely for each library authority, provided that their selections keep within the law.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has
  639W
  received regarding an independent public inquiry into the impact of foot and mouth disease on the tourism industry; and if she will make a statement. [2414]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: I have received no representations specifically regarding an independent public inquiry into the impact of foot and mouth disease on the tourism industry. The Prime Minister has said there will be a proper inquiry into the outbreak once it is over. I am sure this will consider the implications for tourism.

  William Roberts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to safeguard the contents of the house of the late William Roberts R.A. for public display. [2413]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: Since John Roberts' death in 1995 the works of art of the late William Roberts R.A. have been stored free of charge by the Tate, a national gallery funded by my Department. The William Roberts Society is negotiating to purchase William Roberts' house from Treasury Solicitors, the administrators of the estate, with a view to establishing a museum to display his art. The Tate Gallery also has indicated its interest in acquiring some of the works of art. The Treasury Solicitors Department have given both these parties first refusal on purchasing the house and works of art respectively with a deadline set for proposals to be submitted. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has urged the William Roberts Society to obtain professional advice to help them with their proposal to turn the house into a museum.

  National Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many overseas visitors there were to each of the national museums and galleries in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion this represented of visitors in each case. [2693]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The estimated numbers and proportions of overseas visitors to each of the national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department in 1999–2000 are contained in the table.

  Estimate of overseas visitors to national museums and galleries sponsored by DCMS 1999–2000

  Museum/Gallery

  Overseas visitor numbers(thousands)

  As a percentage of total visitors

  British Museum

  4,204

  77

  Natural History Museum

  638

  38

  Imperial War Museum

  526

  39

  National Gallery

  2,500

  50

  National Maritime Museum

  391

  46

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  41

  6

  National Portrait Gallery

  110

  11

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  400

  14

  Tate Gallery

  850

  34

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  611

  48

  Wallace Collection

  73

  40

  Royal Armouries

  11

  5

  Total

  10.354

  43

  Note:

  These figures are based on visitor surveys.

  Swimming Pools
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent representations her Department has received about the state of repair of swimming pools; [3484]

  (2) what steps she is taking to improve levels of access to swimming pools for young people. [3486]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since my appointment, the Department has received nine representations regarding the provision of swimming pools, although none of these has concerned their current state of repair. The Amateur Swimming Association and the Amateur Swimming Federation of Great Britain have, in conjunction with Sport England, produced a National Facilities Strategy which is due to be published shortly. The aim of this strategy will be to increase participation in swimming through the provision of swimming pools that meets the needs of the population, and will address the seed for a network of teaching pools throughout the country.

  The Department for Education and Skills has established a Swimming Advisory Group, involving representatives from my Department, the swimming associations, Ofsted and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to discuss what more can be done to create even more opportunities for children to swim. Proposals will be announced by the end of the year.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Royal Sign Manual Procedure
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the cancer research rota used in deciding how to distribute funds under the Royal Sign manual procedure. [4241]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Royal Sign manual procedure is used where a testator makes a bequest in his or her will to charity but the charity is unnamed or unclear. In the circumstances, the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Queen, exercises the Royal Prerogative to direct that the bequest be made to a specific charity, which most nearly represents the testator's intention. A common bequest is for the purposes of "cancer research" but there are several charities which carry out this object. In the absence of any indications of the particular charity, the Treasury Solicit, s Department who administer the scheme has established a rota so that each one of our chosen cancer research charities receive approximately the same amount in any given year. This rota has now been running for almost 20 years, and the Attorney-General and I are seeking the views of the public on its composition. I have today placed a paper describing the issues in detail in the Library. It will be sent to all the registered cancer re search and relief charities for their observations and comments.

DEPUTY PRIME MINIESTER

  Business Regulations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to simplify and reduce the number and cost of regulations on business. [2069]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are taking a number of measures to control the regulatory burden.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment is required for each new proposal for regulation affecting business to ensure it is necessary and not cumbersome. The Panel for Regulatory Accountability, now given Cabinet Committee status, meets monthly to discuss regulatory performance with departmental Ministers.

  At European level we are working closely with other member states and the Commission to build on the real progress my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on 26 March following the Stockholm European Council.

  The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 now provides a new and powerful tool for reforming over-burdensome, over-complex and outdated primary legislation. We have identified over 50 examples of reforms that could be delivered by the order-making power in the Act and already issued seven consultation documents on prospective RROs, with more to follow shortly.

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) budgets and (b) administrative costs were for each of the Government offices for the Regions for each

  Government office administrative running costs

  £ million

  GO

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  North East

  8.843

  8.687

  8.617

  8.619

  8.312

  8.222

  9.016

  60.316

  North West

  9.984

  9.839

  9.443

  13.690

  13.049

  13.398

  14.562

  83.965

  Merseyside

  4.754

  4.350

  4.200

  0.012

  —

  —

  —

  13.316

  Total NW/M

  14.738

  14.189

  13.643

  13.702

  13.049

  13.398

  14.562

  97.281

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9.061

  8.765

  8.475

  8.684

  8.889

  9.184

  9.966

  63.024

  West Midlands

  10.436

  10.040

  9.758

  9.474

  9.330

  9.794

  9.693

  68.525

  East Midlands

  7.117

  6.617

  6.436

  6.754

  6.951

  7.177

  7.726

  48.778

  East England

  6.123

  6.169

  6.271

  6.269

  7.005

  7.391

  8.514

  47.742

  South West

  7.574

  7.141

  6.826

  6.985

  7.797

  8.227

  10.069

  54.619

  South East

  8.331

  8.406

  8.545

  8.561

  8.659

  8.953

  9.748

  61.203

  London

  11.106

  14.106

  13.459

  13.238

  13.716

  13.747

  12.617

  91.989

  RCU

  1.137

  1.696

  4.356

  3.095

  3.703

  3.130

  9.717

  26.834

  Total

  84.466

  85.816

  86.386

  85.381

  87.411

  89.223

  101.628

  620.311

  1 Allocations for 2001–02

  Note:

  GO-North West and GO-Merseyside merged during 1998–99

  Energy Policy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the policy and innovation unit review of energy policy will examine the options for demand management. [1971]
  642W
  financial year since their establishment; and what their planned budgets and administrative costs are for the next two years. [1435]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government offices for the English regions were established in 1994 and their work was originally overseen by the Government Office Management Board (GOMB). Following the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Reaching Out", published in February 2000, the role of the Government Office Management Board passed to the Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU).

  The administrative running costs for each Government office and for RCU/GOMB for the period 1995–96 until 2000–01 are detailed in the table. The table also shows the administrative running cost allocations, including a very small allocation for capital expenditure, for the current financial year. Since 1 April this year, the RCU has managed a single running cost budget for itself and the nine Government offices. This funding is transferred from sponsor Government Departments to cover the running costs of the Government offices for the work that the latter undertake on behalf of sponsor Departments. As at 1 April this year the sponsor Departments were DETR (as was), DfEE (as was), DTI and MAFF (as was). From 1 April 2002, Home Office and DCMS are expected to become sponsor Departments.

  The total indicative administrative running cost budget for the RCU and the Government offices for financial year 2002–03 is £98.63 million and £95.66 million for the 2003–04 financial year. There will be a resource planning exercise that will precede each of these financial years, and this will allocate these figures between individual Government offices and the RCU.

  Programme budgets administered by the Government offices are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the relevant sponsor Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The role of demand side management and energy efficiency in reducing energy use in Great Britain will form a key part of the Energy Review, which will develop a strategy for achieving greater energy efficiency.

TREASURY

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to bring into force the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [3804]

  Ruth Kelly
  My predecessor announced in March that "N2", the date for commencing the main provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, would be no later than the end of November 2001. I can now confirm that, in lay terms, the new regime will come into effect at midnight on 30 November. For legal reasons, the date named in the Commencement Order will be 1 December. Naming this day will have the effect of commencing the main provisions of the Act from the beginning of that day, which complies with the timescale set by my predecessor.

  So far, the Government have secured Parliament's approval for seven statutory instruments subject to affirmative resolution, and made a further 27 statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  We will shortly be making other statutory instruments with a view to enabling the FSA Board to make further provisions of its rulebook at its Board Meeting on 19 July. The key provisions of the rulebook, of course, were made by the FSA at its Board Meeting on 21 June.

  It particular, we expect shortly to make the statutory instrument that provides mechanisms by which firms having authority under old law to do financial services business will be "grandfathered" across into permissions to do equivalent business once FSMA commences. The FSA will then be responsible for letting individual firms know their grandfathered permissions.

  From Monday 3 September, we will commence FSA powers to consider applications from financial services firms to modify their grandfathered permissions or the grant of new permissions. Monday 3 September will also

  Source information sought by the Office for National Statistics

  Title of source

  Business/individual

  Frequency

  Economic

  Annual Business Inquiry (Distribution and Services)

  Business

  Annually

  Annual Business Inquiry (Production and Construction)-UK

  Business

  Annually

  Annual Survey of Financial Assets and Liabilities

  Business

  Annually

  Asset Finance Annual Income and Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Annually

  Asset Finance Quarterly Balance Sheet and Transactions Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Building Societies Inquiry

  Business

  Monthly and quarterly

  Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey-UK

  Business

  Annually

  Central Government Net Cash Requirement-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Construction Inventories-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Consumer Prices Collection-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Earnings of UK Insurance Brokers in overseas currencies

  Business

  Quarterly

  Exported Producer Price Indices

  Business

  Monthly

  Family Expenditure Survey-UK

  Business

  Continuously

  Finance Houses and Consumer Credit Grantors (Outside the Monetary Sector) and Specialist

  Business

  Quarterly

  Finance Leasing Companies and Partnerships Quarterly Inquiry into Capital Expenditure

  Foreign Direct Investment Inquiries

  Business

  Quarterly

  Fund Managers and certain other members of IMRO

  Business

  Annually

  GB Cinema Exhibitors Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Government Research and Development Survey-UK

  Business

  Annually

  Gross Trading Surplus of Local Authority Trading Enterprises-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Imported Producer Price Indices

  Business

  Monthly

  Index of Production-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Insurance Companies Balance Sheet Annual Inquiry

  Business

  Annually

  644W
  be the date from which the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal will consider appeals on decisions taken by the FSA in respect of those applications.

  By the summer recess, therefore, the task of implementing the Act will pass substantially to the financial services frims. They will need:
  to become familiar with the secondary legislation passed by Government;
  to absorb the provisions of the rule book made by the FSA;
  to analyse their grandfathered N2 permissions, and consider whether to seek modifications to those permissions;
  to adapt their procedures; and
  to train their staff.
  The date set for N2 ensures that the new regime for financial regulation starts after the close of business on the day, week and month, and should further assist financial services firms in making their adjustment.

  Statistics
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the categories of information and statistics sought by the ONS from businesses and individuals by way of requests for information. [2512]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 12 July 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the categories of information and statistics sought by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from businesses and individuals by way of requests for information. (2512)
  Statistical and Registration inquiries conducted by the ONS for its own purposes are listed in the attached table. The table shows three main types of information; economic, collected from businesses, social, collected from individuals and socio-economic collected from both businesses and individuals.
  The table also inch des inquiries conducted on behalf of other Departments and Agencies, but excludes statistical information derived as a by-product of administrative systems.
  645W

  Source information sought by the Office for National Statistics

  Title of source

  Business/ individual

  Frequency

  Insurance Companies Income and Expenditure-Quarterly Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Insurance Companies Income and Expenditure Annual Inquiry

  Business

  Annual

  Insurance Companies Transactions in Financial Assets Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  International Trade in Services

  Business

  Annually and Quarterly

  International Transactions of the Film and Television Industries

  Business

  Annually

  Investment by other financial intermediaries

  Business

  Quarterly

  Investment by UK Monetary Financial Institution

  Business

  Quarterly

  Investment Trusts Annual Return of Liabilities and Assets

  Business

  Annual

  Investment Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Local Authority net Cash Requirement-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Monthly Inquiries into the Distribution and Services Sector

  Business

  Monthly

  Monthly Inquiry to Credit Grantors

  Business

  Monthly

  Monthly Sales Inquiries-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Monthly Short-term Turnover and Employment Survey-Production Industries

  Business

  Monthly

  Motor Traders' Inventories-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Motor Vehicle Production Inquiry-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Overseas Direct Investment

  Business

  Annually and Quarterly

  Pension Fund Annual Balance Sheet Inquiry

  Business

  Annually

  Pension Fund Quarterly Income and Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Pension Fund Quarterly Transactions Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Pension Funds Quarterly Income and Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Annually

  Producer Price Indices-Inquiries

  Business

  Monthly

  Production Inventories-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  PRODucts of the European COMmunity (PRODCOM INQUIRY)

  Business

  Annually and Quarterly

  Property Unit Trusts Annual Return of Liabilities and Assets

  Business

  Annual

  Property Unit Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Public Corporations Net Cash Requirement-UK

  Business

  Monthly

  Quarterly Capital Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Credit Grantors Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Inquiries into the Distributive and Service Sector-GB

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Inquiry into Companies, GB Operating Profits

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Inventory (Stocks) Inquiries

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Short-term Turnover and Employment Survey-Service Sector

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Survey of Financial Assets and Liabilities

  Business

  Quarterly

  Retail Sales Inquiry-GB

  Business

  Monthly

  Retailers' Inventories-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Securities Dealers Quarterly Income and Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Securities Dealers Quarterly Return of Liabilities and Assets and of Transactions in Securities

  Business

  Quarterly

  Specialist Finance Leasing Companies and Partnerships Annual Income and Expenditure Inquiry

  Business

  Annually

  Specialist Finance Leasing Companies and Partnerships Quarterly Balance Sheet

  Business

  Quarterly

  Unit Trusts Annual Return of Liabilities and Assets

  Business

  Annual

  Unit Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions Inquiry

  Business

  Quarterly

  Wholesalers' and Dealers' Stocks-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Socio-Economic

  Annual Employment Survey-Great Britain

  Business

  Annually

  Average Earnings Index-GB

  Business

  Monthly

  Census of Employment

  Business

  Biennial

  Centralised Returns

  Business

  Monthly and Quarterly

  Labour Disputes Statistics

  Business

  Monthly

  Labour Force Survey

  Individual

  Continuously

  New Earnings Survey-GB

  Business

  Annual

  New Earnings Survey Panel Dataset (NESPD)

  Business

  Annually

  Pay and Working Time-Collective Agreements for Manual Staff

  Business

  Monthly amendments

  Workforce and Employee Jobs

  Business

  Quarterly

  Social

  Census of Population and Housing-United Kingdom 2001

  Individual

  Decennially

  General Household Survey-GB

  Individual

  Continuously

  International Passenger Survey-UK

  Individual

  Continuously

  Survey of Student Achievement

  Individual

  Triennially

  The ONS Omnibus Survey-GB

  Individual

  Monthly

  Expenditure and Food Survey

  Individual

  Continuously

  Registration of Births-England and Wales

  Individual

  Continuously

  Registration of Births-England and Wales

  Individual

  Continuously

  Registration of Births-England and Wales

  Individual

  Continuously

  Inquiries Conducted on behalf of other Departments and Agencies

  Social

  Family Resources Survey

  Individual

  Continuously

  National Travel Survey

  Individual

  Continuously

  Local LFS

  Individual

  Continuously

  646W 647W

  Source information sought by the Office for National Statlstics

  Title of source

  Business/ individual

  Frequency

  Economic

  Bricks-GB

  Business

  Monthly

  Concrete Blocks-GB

  Business

  Monthly

  Concrete Roofing Tiles-GB

  Business

  Quarterly

  Quarterly Inquiry into Oil and Natural Gas-UK

  Business

  Quarterly

  Retail Turnover Statistical Inquiry

  Business

  Biennially

  Census Results
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has to sell the results of the census to private companies. [3315]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Julia Drown, dated 12 July 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what powers there are to sell Census results to private companies (3315).
  Under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Census Act 1920, the Registrar General is required, as soon as may be after the census, to prepare reports on the Census returns and to present such reports to Parliament. Copies of all such reports from previous censuses have been published and made publicly available either through the Stationery Office or from the Census Office by delegated authority.
  Access to census results will mainly be through free access to information on the National Statistics website, with additional information being provided on a cost recovery basis.
  Additionally, under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, the Registrar General may, at the request and cost of any local authority or person, prepare abstracts containing any such statistical information not contained in the reports to Parliament, which, in his opinion, it is reasonable for that authority or person to require. It is under this provision that most small area statistics or specially commissioned output from the census are made available to private companies and other customers either directly from the Census Office or from other agencies licensed to sell census information to third parties.
  For both free and cost recovery services, the same measures are applied to all such statistical results to ensure that there is no disclosure of information relating to identified individuals or households. No information is available on an exclusive basis, and repeated requests for information that has yet to be published are likely to lead to that information being placed on the National Statistics website.

  Endowment Policies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will encourage the Financial Services Authority to inform those with endowment mortgages that are at risk of not growing sufficiently to pay off their mortgages of the methods of seeking help from the Ombudsman and gaining compensation. [3471]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA has been active in informing those with endowment mortgages of the methods of seeking help and, if required, how to make a complaint. The FSA fact-sheet, "Your endowment mortgage—what you need to know"—sent to all affected mortgage endowment holders in January 2000—set out what advice consumers should have been given when they were sold their endowment policy as well as how to complain. In 648W
  addition, the FSA's consumer information has evolved in the light of developments and further fact-sheets have been published as follows:

  December 1999—Is an endowment mortgage right for you?

  April 2000—Guide to repaying your mortgage

  October 2000—Endowment Mortgage complaints

  January 2001—Guide to making a complaint

  June 2001—Is an endowment mortgage right for you? (Revised)

  July 2001—Guide to moo gages

  July 2001—Your endowment mortgage—time to decide.

  All these fact-sheets are available free from the FSA Consumer help-line on 0845 606 1234.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 9 May to the Chairman of HM Customs and Excise on behalf of his constituent Mr. Wilson. [3569]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the Chairman of HM Customs and Excise replied to the right hon. Gentleman on 11 January.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply (1) to his letter of 26 March on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Hall; [3565]

  (2) to his letter of 30 May on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Murray. [3564]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury has no record of having received these letters. If the right hon. Gentleman would send copies to me, they will be answered as quickly as possible.

  Petrol Duty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income the Government have received from petrol duty in each of the last three years. [3211]

  Mr. Boateng
  The amount of income the Government have received from duty on petrol in each of the last three years can be found in the HM Customs and Excise's "Hydrocarbon Oils Factsheet", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 67W, how long he estimates it will take to complete the preliminary technical work relating to an

  649W
  assessment of the five economic tests; if he will list the Treasury officials involved in this work; and if he will make a statement. [3011]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 67W. A wide range of officials will be contributing.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small firms about the administrative arrangements for the Working Families Tax Credit. [2046]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Payment of tax credits by employers plays an important part in reinforcing the link between tax credits and the rewards of work.

  The Inland Revenue is in continuous consultation with employers' representatives, and has been since 1998, to ensure any extra administration because of the tax credits is kept to a minimum and, where possible, reduced. The Inland Revenue is continually monitoring and assessing the tax credits scheme and involving employers' representatives at all stages.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each tax credit those other(a) benefits and (b) concessions for which the tax credit is a passport. [3624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The decision as to which benefits or concessions Working Families Tax Credit recipients are passported is not a matter for the Inland Revenue, but lies with those responsible for the individual benefits or concessions. Working Families Tax Credit, like its predecessor Family Credit, may be used as an indicator of entitlement to certain benefits or concessions by central Government, the devolved executives, local government and voluntary organisations. In this way, families entitled to other help can be identified without them having to make a full application. The major central Government passports for many Working Families Tax Credit recipients are helped with NHS costs such as prescription charges, dental treatment, sight tests and hearing aids and Social Fund payments to help with maternity costs or funeral expenses.

  Bank Accounts
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of households do not have access to a bank account; and how this varies in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. [3055]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: Various surveys indicate that the percentage of adults who do not have either a current account or a savings account is in the range 6 to 10 per cent. A breakdown of these data can be found in the Financial Services Authority's report, "In or Out? Financial Exclusion: a literature and research review", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Euro Assets (Purchase Costs)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he will not publish the 650W
  numbers and the cost of the euros which have been purchased by the Bank of England in consequence of gold sales. [3233]

  Ruth Kelly
  The purchase of euros assets with proceeds from the gold sales programme forms only part of the restructuring of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves. As the National Audit Office Report on "The Sale of Part of the UK Gold Reserves", published on 12 January 2001, states"a meaningful value for money assessment of the financial benefits to sell gold could only be undertaken over the medium to long-term, since a misleading impression of the benefit, or otherwise, of the restructuring may arise if too short a period is used. Over the short-term, temporary fluctuations in assets prices may tend to impact".
  However to give an indication of the change in the value of the UK's foreign currency reserves as a result of the gold sales, the National Audit Office Report provides a snapshot figure as at 18 December 2000 of a gain to the reserves of US$34 million (around £23 million).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Damages
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he had prior to the setting of the rate of return under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 with(a) the Government Actuary, (b) the Treasury, (c) organisations representing claimants and (d) organisations representing insurers; and if he will make a statement. [2837]

  Mr. Wills
  The Treasury and the Government Actuary were consulted in accordance with section 1(4) of the Damages Act 1996.

  Of the other responses to the Consultation Paper, "Damages: The Discount Rate and Alternatives to Lump Sum Payments", three were received from organisations representing claimants: the Personal Injury Bar Association, the TUC, and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. One was received from an organisation representing insurers: the Association of British Insurers; and one from an organisation representing insurance lawyers: the Forum of Insurance Lawyers.

  Of the remaining 77 responses, some were from insurers and it is likely that many were from organisations or individuals who normally represent claimants or insurers. But as the Consultation Paper did not seek this information, it is not possible to provide a complete breakdown.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to extend the operation of conditional fees to cases based on the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [3149]

  Mr. Wills
  None. Conditional fee agreements have been available for all forms of civil business other than family proceedings since 1998. Thus conditional fee agreements are already available for civil cases concerning human rights.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton will receive a reply to the letter he sent to the Lord Chancellor on 21 May with regard to Miss Anthea Gordon. [3151]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has replied to my right hon. Friend in a letter dated 9 July.

  Transsexual People
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to take in response to the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. [3155]

  Mr. Wills
  The report is being carefully considered within Government and by other interested groups. The Government are sympathetic to the issues raised in the report and will be considering further how to take the matter forward.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Manchester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Sand Eels
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to reduce the taking of sand eels and similar species given the effect this appears to be exerting upon the breeding of sea birds, particularly of kittiwakes and puffins on the Yorkshire coast.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whiny): My Lords, in December 1999 the EU Fisheries Council agreed an initial closure for three years of the sand eel fishery off the north-east coast of England and the east coast of Scotland to protect seabirds and other species that rely on sand eels as a food source at particular times of the year. The impact of the closure is being carefully monitored, with reviews of its operation in 2001 and 2002. In the light of those reviews, the council will take a decision on the future of the closure. We shall then also be in a position to decide whether to press for action to safeguard other areas, including that off the Yorkshire coast.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Does my noble friend accept that an urgent decision may be needed? The present position of a number of seabirds is becoming crucial as the sand eel is their staple diet. Does my noble friend also accept that, while the situation off the Yorkshire coast causes anxiety, the latest evidence of the situation in the Orkneys and in Shetland is even more serious for the Arctic tern and the kittiwake? Given the ecological consequences, is it reasonable to assume that the harvesting of sand eels for the purpose of providing agricultural fertiliser should end as soon as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly true that since the closure of the sand eel fishery, the breeding of kittiwakes and others on that particular coast has been improved. Whether that relates directly to the closure will have to be assessed at the end of the monitoring. In regard to Scotland—I must be careful as this is a devolved responsibility—I have seen reports that distress has been caused to birds by the decline of sand eels, although there may be other reasons for the reduction in the numbers of sand eels. This year fishing took only 10 per cent of the agreed quota in that area, so there may be climatic effects as well. My colleague,
1172
Elliot Morley, has made absolutely clear that we want restrictions on industrial fishing for sand eels and other non-human consumption fish.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is not the sand eel also an important part of the diet for cod, mackerel and other fish on which we rely? Is it not odd that as late as 1999 the allowed catch for sand eels was 1 million tonnes, when so far no organisation has succeeded in reaching that limit. Can the Minister explain why the figure of 1 million tonnes was set? Was it just plucked out of the air or was it calculated and, if so, on what was it based?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I should put this matter in context. There are a lot of sand eels around—some 650 billion I believe—therefore counting them is a little difficult. Nevertheless, the maxim um quota that was set followed two years of substantial breeding of sand eels and it may be that the quota was set at a relatively generous level. I do not believe that the fact that they have not reached the quota necessarily means that there is a significant decline in the actual number of sand eels there. In relation to cod, sand eels form about 4 per cent of their diet, but it is unlikely that the decline in cod catches and the cod population is related to the availability of sand eels. I believe that other factors are involved, but we need to keep an eye on the matter.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that sand eels form the staple diet of young seabirds and that many young seabirds of rare species are dying of starvation because they cannot get enough sand eels?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was one of the reasons for the closure of the sand eel fishery in Northumbria and off the coast of Scotland up to the Grampian area. It appears that there has been some recovery in breeding of seabirds in that area. We do not have full monitoring on the Yorkshire coast and further down the coast to draw that causal connection. Within the Shetlands it appears that any change in the sand eel population has been due, not to fishing, but to other factors. I repeat that we are concerned that this form of industrial fishing does not destroy the sand eel population and thereby have an effect on the seabird populations right up the east coast.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am delighted to learn from the Minister of this great quantity of sand eels that he has been able to count. The expectations of the catch is 60 per cent of a million at the present time and if the Danes cannot catch the sand eels at the moment what chance do the birds have of getting theirs? Does he believe that the number of sand eels in the quota should be substantially reduced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is exactly the reason that in 1999 we raised the matter with the Fisheries Council and achieved agreement to extend the closure of those fields to EU waters. We have had good

1173
discussions with the Danish authorities since then. As I have said, our aim is to restrict the industrial fishing of these creatures, but the fact that there has not been a full take-up of the quota does not necessarily mean that the number of sand eels up the coast has declined. I also understand that only some of the sand eels—the younger ones—are actually food for the young birds. So one has to distinguish between sand eels as well as count them!

Police Officers: Retirement
3.8 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to encourage police officers, where appropriate, to delay their retirement.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we are considering how suitable officers may be encouraged to delay their retirement as part of our plans to boost police numbers to record levels. That will be discussed as part of the police reform process. The introduction of financial incentives for officers to delay retirement would be one possibility. However, the majority of police officers are entitled to retire with an immediate pension after completing 30 years of service and they can then obtain alternative employment. The re-employment of recently retired officers, therefore, is another possible approach.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the fact that most police officers who stay on after 30 years' service earn scarcely more than those who retire is a grotesque anomaly? Surely at a time when there is a grave shortage of police officers in most parts of the country, it is ludicrous to provide incentives to people to retire early, especially when, in many cases, they are the most senior, experienced and useful officers who would wish to stay. Please will Her Majesty's Government have another look at this matter and consider providing incentives to encourage people to stay on after 30 years without penalising those who want to exercise their rights?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, we will look at those issues as part of the review. Such matters are not always straightforward and there are many detailed rules, for example, about retiring from a job with an occupational pension and recommencing the following week. The Inland Revenue is not happy about such an arrangement.
Nevertheless, my noble friend raises a valid point and it will be included in our approach and as part of the review.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in reaching a decision on the matter, will the Government bear in mind that
1174
some people are finished at 50 while a good many people are shining at 70? The Government should take full advantage of the experience of those who are carrying on efficiently.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is a shining example of that because he has 32 years start on me and I am just 60! However, he is right. In this country there are 3 million economically inactive people between the age of 50 and retirement age. It is a wasted resource, and in many ways a combination of the complexities of benefit and tax systems has caused disincentives. Winning the Generation Game, a report published about two years ago by the Performance and Innovation Unit, was designed specifically to address the issue. It contained some 75 recommendations. People should be able to retire early if they want to but there should not be compulsory retirement where people are forced out of employment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that if police officers want to continue beyond their 30 years' service they will be allowed to do so keeping their current rank, conditions and pay?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have no change to make to that but, provided that age limits are not breached, there is provision to carry on for a further five years after the initial 30 years' service, subject to the agreement of the chief constable and the conditions prevailing in the force. Therefore, retirement is not necessarily automatic; it depends on certain conditions. A person joining the police force at 18½, will have served 30 years at 48½ years and it is then up to him to decide what to do. If he wants to carry on he can do so as a police constable or sergeant until the age of 55, provided he has the agreement of the chief constable. However, there are no proposals for terms and conditions to deteriorate as suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the police service is probably the only public service where the customer is always wrong? Does he also agree that morale is the key to this issue? As the police service deals with all the difficulties in society, it would help if from time to time bodies such as this House occasionally supported it—and I know that your Lordships often do.
In any organisation, good leadership is critical to high morale and the chief constables should lead by example. It may well be that there would be fewer differences in performance between forces if there were fewer chief constables.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall kick that one into touch! I cannot respond to my noble friend's question but in the light of our proposals for police reform I am sure that we shall have plenty of opportunities to discuss these issues in the coming Session.
Lord McNally: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does the Minister

1175
recall that the late Jack Warner was well over the age of 80 when he hung up his truncheon as Dixon of Dock Green? As regards police retirement, there is a wide variety of ages and a wide variety of reasons is given for early retirement, which is extremely expensive. Is the Home Office carrying out a study into the patterns of retirement from force to force and the reasons why policemen are leaving early?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take on board what the noble Lord said. During the past three years, the wastage measured in the police service has been only 4.7 per cent, 4.7 per cent and 4.8 per cent. That compares with the survey conducted last year by the Institute of Personnel & Development of all employees of 18 per cent. Therefore, in terms of wastage the police service has a good record. On the other hand, as regards retirement in forces in England and Wales in 1999–2000, some 3,929 officers from all ranks retired. Of those, 69 per cent retired ordinarily and 31 per cent retired for medical reasons. Five years previously 46 per cent retired for medical reasons. Therefore in the past five years there has been a decline in the number of officers retiring for medical reasons and I believe that the problem is being tackled.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the first part of his noble friend's question: that morale is most important in the decision to take early retirement, sick leave and so forth? As one of the causes of low morale is the weight of bureaucracy on the police force will the Government tackle that?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, one of the reasons for having more civilian and technological support in the police force in recent years is to lift that weight of bureaucracy. As a Member of another place, I did a night shift with the local station and saw what happened when an arrest was made. The time spent on paperwork is horrendous and if you are not careful you are locked into the station for the rest of the night. But that is why we have a programme of civilianisation and it must be supported. It may be that former police officers can have a role in the civilianisation of the force because they have an expertise which can be of considerable assistance to their colleagues. However, low morale caused by bureaucracy is a bane of every walk of life and we must tackle it, attack it and reduce it.

EU Enlargement: Irish Referendum
3.17 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they envisage the process of enlargement of the European Union can proceed after the rejection of the Nice Treaty in the Irish referendum.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Nice Treaty is essential for enlargement to be a success. All member states,
1176
including Ireland, have agreed that the accession negotiations should proceed and that the Nice ratification process will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.
Member states have expressed their readiness to help the Irish Government to find a way forward, taking into account the concerns reflected by the Irish referendum result, without reopening the text of the Nice Treaty.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and agree that enlargement of the EU is highly desirable. However, will she confirm that on 21st June, in an interview in the Irish Times, Mr Prodi said that even if Nice fell by the wayside there was no reason that enlargement should be delayed or not take place? Is not Mr Prodi right in that, while it might require dropping what in the view of some people are desirable aspects of the Nice Treaty, alterations to voting in the Council of Ministers could be made by amendment to the treaties of accession, thus amending the basic treaties? Is not Mr Prodi's first position correct?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows that Mr Prodi has modified his position from what was then said. The noble Lord is right and I phrased the opening Answer very carefully: I said that it was essential for enlargement to be a success. Of course one could have a succession of individual accession treaties, but the point is that the Nice Treaty does much more than address accession as an issue by itself. It creates the circumstances in which accession will be a success by the way in which it deals with some of the institutional arguments and the flexibilities which will be needed with what, after all, will be the largest number of countries joining. Therefore, it is important to remember that, in order for the process to be a success—and there is no point in doing it unless it is—the Nice Treaty must go ahead.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raises a very serious financial matter, as opposed to the Irish question. With or without ratification, will not the Government have to consider in the IGC in 2004 whether to allow the admission of any member state without major changes in the financial provisions, such as the CAP and other matters? Is my noble friend able to give an assurance that the Government will not agree to the admission of any single member without major changes of that kind?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, noble Lords will have an opportunity fully to debate this matter when they consider the Treaty of Nice. The detailed points on the treaty that my noble friend raises, in particular the way in which the financial institutions work and the all-important issues surrounding the common agricultural policy, will be properly debated at that time. More generally, the

1177
treaty was published on 20th March this year. It was perfectly clear that the Government supported the treaty, and the British people knew that when they voted in the election. We shall go ahead on that basis.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the factors in the Irish referendum was concern about Irish neutrality and that the European Council is looking at the possibility of a protocol or declaration to deal with that issue? Further, am I right to conclude that, if a referendum is to be held, it is very useful to have a period of information and discussion prior to and not after it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe we all agree that when a referendum is held on whatever subject it is wise to ensure that the issues are properly aired. A number of reasons are put forward for the result of the Irish referendum. The particular issue that is put forward depends very much on the interlocutor to whom one speaks. The Irish Government supported the position reached at Gothenburg that the text of the treaty should not be changed and made it clear to partners that they would like a period of reflection before they themselves brought forward proposals for others to consider in a way which we hope will be constructive.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Treaty of Nice did not mention the common agricultural policy and that the CAP is not up for discussion until 2006? Can the Minister also confirm that a committee of this House under the chairmanship of Lord Middleton went into the accession of eastern European countries and its effect on the common agricultural policy in great detail and that its members, whether xenophiles or xenophobes, came to the unanimous decision that such accession was totally impossible without a complete change of the CAP? Further, is it true that if there is a referendum which is answered in the negative, one is asked to hold another one, but if there is a referendum which is answered in the affirmative that is the end of the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if he is sufficiently interested I suggest that the noble Earl raises the last question with the Irish Government. No doubt they will be very interested in what he says and treat it appropriately. I do not believe that there is any difference between the two sides of the House on the desirability of the reform of the common agricultural policy. Many times I and other colleagues, as well as noble Lords on the other side, have stood at the Dispatch Box and referred to the desirability of reform, but whether that is absolutely fundamental to accession is a quite different question. That is a matter of judgment to which your Lordships will be able to give full vent when you have the pleasure of debating the Bill before the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that much of the existing difficulty about
1178
the various accession treaties, which will be exacerbated, is due to the widespread uncertainty as to the full extent of the acquis communautaire and the extent to which the Treaty of Nice is likely to affect it fundamentally, bearing in mind that a very large number of Ministers have not even read the treaty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have read the treaty in detail, and a great deal more besides, by the time they come to debate it in your Lordships' House. My noble friend is quite right that there will be a very wide variety of opinions on the issue of the acquis communautaire. I am sure that my noble friend will contribute to the debate on that treaty to the fullest extent, and I hope that many other noble Lords who take such an interest in the matter will do likewise.

National Health Service: Have Your Say
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Youngasked Her Majesty's Government:
What purpose is intended to be achieved by the recently launched National Health Service advertising campaign, Have Your Say, aimed at 10 to 16 year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the campaign aims to raise awareness among young people, parents and health professionals that young people are entitled to have their say in relation to their healthcare. This may include seeing a health professional unaccompanied if that is their wish. The campaign encourages young people to adopt a responsible approach to their healthcare needs.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Lord concerned that in most cases this activity will take place behind the backs of parents who will not know what their children are doing? Can he explain how that squares with a reply given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, to a Question for Written Answer? In that Written Answer the Lord Chancellor said that the Children Act 1989 was based on the Law Commission report of 1988 which in turn said that the law of parental responsibility included,
"to provide consent for medical treatment".—[Official Report, 10/7/01; col. WA 70.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with reference to the information to be made available to young people if they access the website that is referred to in the poster campaign, the matter arose as a result of work done by nurses in London. Those nurses worked with young people in a variety of healthcare settings in particular with those who had long-term illness. They found that sometimes it was difficult for them to talk to professionals about health issues. I am sure that the information contained on the website will be

1179
invaluable to young people. On the more general issue raised by the noble Baroness, the aim of the campaign is to make sure that any competent young person, regardless of age, can seek medical advice and give valid consent to treatment. That is exactly what is stated in the guidance paper produced in 1994 by several professional bodies, including the British Medical Association. I also refer the noble Baroness to the Gillick ruling which established the current position that doctors and other health professionals are justified in giving advice and treatment to those under 16 without parental knowledge or consent provided certain conditions are met. One fully accepts that one wishes to involve parents as much as possible, but one must also face up to the fact that many young people do not always find it easy to do so. I believe that in those circumstances it is better that they still have access to professional advice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether it is now possible to treat a dental patient under the age of 16 without requiring the parent or guardian to sign a form as has always been the practice? Has that rule been changed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that the position as I have just stated it applies to doctors and other healthcare professionals.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main objective of the campaign is to encourage young people who may not otherwise do so to come forward for medical advice from professionals? Does the noble Lord also agree it is very important that young people believe that they will be understood and their own personal concerns taken into account and that, if so, they are more likely to cooperate and take the professional advice that they are given?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. The website to which people are referred as a result of the poster campaign was set up and is run by two practising general practitioners who specialise in adolescent healthcare. I have looked at some of the information that is available on the website. It is perfectly sensible and would be very applicable to young people who quite rightly seek information. Compared with other information obtainable on the Internet, it is very wholesome and sensible stuff.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since the two groups in society which make the most intensive use of the health service are young people and elderly people and as they are the people who are most likely to be neglected in consultation processes, does the Minister agree that when we are seeking to improve the health service we should make as many opportunities as possible available to them in order to contribute to the future of a service which affects them so deeply?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. In some parts of the
1180
country efforts are made by local statutory bodies to involve young people in discussions about health and other policy issues. For instance, the young people's parliament in Birmingham has a specific role and remit to pick up young people's concerns and opinions about health. They can then be fed back to the local health service. We should certainly encourage that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with reference to the Question of my noble friend Lady Young and the quotation from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is the Minister saying that the noble and learned Lord was misinformed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. My noble and learned friend put forward a general rule. He is not misinformed. But I have stated the position following the Gillick ruling.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, has there been a decline in teenage pregnancy rates? If so, can the Minister say to what he ascribes that decline?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is well known that the teenage pregnancy rate in this country is very high. Live birth rates per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1996 were 22.9 per cent in the UK. While the US rate is double that figure, other European companies are doing much better; for instance, the Netherlands rate is 4.1 per cent. However, I understand that the latest figures that we have for 1999, compared with 1998, show a reduction in under-18s of 4 per cent and under-16s of 7 per cent. That is encouraging.
We clearly must hope that the trend continues. I believe that the way to achieve that is by a balanced approach; by making information available to young people as much as possible; by having these media campaigns; and by having local strategies. But clearly there is an awfully long way to go before we can get these teenage pregnancy rates down to any level that could be called acceptable.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a body corporate to be known as the Office of Communications; and to confer functions in relation to proposals about the regulation of communications on that body, on certain existing regulators and on the Secretary of State. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 10th July.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Animals in Scientific Procedures
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the request of the Select Committee I feel that I should say a word or two about this matter.
This is an unusual Motion. The Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures was appointed by the House in March. Some witnesses have been called before the Committee; for example, those who work for companies involved in animal experiments. They have expressed their concern at being filmed while giving evidence. They are worried in particular that their photographs could be shown on the world-wide web. Your Lordships will be aware that already there have been attacks on people working in this area. Under the rules of the House, normally broadcasters have the right to film any public meeting of Select Committees. The only way to exclude cameras is to hold the meetings in private.
The Select Committee does not wish to keep out members of the public, nor to prevent sound broadcasting of its proceedings. It simply wishes to have the power to prevent the televising of a meeting that might endanger witnesses. The Motion before the House will give the Committee that power. As the Motion makes clear, this applies only to this committee and will not affect the broadcasting of other committees of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures shall have power to refuse to allow the televising of proceedings to which strangers are admitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Monetary Policy and Economic Affairs
3.35 p.m.
Lord Pestonrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 34) and the First Report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs (Session 2001–02, HL Paper 5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I am introducing a debate on the last report of your Lordships' committee, the Monetary Policy
1182
Committee of the Bank of England, and also, as a technical matter, the first report of your Lordships' new Select Committee on Economic Affairs. On behalf of the committee I wish to thank our Clerks, Simon Burton and Christine Salmon and also our economic adviser, Michael Wickens, who is professor of economics at the University of York.
Perhaps I may also say how much I welcome to our deliberations the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. The noble Lord was an immensely distinguished figure in the other place. I am confident that he will be equally distinguished in your Lordships' House.
Having made those nice remarks, perhaps I may now be allowed to revert to my normal acerbic self. I shall draw your Lordships' attention to some of the recommendations in our main report. I shall then use that as a basis for some broader remarks on the economy and on economic policy.
On the recommendations I have to say with great regret how disappointed I am with the Treasury's response. It is not that we expect it to agree with us on all our recommendations, or indeed on any of them, but we do expect it to engage with us at a serious level. Its response simply does not measure up to that. Without being too cynical, it is hard to believe that its response took more than one hour's work on the part of some junior official.
Thus, we said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider lowering the inflation target and then report his conclusions to both Houses. The Treasury response simply ignored that and gave us four quite vacuous sentences that are an insult to your Lordships' intelligence. I repeat, I am not saying that the Treasury should agree with us; I am saying that it might flatter us a little by offering some serious arguments.
Similarly, we emphasised the so-called "trade-off" between inflation and unemployment and the speed with which the Monetary Policy Committee should respond and offset an adverse shock. Again, no economics argument was offered to us by way of comment and reply.
Having praised the Government and the Bank of England for its openness on monetary policy—a subject to which I shall return in a few moments—we raised the question of the transparency of fiscal policy and the need for stronger scrutiny in that area, especially with regard to the momentary and fiscal balance. Here, too, having claimed that it is committed to transparency, the Treasury did not take the point of the contrast between the remarkable openness of the Bank of England—I cannot emphasise too strongly how remarkably open it has become—and the relative lack of openness with regard to fiscal policy.
On appointment to the Monetary Policy Committee we continued with our position that your Lordships do not wish to get informed with matters such as confirmation hearings of individual members, which the other place for reasons best known to itself feel that it is able to judge. We did, however, recommend that consideration be given to the involvement of the Commission for Public Appointments in the prior scrutiny of MPC members. That was largely ignored,

1183
except that the Treasury reiterated its point that these appointments are specially market sensitive. Your Lordships' committee was quite unconvinced by the Treasury's argument and looks forward one day to the Treasury demonstrating something other than an ad hoc view of that kind.
I turn to the Bank of England. A most important recommendation made by the committee was that it should undertake a review of methods of forecasting—notably of inflation. Our concern was that we should be at the forefront and should be fully cognisant of what is ca fled state of the art forecasting. I interpret the Bank of England's response as a positive one, but I am not yet in a position to report to the House that the review has been set in hand. Given the excellence of the earlier Kohn report on the MPC itself, I would expect such a review of methods of forecasting, once it takes place, to be a major contribution to public policy in this area. The next time the House debates economic matters I hope to be able to report on precisely what the Bank of England is doing.
I turn to our recommendation on the voting procedure of the Monetary Policy Committee. I continue to believe, as does the committee, that voting should be simultaneous, with everyone voting at the same time, rather than sequential, with the late voters knowing what those who spoke earlier have said they want to do with interest rates. By the end, the votes do not matter any more as a majority has already been achieved. On any rational grounds, simultaneous voting is the correct way and sequential voting is wrong. That does not mean that members of the MPC would not wish to take into account each other's views on what the relevant policy should be. But that is a matter of the discussion mechanism before the vote and should not be part of the voting procedure.
An interesting point was made to us that simultaneous voting might once in a while leave the governor in the minority. I do not regard that as a sign of weakness or as undermining the governor's authority. Quite the contrary, it is a sign of strength, both of the MPC and of the governor, that differences of view can be coped with and that any individual person can be in a minority. Perhaps I may make a personal remark. In my committee, we never vote. We always come to an agreement. But it sometimes happens that I am in the minority and the committee decides something with which I disagree. If one is part of a committee, one accepts that. That does not mean I remotely accept that I am wrong when I am in the minority. simply accept that that is how the world has to behave if we are to go ahead in terms of committee behaviour. I certainly hope that one day we shall see the governor in a minority simply to show what a powerful figure the governor is rather than the reverse.
I turn to the question of accountability. It was recognised—certainly as far back as the debates in the House on the 1998 Act—that the House would have a part to play in the process of scrutiny. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Barnett and I, even though we were on the government side, were constantly pressing the Government to recognise that, and they accepted it. The House has done so through your Lordships Select
1184
Committee on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and I can assure the House that the new Economic Affairs Committee will from to time continue to scrutinise the Monetary Policy Committee. However, I was disappointed recently to see that a House of Commons research paper on the MPC makes no mention of our first major report on the MPC or of the report we are currently debating. Perhaps Members of the other place are so well versed in economics and economic policy that they have nothing to learn from us. But I doubt it.
I turn briefly to the economy more generally. The Economic Affairs Committee is currently looking at the global economy. One day I hope that we shall produce a report that your Lordships will be interested to debate. What I wish to stress at the moment—this is why the global remark is relevant—is that we have to recognise the extent to which an economy like ours. which is so open, is subject to external economic forces. We do not live in a world of our own. 'We live in a very large world of which we are an important but fairly small part.
Your Lordships' committee has said—I think that most people now agree—that the MPC has done remarkably well, but we have to recognise that the MPC cannot insulate us from world economic shocks. If there is a world downturn, there will be a UK downturn. That leads to the conclusion that good economic policy can dampen the cycle but it certainly cannot remove it.
I, for one, would like to see full employment given as prominent a role in economic policy as low inflation. Noble Lords are aware of my view that young men who have never had jobs, let alone decent jobs, or are unemployed for long periods are prey to those who lead them into crime, rioting and the like. I am not saying that anti-social behaviour is fully explained by economic forces, but I am insisting that those who do not appreciate that unemployment, low incomes or, more significantly, no incomes have serious adverse social effects are hopelessly naive.
Lastly, I return to transparency and the related matter of democratic scrutiny. Your Lordships' committee continues to complement the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. That stands in sharp contrast to the European Central Bank. Noble Lords know that, on balance, I favour joining the euro. But the more I reflect on the lack of transparency of the European Central Bank and its failure to be subjected properly to external scrutiny, the more worried I am. I have always been doubtful about the macro-economic foundations of the European Central Bank's policy making. It has seemed to me to be rather naive and primitive compared with the sophisticated approach of the MPC. At least as serious as that is the need to devise a better means of scrutinising what it does—both by the European Parliament and, as I have said before, by the Parliaments of the member countries. I suppose that some of the blame lies with us because we did not join in the first place. But that does not make me any the happier.

1185
However, I must not end on such a negative note. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has performed remarkably well and is to be congratulated on its performance, from its inception up to the present day.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 34) and the First Report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs (Session 2001–02, HL Paper 5).—(Lord Peston.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this second report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee. I also thank its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and all the distinguished members of the committee for this second valuable examination of such a vital part of our financial system. It is also a particular pleasure to welcome the first report of the House's new Select Committee on Economic Affairs, again expertly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I anticipate with pleasure the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who will add further to the expertise in your Lordships' House on economic affairs.
The creation of the committee is a break-through for the House. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, for seeing it through to fruition. I hope that one fine day it may lead on to further advances by your Lordships' House in the area of economic scrutiny of the government of the day. I look forward to coming back to that issue in the next Session.
The Select Committee system is one of the most respected aspects of our parliamentary system. The depth and precise style of the reports we are considering today confirm why that is so. So is it not deeply disappointing to all sides of the House to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the Government's response to the committee's recommendations? It is baffling. I look forward later to hearing the Minister tell us why the Government have been so very negative in their response to the committee's recommendations.
It is vital that the committee continues to scrutinise the structure and performance of the MPC, an institution whose verdicts on economic policy each month are awaited with trepidation throughout the country. I believe that in 1781 the then Prime Minister, Lord North, who at the time was arguing for the renewal of the Bank of England's Charter, said that the Bank was,
"from long habit and the usage of many years … a part of the Constitution".
Echoing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I hope that the committee will continue for many years to come. Similarly, so should the MPC, which is an excellent creation to which we add our congratulations on its efforts.
1186
Having said that, however, two problems can be seen on the horizon which give noble Lords on these Benches cause for concern as regards the happy arrangements we now have in place. First, I refer to the relationship between fiscal and monetary policy, a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, touched in his remarks when referring to a lack of openness about fiscal policy; and the potential risk to what we now have in place caused by the Government's taxation and spending plans as revealed in the Red Book. The second is the implication for the MPC and its workings of the pressure coming from many quarters in the country to join the euro at a rate which, it is said, will help businesses that are exporting to the euro-zone. Perhaps I may deal with each of those two points in turn.
Paragraph 127 of the report contains what I think is an interesting revelation on the first of the issues; that is, the relationship with fiscal policy. The committee stated that:
"We are surprised that the Chancellor and the Governor do not discuss the balance between fiscal and monetary policy".
In paragraph 2 the report sees a strong argument for openness in, and scrutiny of, fiscal policy, as there is for monetary policy. How effectively can the Bank and the Treasury liaise on monetary and fiscal policies when we are told that the Chancellor and the Governor do not discuss them? Does the MPC rely on the Government's public statements, like the rest of us? The Government's answer, contained in paragraph 4 of their responses to the first report, is that,
"The Government is committed to openness and transparency in fiscal policy".
However, we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, state that the Government's responses to this expert report could not possibly have taken more than an hour's work. He described them as an,
"insult to your Lordships' intelligence".
When the Government say that they are committed to openness and transparency, was it not also an insult to the intelligence of the editor of the Financial Times who, on this subject, stated that the Government had,
"reduced Budget transparency to a new low. Important tax changes have been omitted from the speech"?
The editor refers here to the Budget Statement.
"Statistics have rarely been quoted on a consistent basis. The Budget documentation has been filled with political point-scoring rather than factual analysis. There has been a continued tendency to classify the collection of revenue as anything other than taxation".
That is a powerful combination of opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the editor of the Financial Times. They do not think that the Government have shown openness and transparency on fiscal matters.
Can the Minister tell the House when the MPC was made aware that in April and May of this year government spending would rise by a staggering yearly rate of 12.5 per cent? Will the Minister also explain how the MPC first found out that the Government, having first repaid debts of £34 billion—and received

1187
applause for doing so—would then promptly borrow it again over the next four years? In the Red Book, the Government say that their solution to the gap between income and expenditure is to borrow £12 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. Has the Minister held discussions with the MPC about the consequences of such a deficit? Would it not be better if the Monetary Policy Committee could speak out, if it believes that fiscal and monetary policy are at variance, and perhaps then declare publicly whether its decisions might have been different, given a different fiscal stance?
Those remarks cover the first issues concerning the relationship between fiscal and monetary policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred. Perhaps I may turn now to another subject on which he touched; namely, the euro. A sharp weakening of the pound is being quietly cheered on by all those who want this country to join the euro. But wisely, in paragraph 49 of this report, the committee has issued a warning which states that:
"We note the possibility of serious effects should the markets begin to anticipate that the UK will join the euro".
A decision to join the euro inevitably would mean that the MPC would need to pursue a more proactive monetary policy because no one seems to want to join the euro at today's exchange rate.
That is only the beginning of the problems for the MPC which would be created by a move towards the euro. If we start moving towards the euro, this current period—on which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has correctly congratulated the MPC on sustaining a period of stability—of relatively independent monetary management under the MPC regime, which we all praise, would cease to be a part of what Lord North called the "usage of many years".
I should like to consider some aspects of the new regime which we shall be getting into. First, again following on from what was said by the chairman of the committee, the transparency in which the MPC operates is renowned. Everyone considers that to be excellent. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said in terms, the MPC's practices stand in stark contrast to the opaque workings of the ECB. Perhaps noble Lords would consider the following exchange of correspondence between my researcher in this House and her opposite number in Europe. I believe that it is quite revealing. The Minister should find this particularly amusing:
"Hi, Samantha, I hope you're OK. I have a really quick query. How long after the ECB meet to discuss euro-zone interest rates are the minutes of the meetings published? Many thanks, Alex".
The reply reads as follows:
"Hi, Alex. Sorry I didn't get the chance to get back to you yesterday. Hope all is well. The ECB does not publish any minutes of meetings at all as they are 'confidential'. All you can get is a two-paragraph statement on the rate that appears on their internet site—www.ecb.int. Hopeless, isn't it? Samantha".
I offer a further illustration. On 10th May, the ECB stated that it was cutting interest rates because low growth prospects meant lower inflation. The ECB said that future prospects,
"no longer pose a risk to price stability".
1188
But now we know that in May—the month in which that statement was made—inflation in the euro-zone rose from 2.9 per cent to 3.4 per cent, its highest level since the euro's launch in January 1999. By what reasoning did the ECB get it so wrong? This we shall never know and is the reason why many people, led by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are becoming worried about replacing the MPC with the ECB.
By contrast, the Bank of England publishes the minutes and voting records from its rate setting meetings. The Bank of England Act 1998 laid down that minutes of the MPC meetings would be published within six weeks. The MPC then voluntarily reduced that period to two weeks. Furthermore, the United States Federal Reserve Open Market Committee publishes the minutes of each meeting before the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, that does not apply to the ECB.
Perhaps I may cite another worrying issue, on which I can offer a further exchange of correspondence, which will be new to the Minister. This is an e-mail to James from Alex:
"A question, James. Will Eddie George be our man in Frankfurt? Alex".
The reply to Alex stated that:
"The answer to this is yes".
James then goes on to say that:
"Article 10 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European system of central banks and of the European Central Bank states that the Governing Council shall comprise the members of the Executive Board of the ECB and the Governors of the national banks. Together they all vote (by simple majority) on the interest rate policy. In the event of a tie the president has a casting vote. The council is required to meet at least 10 times a year".
What that means is that, instead of the MPC regime—I am sure that most noble Lords will praise it in the course of their remarks—we shall get into a situation in which we shall have no more influence on euro-zone monetary policy than the governor of the Luxembourg central bank, even though our economy is much bigger.
If we take these moves towards the euro, the Bank of England's independence and the MPC's role would end. It would become the London branch of the ECB. Control over interest rate decisions to suit not only Britain but the whole of the European Union would pass to the European Central Bank and our Governor's vote would become only one out of 17 votes. I find that extremely worrying.
It will lead to a tangled web at the centre of the future of the MPC. Multinational companies, many of whom we know are pressing the Government to join the euro, are saying that the exchange rate must fall below our current rate of 3.15 to 3.20 deutschmarks. All of them say that the present rate of sterling is "unsustainable" and "uncompetitive" and would cause another ERM débâcle if we joined at this rate. Noble Lords should remember that, when we joined the ERM, it was set at the fateful rate of 2.95 deutschmarks. We all remember what happened. So they say that the pound must be cut. Sir Edward

1189
George says that he hears suggestions from such businessmen varying from 2.40 deutschmarks to 2.90 deutschmarks.
This implies, on average, a 12 per cent fall in the pound versus the euro. I am told by those who well know about these things that that kind of devaluation will add 1.5 per cent to UK inflation, taking it to over 4 per cent, way above the Bank of England's target of 2.5 per cent.
We should remember that inflation in the UK is already at 2.4 per cent, so we are already on the Bank of England's limit. Any further rise in inflation caused by a devaluation of the pound to get us into the euro at the right rate, will trigger interest rate rises. That would lead to a wider gap in interest rates between the UK and the euro zone, less convergence and, probably, a higher pound—the exact opposite of what the devaluers in industry want.
It is no wonder that the Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury said that the inflation target and price stability were both at risk. These are the very essence of the MPC's work. Is not the Government allowing an exchange rate target to creep into the deliberations of the Bank of England, which the Bank of England Act expressly states it will not do? Is not euro entry—or the prospect of euro entry—threatening the separation of powers expressly laid down in the Bank of England Act, on which your Lordships toiled for many a long hour?
As Mervyn King, deputy governor of the Bank of England, said:
"The only problems worse than those of an excessively strong currency are those of an excessively weak currency".
Given all these issues ahead, it is not surprising that the report of the Economic Affairs Committee tacitly foresees the emergence of strong, differing opinions within the MPC and recommends that,
"any MPC member wishing to offer a short paragraph by way of explaining their vote should be encouraged to do so".
That is surely a welcome suggestion from the committee, but so far there has been no response to it. I suspect that, given the difficulties ahead—which I hope I have described—the monetary policy debate will get much hotter in the next few years. I very much hope that the MPC, with the help of the recommendations of the Select Committee, will keep up the good work it has done so far.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. We have had many discussions in the past about economic policy. That was more than 30 years ago. At that time I was a Treasury Minister and he was a very critical Back-Bencher. We very much look forward to his contributions in general.
I enjoyed being a member of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am sorry that it was incompatible with membership of another committee on which I now serve. It was a pleasure to serve under his vigorous and erudite chairmanship. I am delighted
1190
that he has not allowed his tendency for the odd acerbic remark to lapse. In fact, I am slightly worried that his independence may lead to the Government seeing to it that he should follow the fate of Mrs Dunwoody in another place. But no doubt in this House things are better ordered.
I believe that this is a useful report. I do not agree with every detail of the comments on appointments or the voting order, but these seem to me to be relatively minor points. The reason the report was inevitably detailed—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out—is because the main conclusion of the Select Committee, which is shared by informed opinion generally, is that so far the Monetary Policy Committee has been working well. I believe that most of us agree that its framework for policy is probably better than that of the European Central Bank, but it is too early to judge whether its record will necessarily be better. These are early days.
One has to remember that so far the MPC has performed in largely favourable circumstances, whereas the next few years are likely to be more testing. I want to talk briefly about the future problems, leaving the details of the report to others who were members of the committee. What prospect do we face at the moment? I do not think that it has ever been more uncertain. Will we face recession? Will we face inflation? Or, possibly, will we face a combination of the two?
Manufacturing industry is already in recession. Consumption is still roaring ahead—certainly it is still increasing—but the future of services has become somewhat doubtful. Does this mean, as industry as a whole has demanded, that we need lower interest rates? That would not greatly help exports directly. On the other hand, obviously, we also face the possibility that we will have a lower pound and pressure for higher inflation, which means higher interest rates.
One of the regrets that I have about the Select Committee is that we did not pursue more vigorously the question of the influence of the pound. That is clearly of the greatest importance, both for inflation and for manufacturing. It seemed to me that the circumstances were favourable for intervention. Sterilised intervention was possible with the pound high in a way that would not have affected inflation and would not have led to a loss of reserves.
I was always met with the argument that the case against sterilised intervention is very well known; or that there is academic literature which disproves the case for it. There is also some recent academic literature, which is supported by some highly reputable economists, in favour of it. Indeed, I learnt afterwards that some members of the Treasury, who denied any contemplation of any such intervention at any stage, had discussed it and that some had been in favour. But the issue was rather dismissed and it was not properly examined.
The role of the pound clearly will be crucial. The question we have to face is what is the greater danger at the present time, recession or inflation.

1191
In the short term, the key is not what the Monetary Policy Committee does but what happens in the United States. What will happen there and what can the Federal Reserve do? The name on everyone's lips is "Schumpeter". I do not say it is a subject of daily discussion in the pubs of this country, but many people have raised the question of whether we are facing a Schumpeter recession.
This does not look like a normal business cycle. It is not a case of recession being faced because of a decline in consumption. It is more like the classic Schumpeter cycle where innovation leads to mania, which in time leads to recession. Certainly the irrational exuberance of the American stock exchange—particularly for high tech stocks—has had an element of mania about it. The result has been over-investment, excess capacity and now, of course, sharply lowered profits, which were 10 per cent down in the first quarter of this year.
It is amazing how rapidly the forecasts have changed. In September, most commentators seemed to be expecting a continued high rate of growth in the United States of 4 per cent; now they are forecasting 1.5 per cent, and it may well be that the forecast will go even lower.
Will there be a further fall of the stock market in the United States? Will this lead to a loss of consumer confidence—in which case we really would face a recession? Or is it possible that Greenspan can ride to the rescue again? Certainly the recent results of intervention by the Federal Reserve have been very different. as an article in today's Financial Times points out, from the two previous occasions on which it cut interest rates. Rather perversely, unlike the past two occasions, long-term interest rates have risen; the exchange rate of the dollar has risen, instead of falling as one would expect; and share prices, far from being boosted, have fallen further.
So can the Fed prevent recession? It may be that in due course—again, it is early days—the cuts which have already been announced, and possible future cuts, will lead to more borrowing and will sustain consumer expenditure. On the plus side, it is clear that the housing market in the United States has held up. But if there is further inflation in the United States and the Fed has to raise interest rates, it could be that previous actions will lead to a worse recession than we would otherwise face.
As I said, what happens in the United States is vital. I am not in the business of predicting, except in one respect. I do not know whether we will face a slowdown in the United States and then a recovery, with the increased rate of productivity leading to a recovery sooner rather than later, or whether we will have a recession. However, I can make one prediction. It seems clear that we are, at the least likely to face a period of considerable slow-down. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, that is bound to affect the European Union and this country.
Contrary to expectations, we have not so far been worse hit than other EU countries but rather less so. Germany has been badly hit; France is now also being badly affected. But we are not immune. What seems
1192
clear is that economic growth in this country will be much lower than was expected only last autumn. Revenue will be lower because of a lower rate of growth. The public finances will be affected.
Last autumn, figures issued by the Government predicted that, at the present rate of rapid growth in public spending, the deficit would grow to a level that might mean some change of policy by about 2004. My prediction would be that that is more likely to happen in 2003. Then, we shall probably face, in the middle of this Parliament, a choice between either abandoning the higher rate of growth in public services announced by the Government, or we shall have to face a considerable rise in taxes. The rashest promise made by the Government during the election campaign was that there would be no rise in direct taxes, which would leave the burden to fall on indirect taxes. It was a terrible hostage to fortune. It may well result in promises being broken for the continued expansion of the public services.
None of this will make the task of the Monetary Policy Committee any easier. Indeed, I suspect that in a year or two the future minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee will make even more interesting reading than they have done in the past. In two or three years' time we shall be in a better position to judge whether the Monetary Policy Committee has earned the same kind of respect in the United Kingdom as Mr Greenspan has earned in the United States.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, first, I must express my gratitude for the kindness and help that I have received. I offer particular thanks to Black Rod, to the Clerk of the Parliaments, to my noble friend Lord Carter, to the attendants, and not least to my noble friend Lord Barnett. In another place I enjoyed the presence of my noble friend Lord Barnett on the same Bench for 19 years. I missed it for 18 years and I am delighted to be able to resume my place next to him.
Inflation was the problem of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. The question that we have to ask ourselves is this: is inflation going to be the main economic problem of the early part of this century?
When I entered the House of Commons in 1964, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, talked about his economic objectives: growth; balance of payments; inflation; and unemployment, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. These are surely still the unchanging objectives of our time.
Of course, inflation has been a most serious matter and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to deal with it. In one sense, it is the easiest of the four objectives to deal with. Sufficiently severe deflation can bring it down. In the past four years, it has been dealt with efficiently and sensitively without that severe deflation. The question that needs to be put is this: is inflation still our main economic problem and does our preoccupation with it limit the success we might be able to achieve in the other three areas?

1193
But, first, there is the question as to how far we should pride ourselves on our success in reducing inflation. After all, it may have less to do with the mechanisms we have been putting in place but rather more to do with the international events that have taken place in recent years. World prices, even though distorted by certain continuing trade barriers, continue to provide a deflationary aspect. In the four years 1996 to 1999, world imports increased by nearly 20 per cent. In the same period, world import prices fell by 12 per cent. So we had increased trade with lower prices. The consequence has been a world-wide downward pressure on prices. These movements are the consequences of the reduction in trade barriers and of greater international competition. Additional to this, we have had the over-valuation of the pound, which has reduced import prices.
What of the future? There are two events which are likely to influence inflation. One is the continuing effects of globalisation: the ease with which manufacturing expertise is passed from one country to another. This is the situation where companies operating internationally can produce in whichever country is the most favourable, particularly where there is a combination of low-cost labour and access to modern technology. The other is the influence of the euro, which was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
With world trade still continuing its increase, price differentials in the euro-zone will continue to come under the pressure of international competition. When price differences between countries in the euro-zone become more and more anomalous—when consumers see the identical product priced in the same currency but at a higher price in one country than in another—consumer pressure will be unstoppable. Again, the pressure on prices will increase. Of course, not all transactions are easily tradable across countries, but the overall result will be to drag many prices downwards.
If, as I hope, we shall be joining the euro earlier rather than later, there will be two consequences. The first is the further pressure downwards on common prices in the euro-zone. But the second will be the consequences of entering at a competitive rate for sterling. The net result for inflation will be influenced by the actual exchange rate of entry. On this matter my expectations in the past have usually been disappointed. On such occasions, when a fundamental change in the exchange rate is proposed, I have usually been in favour of a lower rate for sterling than that which has been achieved. That is mainly because of my concern for our manufacturing industry.
Financial interests have always been stronger than industrial interests in Britain. The current piece of evidence for this comes from the very composition of the Monetary Policy Committee. The City is just down the road from Whitehall—manufacturing industry is much further away and its voices are weaker. If the pressures against a truly competitive exchange rate remain as they always have been, then the inflationary consequences even on joining the euro may be only
1194
mildly positive. Even if, against my expectation, the rate is realistically competitive, then the inflationary pressures will, I believe, be short term and containable.
Following this assessment, the control of inflation, although obviously a major objective, may need to cede its primacy and revert to the position 30 years ago, when it was one objective among others.
Denzil Davies, the Member for Llanelli—a Treasury Minister in the 1974 to 1979 Labour government—said in another place on 9th April:
"As I see it—perhaps I should not say this—the problem is becoming not rising inflation but a falling rate of inflation. If the trend continues, there could be a fall in the general level of prices. That would take us into deflation, as may have happened in Japan over the past few years, where inflation has probably settled at zero".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/4/01; col. 748.]
Voices such as this are not often heard.
Of the four Callaghan objectives—growth, balance of payments, inflation, and unemployment—the first objective for me has always been growth. It is the prosperity of our nation which must be our first consideration. Thereafter, we ought to be able to deal with the fairer distribution of wealth and income, which was the starting-point of my personal political allegiance.
So, in the more relaxed atmosphere now that inflation might not appear as the overarching consideration, I would hope that we can turn our attention once again to the more difficult task of bringing about growth in the economy; more difficult because there is no sure mechanism. There are, however, a number of useful pointers. The first is the ability to run the economy at a reasonable level of demand; the second is to ensure that this is made more likely by an exchange rate which does not pass too much of that increased demand to overseas suppliers; and the third is to continue and expand the micro-measures to help companies.
In the context of stable, or, on occasion, even falling prices, the consequence will need to lead to a monetary relaxation with, I would hope, a lower pound and a greater importance being given to fiscal rather than monetary policy.
In the past four years, the decisions of the Bank of England have circumscribed the fiscal decisions of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always had to take into account how far the Monetary Policy Committee would assess his economic decisions and whether it might compensate for them. Of course he could alter the 2½ per cent central inflation rate, but that might put the credibility of the Monetary Policy Committee arrangement in some doubt. But if inflation ceases to be the overriding economic problem facing us, the situation may well revert to somewhere near normal with the actions of the Treasury limiting the effectiveness of the Bank's procedures rather than the other way round.
The result of all this might be a fresh look at some of the earlier ways of managing the economy. I suspect that future debates are more likely to deal with the problems of growth, manufacturing industry and the balance of payments than those we have had in recent decades. I look forward to them.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in the post-maiden position on the Speakers' List, it falls to me to welcome the excellent speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, in which he demonstrated a completely masterly understanding of economic affairs; and, as such, made a great contribution to today's debate. I hope that he will make many more contributions to our future debates. Of course, all that should not have surprised us because the noble Lord's reputation came before him. However, perhaps I may remind the House of what that reputation—at least, in part—comprises.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was a Member of the other place for 36 years. For 14 years of that time—the longest ever—he was the chairman of the PAC. The noble Lord has also chaired other committees in the House of Commons and served a spell as Treasury Minister in the 1970s; and, indeed, ended up as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I believe that that legacy was evident in the most interesting contribution that he has just made to today's debate. We very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord again.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to contribute to the debate on the excellent report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee. I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his committee for a most stimulating report.
Until a few weeks ago I was a non-executive director on the Court of the Bank of England, having first been appointed in 1994. For the past three years, I held the position of chairman of the Sub-Committee of Non-Executive Directors of the Bank of England—in common parlance, the senior non-executive director. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on Bank of England matters as an outsider; and I welcome that opportunity.
I hope that I shall not disappoint noble Lords when I say that this will not to be a "kiss and tell" speech. I have no great revelations of life inside the Bank to unleash— at least, not today! Rather, I should like to speak to some of the recommendations in the committee's report on which I have some experience by virtue of my membership of the Court.
It may help noble Lords if I explain briefly the role of the Court of the Bank of England in relation to monetary policy. The Court of the Bank has statutory responsibility for managing the affairs of the Bank with the specific exception of the formulation of monetary policy, which is reserved to the Monetary Policy Committee. But the story does not end there as the Court and, in particular, the Sub-Committee of Non-Executive Directors have a statutory responsibility to keep the procedures of the Monetary Policy Committee under review. In my time as chairman of the subcommittee this oversight of the MPC's procedures was the most challenging of our statutory responsibilities.
I know that your Lordships' committee has taken evidence from all members of the MPC. I hope that the committee found that MPC members are not complacent about the way in which the MPC operates.
1196
One of the features of the MPC from which the non-executive members of Court took great comfort was the willingness to review the way in which it works and, indeed, to make changes. One example of this, which is referred to in the report, is the decision to release the minutes of the MPC meetings two weeks thereafter rather than the four to five weeks that it took previously. That was the MPC's own decision; it did not have to do it. Under the Act, the MPC has up to six weeks to publish the minutes of its meetings. But the MPC cares about transparency, to which the noble Lord, Lord Preston, referred as being one of the positive features of the way in which the new arrangements are working. The MPC also cares about good communications and about stimulating an informed debate on the economic issues of the day. So the committee took that initiative.
The Select Committee has suggested some changes in the way that the minutes are handled, especially the attribution of views to individual members of the committee, and giving views on the future path of interest rates. I can assure noble Lords that both of these issues have often been discussed by MPC members. There are both advantages and disadvantages in making a change, and no solution is without difficulty. The MPC currently calculates the balance of advantage in one direction, but I do not think that it is indiscreet of me to say that opinions vary. I should not rule out change in that approach from the MPC in the future. However, I advise the Select Committee not to hold its breath on the subject.
Another example of the flexibility of the MPC is the way in which it has shifted its approach to the quarterly inflation forecasting round, some of which was in direct response to the emerging findings of the report by Don Kohn, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred. The MPC did not wait for Mr Kohn's final report to be released; it actually took the emerging findings and ran with them. However, I do not believe that the MPC has reached the end of the road on responding to the Kohn recommendations, which raised a number of very complex issues. I know that the Select Committee on Economic Affairs has already discussed some of those issues with the Governor of the Bank of England. I hope that this new committee will take the opportunity to look comprehensively at the Bank's follow up to the Kohn report in due course. There are still many more interesting areas to consider.
Therefore, for those matters that are within the competence of the MPC—of course, not everything has been covered in the Select Committee's report—my firm belief is that the MPC can be relied upon to examine carefully and regularly how they work and to make the necessary changes. From my many conversations with MPC members, both collectively and individually, I believe that they really care about doing their job of formulating monetary policy to the best of their ability. They have a genuine ambition to be world class, if not the global leader, in that task.

1197
One of the suggestions made in the Select Committee's report concerns the process of voting. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pressed the case for the introduction of simultaneous voting. I urge caution with that recommendation. Whatever theory experts would have you believe, decision-making is more art than science. It concerns the best way for a group of individuals with shared goals to reach agreed solutions to real problems. The MPC is a group of individuals with a common goal of setting the best possible interest rate for the British economy consistent with its statutory remit of price stability. For my money, whatever method the MPC feels most comfortable with is the right method for decision-making. I should be wary of trying to impose some theoretically superior model. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", remains good advice.
The Select Committee's report raises a number of issues about the appointment of the external members of the MPC. I have much sympathy with those recommendations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I was extremely disappointed in the Government's response. I highlight especially the recommendation that not all of the external members should be full-time appointments—to which the Government did not even bother to respond. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's policy on that issue.
I go further than the committee and question whether any of the external members of the MPC should be full-time appointments. I know that there are some practical difficulties to be resolved relating to conflicts of interest but I am sure that practical solutions can be found if there is the will to do so. I urge the Economic Affairs Committee to consider the time that needs to be devoted by an external member of the MPC to discharge his or her functions and also to consider the benefits that a life, albeit part-time, outside Threadneedle Street can bring to the workings of the committee.
On the subject of appointments, the committee confined its observations to the appointment of the external members. I urge the Economic Affairs Committee to cast its net wider. The four external members of the MPC are appointed by the Chancellor. Two of the internal Bank members are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Chancellor, but in effect they are ex officio appointments as laid out in the Act. The remaining three are the Governor and the two deputy governors and these appointments are likely to be live issues over the next couple of years. The Governor's term and that of one of the deputy governors expires in 2003 while the other deputy governor's term expires in the autumn of next year.
These appointments are formally made by the Queen but, of course, on the advice of the Prime Minister and his Chancellor. The appointment of other members of the Court, also Crown appointments, are now made following Nolan procedures. The previous appointments of the Governor and the deputy governors were not made using open selection procedures—far from it. I should
1198
be interested to know how the Government intend to proceed with these new appointments, or indeed the process of reappointment if that is thought to be appropriate for any of the three positions.
I am sure that the Economic Affairs Committee should take an interest in that matter. These three make up one-third of the MPC and the Governor's role as chairman of the MPC is pivotal. Furthermore, the Act states that the external members must have knowledge and experience relevant to the MPC's functions and the two internal ex officio members by definition bring to the job particular expertise. However, the Act is silent on the competencies required of the Governor and the deputy governors. The Government's specification for those appointments is thus a crucial issue and one which I hope can be exposed along with the process itself.
For the past seven years the Bank of England has been an important part of my working life. I am proud to have been a director and continue to hold the Bank dear in my affections. I hope therefore that I shall be forgiven for having taken so much of your Lordships' time in responding to the valuable report produced by the Select Committee.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I say a few words about my noble friend Lord Sheldon. After all, we were elected together nearly 37 years ago—I was a child at the time! It is marvellous to see him here. Noble Lords may not appreciate how lucky we are to have the noble Lord with us, as last year in St James's Park his life was saved by Duncan Goodhew, the famous swimmer. My noble friend collapsed but his life was saved. I, too, am delighted to welcome him as it is wonderful to have him here.
The noble Baroness appeared to indicate that she would reveal some secrets about the Bank of England, if not today, then tomorrow. I look forward to reading a serialisation in the Sun newspaper at some stage. I refer to the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Peston. I agree with everything he said. As regards why the Treasury response was as it was, anyone who has been a Treasury Minister—as have my noble friend, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—will know—I state this mildly—that Ministers in the Treasury do not care very much about what happens in the House of Lords. They do not respond in the way that we should like. I am sorry that that is the case. It is a pity that the situation has not changed since my day but I hope that it will soon. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, as regards appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, the Treasury gave a totally inadequate response.
I hope that, on reflection, the Treasury will recognise that House of Lords Select Committees are rather more important than those in another place. We are normally much more objective, brighter, more perceptive and show a greater understanding of the issues, but, more importantly, we do not make party political points. We are, of course, also more modest!

1199
The important point to note is that our committees do not take on board party political views. We consider matters more objectively. I hope that the Treasury will recognise that point and will respond to our reports rather more satisfactorily than it did as regards the report we are discussing.
Unlike the Members of the Treasury Select Committee who indulge in many party political disagreements in their reports—I do not know how Mr Radice, who is soon to become my noble friend Lord Radice, managed to chair such a committee—our committee quite rightly does not second guess what the Monetary Policy Committee does from month to month. We are much more concerned with how and why it makes its decisions.
I want to consider what the Monetary Policy Committee would do if there were to be convergence of the euro and sterling. It was made crystal clear to us by the Governor that virtually the sole concern of the committee is to meet the inflation target. If noble Lords care to look at the evidence, they will see that despite pressure the Governor simply would not admit for one moment that it considers economic and other issues. As regards a secondary target, subject to that, of considering the Government's economic policy, he refused point blank to say that the committee ever directly takes account of economic policy. I found that rather surprising, but there you are. He says that achieving a sustained inflation target alone meets all the objectives of the policy, as set out by the Bank of England Act.
Uncynical as I am, I found the Governor's replies possibly somewhat economical with the truth. Having read the minutes of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, which discusses economic policies in great depth, I cannot believe that the issues are ignored after they have been discussed.
After what we have heard from the Governor of the Bank of England and others, there is little doubt that an overnight convergence of the euro-sterling exchange rate would have an impact on the inflation rate and on the economy generally. Exactly what would happen in such circumstances would depend on many other factors as well, and the action needed by the Monetary Policy Committee would depend as much on those other factors as on the convergence. There would be some beneficial effects for exporters, although importers might not be so delighted. It is worth at least wondering what the Monetary Policy Committee would do, because a lot would depend on its reaction.
Total convergence is highly unlikely to happen overnight. In any event, convergence—or a lack of it—with the euro is not the real issue. It is nonsense to suppose that the world is waiting to see whether sterling and the euro are converging and if so by how much, or that it would be the end of the world if they did not do exactly as we would like. The real question is how the Monetary Policy Committee would react.
Not untypically, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, taking on board what my noble friend Lord Peston said about the European Central Bank, took the
1200
opportunity to make a strongly euro-sceptic speech. He will be pleased to know that he even had my noble friend Lord Shore nodding in agreement. That is the best that can be said about his speech—or at least about that part of it; I like the jokes that his researcher found and the noble Lord delivered them well.
Given the objectives set in the Bank of England Act and the interpretation described by the Governor, there is an expectation that interest rates would rise, possibly substantially, if there happened to be such convergence. What about the Chancellor's reaction to his five economic tests on whether we should join the euro:
"the first and most critical is convergence"?
Those are not my words, but those of the Chancellor. He explained that that meant,
"sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency".—[Official Report, Commons. 27/10/97; col. 584.]
That means convergence not just of exchange rates, but of economies as well.
If the Monetary Policy Committee's remit is as stated by the Governor, euro-sceptics such as my noble friend Lord Shore—of whom I am very fond., as he knows—should be delighted. If we met the exchange rate convergence criterion, we would inevitably diverge even more on interest rates and other parts of the business cycle. In those circumstances, whatever the views of the Governor or the Monetary Policy Committee, the Chancellor at least is committed in principle to Britain joining the euro. The concern must be that with the Government's present policy we will never have the sustainable convergence that the Chancellor wants. As soon as we converge, we will immediately diverge. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Shore nodding in agreement. If we stick rigidly to the present policy, we will never meet the Chancellor's five tests. I hope that that is not the reason why he set them.
Euro-sceptics would be even more delighted if the present member states of the euro had to meet the Chancellor's test of convergence for all time. They would never achieve it and the euro-zone would break up. However, that is not going to happen. There is not sustainable convergence even between any 15 counties of the UK. Economics does not work that way in the real world.
The Government have told us that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister—I assume that it will be only those two—will make an assessment in two years on whether we shall have a referendum. It will be a trifle difficult, to put it mildly, for the average voter to understand the complex arguments on whether, at that time or in the future, there could be sustainable convergence. I dare say that most Members of your Lordships' House, or even members of the committee, would find it difficult to assert that there would be sustainable convergence. However, that is required by the five tests. The average reader of the Sun, the Mirror or any other paper would know all about that, of course, because they would read our debates avidly

1201
and would know exactly what was going on. I have always opposed the idea of a referendum on such a complex matter and I am even more opposed now.
Neither the Governor nor the Chancellor, who are both very able men, can say when the country will achieve sustainable convergence. Nobody can say that. The Chancellor said on 27th October 1997 that among his main reasons for divergence was the,
"legacy of Britain's past susceptibility to boom and bust".
We know from the number of times that the Chancellor has used that phrase that they are his favourite words. However, we cannot be susceptible to boom and bust any more, because he is in charge and he has assured us that measures are in place,
"to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/97; col. 584.]
Stability is not the same as sustainable convergence. The main problem could be how the Monetary Policy Committee interprets the Bank of England Act. We are told that the Chancellor and the Governor never discuss what the Monetary Policy Committee is doing on fiscal and monetary policy. I find that surprising. There is no "Ken and Eddie show" any more, but there is a private "Eddie and Gordon show". I suppose that they talk about the weather or something, because we are told emphatically that they do not discuss monetary or fiscal policy. I can only conclude by saying that it is time that they did, especially on the interpretation of how they will achieve sustainable convergence.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate these two reports—the end of term report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the first report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which is really the final chapter in the work of the first select committee, being the Government response to the former report. In one way it will be difficult to adjust to the new name for the old committee, as it is very much a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. I use that phrase particularly for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, Europhile that he is—although he probably does not understand it. The new committee has a much wider remit, but we shall still keep our collective beady eye on the continuing work of the Monetary Policy Committee.
It is customary to pay tribute to the chairman, the specialist adviser and the clerks of the committee. I do so with no hesitation. In my experience, which is now quite extensive, all four of them were fundamental to the creation of a good atmosphere, which encouraged all the members of the committee to give of their best. I am sure that all the members of the committee agree that we have been very fortunate in our quartet and I thank them.
Although the report printed on 13th February was a follow-on report to our original work, it is important. It shows how the House can serve a useful
1202
purpose in continuing to scrutinise a relatively new area of activity and ensure that it is satisfied that all is going well.
The granting of independence to the Bank of England was a dramatic development in many ways, but one that has achieved positive acceptance. It is seen to have worked and, indeed, is seen to be working. But there is nothing that cannot be improved upon in life, and both the reports are, I suggest, required reading for those with a keen interest in how the MPC has progressed during its still relatively short life.
In this debate I want to highlight two recommendations in the first report and, while doing so, comment on the Government's response to them, contained in the second report. They are, first, the advisability of maintaining the inflation target at 2.5 per cent, as referred to in paragraph 18 of the report, and, secondly, the subject of the scrutiny of appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, dealt with in paragraph 122.
Although the committee supported the symmetric inflation target and considered that the figure of 2.5 per cent should be retained for the moment, it recommended that the Chancellor should give consideration to setting the target at a lower level and that he should report his conclusions to both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already spoken of his disappointment at the Government's response. That response, in effect, thanked the committee for endorsing the continuation of the 2.5 per cent target but ignored the suggestion that consideration—mark the word "consideration"—be given to setting the target at a lower level; in other words, "Thanks for the support and don't make any stupid suggestions that are not worthy of comment or consideration".
I appreciate that at times the deliberations of Select Committees are an irritant to a government who have, in their view, "Better things to do". But irritants can often lead to better things in themselves—let us not forget the grit in the oyster. The Government's response reads a little like, "Run away, little boy"—or "little girl", as the case may be. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, stated that even more succinctly, "Treasury Ministers do not care"—he stated that twice—"about the House of Lords". Perhaps I may suggest gently that sometimes the mandarins at the Treasury do not interpret the impact that economic fundamentals, such as the inflation rate, have on lesser mortals. Wage claims is a case in point.
The argument out there goes something like this. The Government believe that 2.5 per cent is the correct inflation rate for this economy. We know that the true inflation rate, if measured on the same basis as it is measured in the EU, is somewhere below 1 per cent. It is acceptable to ask for 2.5 per cent wage increases and some more—say, another two or three percentage points—as the Government appear to be sanguine about inflation. Then what happens to our competitiveness?
We are constantly reminded that we cannot operate in isolation and that we are part of the global economy. I do not wish to anticipate the work on globalisation

1203
being undertaken by our revamped committee—the Select Committee on Economic Affairs—but none of us should be unaware that economic developments, particularly in the areas of finance and business, now impact much more rapidly throughout the world than they did even four years ago. In fact, work has been carried out which suggests that they operate within hours. That is borne out when one looks at the impact on stock markets over the past few months.
Fixing an inflation rate target immutably may not be such a bright idea. We are not suggesting for one moment that the Government should fix and change the target on a regular basis; rather, we suggest that it would be sensible at this stage for the Chancellor to consider setting the target at a lower level and to report his conclusions to both Houses of Parliament.
I know that the Government will not readily admit that they have inherited, and been blessed with, a benign period of economic stability since 1997. Even less readily will they admit that they inherited the best set of economic fundamentals that any government have done since World War II. However, that should not result in the perception being created that it is valid to seek to increase wage settlements and prices by near monopoly suppliers of goods and services to a figure above the 2.5 per cent target rate of inflation when our true rate of inflation, measured on the same basis as that of our major trading partners, is about 1 per cent. I believe that the Government should look again at our recommendation and report back.
With regard to my second point, following the government response to the recommendations in the February report—namely, on the scrutiny of appointments—our recommendation stated:
"We note the continuation of non-statutory confirmation hearings by the [Commons] Treasury Committee. We do not propose [that the new Economic Affairs Committee should undertake] such confirmation hearings … We do call on the Chancellor, however. to report to Parliament on the merits and implications of involving the Commissioner for Public Appointments in prior scrutiny of MPC members".
In view of the evidence that we had received, the response from the Government was utterly predictable. One cannot but feel that on issues of the selection of individuals to take on hugely important roles, this. Government consider that they "know best". Is it always the case that they know best? Has it always been the case that governments know best? Do government fly in the face of valued experience from other sectors, readily offered, and, indeed, free advice readily given?
As an aside, I remember vividly the arguments that the roles of the FSA chairman and chief executive could easily be combined under one person, as they are now. In view of the latest hot-off-the-press information in the sorry saga of Independent Insurance, I wonder whether the onerous responsibility of the combined role on one man might have led to a less than detailed scrutiny of the warning from France many months ago that all was not particularly well with that organisation.
1204
However, I return to the subject of the debate. The third paragraph of the Government's response to the recommendation states:
"The MPC is also subject to internal scrutiny by the directors of the Bank's Court who are responsible for monitoring the M PC's procedures"—
as my noble friend Lady Noakes described to us—
"The membership of the Court is broad, including leading figures from organisations representing the consumer, from manufacturing industry, the trade unions and the financial services industry".
However, I ask noble Lords to note the words:
"The MPC is also subject to internal scrutiny".
Nothing whatever is said about the scrutiny of appointments. The response to the MPC Select Committee can be seen on page 40. I want to ask the Minister whether appointments to the MPC have been subject to internal scrutiny by the Court of the Bank of England and what the Court has done in that regard. In looking at the printed words, I believe that there has been no scrutiny by the Court because no mention is made of it in the evidence to the committee.
As a consequence, I believe that two of the three paragraphs in the Government's response to our recommendation about appointments have nothing whatever to do with appointments. That reinforces the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the response was put together in about an hour and probably with the use of a Word programme so that two paragraphs could be slotted in to make the response appear more wordy.
The Court of the Bank of England is held in high regard. The doubts that I have about the necessity for a broader method of scrutiny of appointments to the MPC could be allayed if the Court scrutinised the appointments. I would welcome a response from the Minister telling me whether the Court does or does not do so.
In the early stages of my contribution this afternoon, I remarked that the granting of independence to the Bank of England was seen as a positive move. It has worked, and is working, well. I suggest that my comments are in a positive vein, wishing the MPC well and hoping that it will continue to be successful. Above all, however, one wants to avoid a situation where a bland acceptance of the target inflation rate leads to complacency, which, in turn, creates a casual disregard of global and national economic reality. It sometimes behoves us to remember, as I do, vividly the 10 consecutive months in 1975 when inflation in this country ran at a rate of between 21.2 and 26.9 per cent per annum. At least we are now somewhat more financially secure.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure for me, too, to participate in the committee and I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his chairmanship. I am sure that he will understand if I say that his style often has challenging aspects. Sometimes I am not sure whether we are taking evidence or helping the noble Lord to give witnesses a tutorial.

1205
Sometimes our deliberations take on the style of an academic debate on some finer points of economic theory. It is an even greater tribute to the noble Lord that he is able to secure such a wide measure of agreement amidst such fine activity.
The delay in having this debate meant that we had time to receive responses from the Treasury and the Bank of England. As noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, have said, the report received the most cursory response from the Treasury, which simply does not do it justice. I am always reluctant to criticise Treasury Ministers, but for a Government who pride themselves on openness and transparency it is astonishing that they are so reluctant to give reasons or to explain why they disagree with the committee's recommendations. I hope that we will receive a response that is a little more reasoned.
I seek to distinguish between the issues that are the clear responsibility of the Treasury and those that fall to the Bank of England. The Treasury's responsibilities include legislative arrangements, the letter from the Chancellor to the MPC setting out its remit for the following year and the appointment of members of the MPC.
On this occasion the committee did not make any recommendations about legislative arrangements. There is general agreement that the Bank of England Act has worked well and that the separation of roles between the Treasury and the Bank of England has been a success. The setting of interest rates has been depoliticised, but the Government are still seen as being accountable for the broad sweep of economic policy and the institutional arrangements that are in place, which is a good balance.
The issue that keeps coming up in this context—it has already arisen in this debate—is whether it is right for the focus of monetary policy to be so firmly on inflation rather than giving more weight to other considerations. I believe that everyone agrees that there was recently a degree of misalignment in the exchange rate and we are increasingly seeing structural imbalances in the economy, with a high level of domestic demand and an emerging balance of payments deficit. We also have the ongoing divergence between the performance of manufacturing and that of non-manufacturing.
That is a long-standing problem for economic management and the number of ambitions that policymakers have in that regard far exceeds the instruments that are at their disposal. So far my view is that the concentration on inflation has worked well. We state in the report that on the basis of our evidence there is greater agreement about the fact that that approach is correct. However, I doubt whether the debate is over for good. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances that would return the argument to the forefront—a balance of payments deficit could spark a sequence of events, including a sharp correction of sterling. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, raised some aspects of that debate. I say that as someone who has for a long time
1206
supported the notion that monetary policy should concentrate on the inflation rate; however, the current level of agreement on that may turn out to be a temporary phenomenon.
The committee made some suggestions about the annual letter from the Chancellor to the Governor in respect of the inflation target. At the outset, however, we make it clear that there is widespread support for the symmetrical target, which I believe has been a great success, and for sticking to the RPIX measure, although in some respects that is not ideal for our purpose. The committee did, however, raise the possibility of considering a lower target if we continue to undershoot the 2.5 per cent target. That was one of the recommendations that received a very curt response from the Treasury.
Personally, I see no great urgency for changing the target but I get alarmed by the suggestion that moving from 2.5 per cent to 2 per cent will be an enormous blow in relation to growth, unemployment and stability in the period ahead. There are of course short-term trade-offs but we would not be in the business of trying to control inflation if we did not believe that low inflation was a goal worth striving for and which brought longer-term benefits to the economy.
The next area of Treasury responsibility that I want to discuss is the making of appointments to the MPC. It seems clear that there is scope for improvement in that regard and, again, I am very disappointed by the Treasury's response. There is widespread agreement outside the Treasury that members' terms should be longer and that there should be renewal only very rarely. As I pointed out the previous time we discussed this matter, political influence comes much more through the process of reappointment than through the initial appointment. The present three-year term for members sits very unhappily in a process in which we expect changes in interest rates to have their full effect in two years. In practice we are seeing a very rapid turnover among members of the MPC either because they have not been invited to stay on or because they do not wish to stay on. The degree of turnover is probably higher than one would like. If we want stability of membership and we really want members to be independent, we must have the courage to give them sensible terms of appointment—to give the committee's recommendation, it could be for five years—and to rotate membership at that point. I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to engage in some discussion on that issue.
The committee also made several suggestions about improving the handling of appointments, which have also been rejected. I understand some of the Treasury's concerns and, having had some experience of trying to find people to fill the slots, I confess that I am not a great fan of "Nolan procedures" for this type of post. At a minimum there should be an announcement of a forthcoming vacancy and an invitation for candidates to put themselves forward if they wish. That would not prevent the tap on the shoulder or the telephone call out of the blue asking for an immediate response. We learnt that that is the standard procedure and that it is designed in such a way as to surprise everyone, so there

1207
is no opportunity to discuss who might be a possible candidate. Changing the system would give others a chance to advance their own case and would reduce the suspicion that one was simply chasing after the "usual suspects". As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the argument about the market sensitivity of appointments is at the very least a huge exaggeration and will not persuade many.
I turn to the responsibilities of the Bank of England, which include setting interest rates and the working of the MPC, including the publication of minutes. I join with other noble Lords in acknowledging the continued success in carrying out those responsibilities. The average inflation rate over the period was very close to the target and we have seen the close tracking of the inflation rate to the target over the whole period that the MPC has been in place. That was combined with relative stability of output growth. Taken together, it is right to acknowledge that that has been really impressive by any standards. There is a high degree of confidence about the way in which the MPC is discharging its job and everyone involved should be congratulated.
It has become usual for commentators to qualify their praise for the MPC by suggesting that conditions have been very benign. That seems to upset some members of the MPC, who like to point out that they have been dealing with an enormously difficult set of circumstances and who are prepared to give one a very long list. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that the real comparison is with the situation in other industrial countries. I, too, note that output stability and low inflation have also been present elsewhere. Without doubt, that makes life easier for this country and for the MPC. As a result, my concern, if anything, is that the MPC has actually been too successful over the period. It has got us used to the standard of meeting the inflation target, which it will be enormously difficult to continue to meet. When we return to a situation that is more like a normal level of tracking error I worry that that will be wrongly seen as a great failure. However, we will have to deal with that problem when we meet it.
I would like to pick up one point from our report so far as the Bank is concerned relating to the issuing of minutes. The committee made some suggestions for improvement, although it welcomed the prompt publication and clarity of minutes. Our suggestion was that individual members might write a short paragraph of their own explaining their vote. The Bank's response is that most members are not enthusiastic about the suggestion. The implication, however, is that some members are enthusiastic—that was confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
However, the MPC seems to suggest in its reply that individuals can explain their points of view better in personal speeches and interviews. So we have a rather elaborate parlour game. The minutes contain a variety of views, which are not attributed to individual members, although members are encouraged to make speeches and to give interviews. Commentators then scour those speeches and interviews. They try to marry up comments in the minutes with particular
1208
individuals. That may be very good for employment in the City, but I have grave doubts about the transparency of it all. We agreed in the committee that we do not want to see a blow-by-blow account of what happens or to pry into the intricate nature of the decision making. I hope that soon we can move beyond these games. I am disappointed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we should not hold our breath on this particular issue.
I was also disappointed by the rejection of our suggestion to provide an executive summary to the minutes. The MPC suggests in its response that, instead, the busy reader might turn, first, to the section headed "immediate policy decision" in order to see the essence of the argument. I confess that that is exactly what I do. I go straight to that part of the minutes and then, if I have time left, I go to the front and start skimming the detail. I suspect that a very large proportion of readers do exactly the same thing. Some of them may not be as willing as I am to confess this weakness. This action tells us something about the weakness of the structure of the minutes; at least there is some suggestion that there is a need to re-think. It is disappointing that there is no willingness to do that.
My comments distract me from the fundamental conclusion that the process has been a success. The design has stood the test of time so far, and I think that the execution has been first rate. The main job now is to maintain the standard of performance. The committee set about its recommendations very much in the spirit of trying to find ways in which one can take a good performance and make it better, and also to give us a better chance that it may be sustained in the future.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the committee on its work. I am also surprised at the response of the Government especially as the first and second reports from your Lordships' committees have generally been supportive of the work of the Monetary Policy Committee. The recommendations have generally been helpful rather than destructive and friendly rather than antagonistic. However, this was not always so.
When the Chancellor first announced the independence of the Bank of England and that interest rates would be set outside Government, the criticisms came thick and fast, not just from political opponents but also from some sections of business and industry. Some in the City were critical and, to be fair, some in our own party were critical and unhappy about the arrangement. They told us that the British economy was too diverse for an independent committee to take such a decision: that the interests of rural fanning and urban industry could not be reconciled; the interests of the growing services sector were in conflict with those of the manufacturing sector; and the incidence of home ownership meant that mortgage rates had an important social and political implication. We were told that these differences meant that setting interests rates was as much a political as an economic matter and must be retained within the Government.

1209
Now, four years on, we can judge who was right. The strategy of making the Bank of England independent, insisting on some tough fiscal rules and sticking to an inflation target has produced a stability in the economy from which we all benefit. Generally, things have gone better. Some sectoral interests claim to have suffered but, generally, the economy is in better shape than if the Monetary Policy Committee had not existed. Unemployment is low; inflation is low; and people feel more confident.
My noble friend, Lord Sheldon, and others have spoken of the inflation rate. I am not sure that I agree with your Lordships' committee that the inflation target of 2.5 per cent should be reduced. I think that sticking to the same target gives a sense of continuity. The 2.5 per cent target provides some flexibility to accommodate these diverse pressures on which people remarked at an earlier stage. These diverse pressures within our economy are important. The figure of 2.5 per cent seems to be working.
In the debate as to whether the Monetary Policy Committee could reconcile all the different interests of our economy and geography, it is interesting to note that this argument is being repeated again over the single European currency. My noble friend, Lord Barnett, referred to it. Exactly the same arguments about diversity and geography are being presented to explain why the euro will not work and is unsuitable for us. Excepting that joining the euro is virtually irreversible—but the Bank of England Act 1998 can presumably be repealed—the economic and geographical arguments are much the same, as though Britain were a microcosm of Europe, which it could well be.
Like the European Central Bank, the Bank of England does try to take care of these regional concerns. The Bank has 12 regional agents, whose task it is to brief the Monetary Policy Committee about what is going on throughout the country, and all these diverse branches of the economy have had their say. The Bank of England strongly emphasises this point in its Annual Report 2001. It does seem to work. I think that those in favour of Britain joining the euro can gain some comfort from this.
There seem to be some other lessons that the European Central Bank can learn from the MPC—for instance, the advantages of more open and accountable decision making. My noble friend, Lord Peston, and the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, made this point. There is a meeting of minds!
The clarity of the minutes giving the views of individuals rather than the committee also finds the approval of your Lordships' committee, but the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seemed to put a question mark over that. My noble friend, Lord Peston, told us that the working of the Monetary Policy Committee has been subjected to a kind of peer review by Mr Kohn from the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. Does the European Central Bank have the benefit of a peer review?
1210
I agree with my noble friend, Lord Peston, that the European bank could benefit from the kind of scrutiny of the Monetary Policy Committee provided by the Treasury Select Committees in another place and by your Lordships' committees. I am not sure that the scrutiny provided by the European Parliament is as effective, detailed, well-informed or non-partisan.
I thank the committee for its report. It reinforces our understanding of the requirement to distinguish between the needs of current consumption on the one hand and the importance of long-term investment on the other in creating the stability which benefits us all. As a result, there is a shared consensus now for building the wider and deeper enterprise and business culture which we need to hold our position in today's more competitive world.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, suggested that the Monetary Policy Committee had been perhaps too successful. The real test of the Monetary Policy Committee is yet to come. Its real test will be when something totally unexpected happens. Economists have become quite good at projecting economic trends but they are put to the test when those trends make a sharp change in direction because something totally unexpected happens. The bursting of the dot.com bubble was expected but no one knew when it would happen. But Britain's withdrawal from the ERM was not and this caused an important change of direction in economic trends. It is when the totally unexpected happens—as it will—that the Monetary Policy Committee will be put to the test.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I begin by joining others in congratulating my noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, on his maiden speech. I, too, have personal recollections of the noble Lord in another place. I have found, over some 30-odd years, that our interests often coincided although the conclusions we reached in terms of policy were not identical. Nevertheless, he always brought to the debate a seriousness and, more than that, both a penetration and an intellectual power which I think was a hallmark of his contribution in the House of Commons. It is a delight to see him at work here today.
I am not just saying that I am glad to see the noble Lord here because of our previous personal relationship; he made a marvellous speech. It was like a breath of fresh air. How long is it since we heard someone say that we ought to remove from our minds this obsession with inflation? Although we must not forget it as a problem, it should take its place in the queue of other economic objectives which are more important in the long term. I was delighted to hear those sentiments.
I am very pleased that the report we are discussing today extended its terms of reference from the consideration of monetary policy to economic policy as a whole. That is important; otherwise, if we simply concentrate on monetary policy as it is now framed in the terms of reference of the Bank of England, it is all about inflation, and it ought not to be. It ought to be about other, more important economic matters.

1211
I believe this is a preliminary report and I look forward to further reports of the economic policy Select Committee. Over the years the House of Lords has lacked an extension of the experience and wisdom that it undoubtedly possesses on economic affairs, allowing for the long history of the past when it was very controversial to have the House of Lords involved in matters of expenditure, taxation and so forth. We are now able to put that behind us, following certain changes last year in the composition of the House, and can think seriously about what we can do. I look forward to the future reports of my noble friend Lord Peston and the committee.
The extension from worrying about inflation and the control of it to broader matters is almost at the heart of what I want to say tonight. Unfortunately, the major problem that has emerged is that the exchange rate has now been divorced from the Bank of England and its terms of reference. That is a serious matter because we have misalignment in our exchange rate, particularly with the euro.
The report contains the evidence of the Governor of the Bank of England. I was interested to see that at page 16, paragraph 17, he says,
"I do think that it is the sectors [of British industry] which were exposed to the weak euro which have really suffered".
Nobody should doubt that there has been a considerable price to pay already for the misalignment of the pound, the euro and other exchanges. The effects of that, particularly on the North-South divide in the United Kingdom—it still exists although "North" is a bit crude to describe the areas of manufacturing, and includes Wales, the north of England and parts of Scotland—have accentuated the problem. We have had the booming South with its service economy and we have had the rather severe effects of an adverse exchange rate on our manufacturing industry mainly concentrated elsewhere in the country and indeed also affecting agriculture.
One of the results of that, as we know, has been an increase in imports, a falling off of exports and the widening of a trade gap which is now of a very serious order. I know things can be more easily managed in the world of the 21st century than was the case in the past century with trade deficits. But we are running the largest trade current account deficit in our history. It is bigger even than the appalling affliction that we had to cope with in 1975 when our oil prices quadrupled almost overnight and we faced the severe problems that flowed from that. So the situation is extremely serious. It is likely to be accentuated because the world economy is slowing down. All that reinforces the difficulties which I describe.
We come to what seems to me to be the crucial question: what can we do? The most obvious thing that comes to mind in terms of monetary policy is, of course, to lower interest rates. British interest rates are much higher than they are in euroland; they are much higher than in Japan and they are very much higher than in the United States, where the Fed has acted vigorously to reduce interest rates as a counter-recessionary measure.
So why do we not cut our interest rates? What is to prevent us doing that? The answer is that, unfortunately, that decision no longer lies within the
1212
competence of the Governor of the Bank of England. It lies still with the Treasury; and the Treasury has shown an astonishing indifference to this problem. If it were to take some action on interest rates in order to have some effect on the exchange rate—it is not the perfect solution but it is one of the great tools of macro-economic policy—other problems in the economy would arise. Once again I turn to the wise words of the Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, in his evidence on 1st May. He was asked directly by my noble friend Lord Paul whether we should lower interest rates, and the reply was,
"I think the short answer, Lord Paul, is that we have certainly been, and I suspect still are, operating much closer to capacity in the UK economy than in some other economies".
What he is really saying is that with the labour market tightening, with the gap between full capacity operation and actual output being very small, the effect of lowering the interest rate (and the increase in demand that would then follow) would be inflationary. There is no doubt about that. I am sure everyone agrees that it is likely to be inflationary. But what is to be done?
That is where I see the great problem revealed by the committee. There is a great gap between monetary policy on the one hand and fiscal policy on the other. The obvious answer to the question of what is to be done if inflation is to be brought in as a result of a sensible interest rate policy is that we have to operate either on public expenditure or on taxation, on fiscal policy or on the gap between them. That is a dilemma.
If my party, my colleagues and the Government are as wedded, as they are, to high totals of public expenditure which will grow—there is no doubt about that—they will have to look again at the fiscal instrument. Instead of dodging around and making rather dangerous promises about not increasing taxation, they had better think again.
Almost inevitably something has to be done if the ambition of my noble friend to join the euro is to become a possibility. The Government know very well that they cannot join at the present rate of exchange. They have to get it down. But they must not be surprised that the Bank of England and the ECB have as their first objective the containment of prices. Price restraint is built into the Maastricht Treaty, into the protocols about the exchange rate and the euro, and as noble Lords well know it is in the Bank of England Act as well. We must not be surprised about that.
That leads me to my conclusion. I asked what is needed. My noble friend, for whom I have the utmost admiration, as he well knows—his knowledge and experience in this field is truly admirable—unfortunately is not the master of macro-economic policy. That is in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I belong to that small group of people—we are almost a unique club—that does not yet believe that the economic judgment of the Chancellor is wholly infallible. We think that he may have made a great mistake in separating fiscal from monetary policy, either by making the Bank of England independent or, at least, by giving the Bank of England such restricted terms of reference.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I want to add my name to those who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his colleagues on the Select Committee on this admirable report. It is an intellectual treat, a store of practical wisdom and a notable contribution to economic education.
It is also an example of what your Lordships' House does superbly well. We are constitutionally debarred from voting on supply, but that should not prevent us discussing the principles of economic policy. I hope that the two reports produced by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his committee, will embolden us to seize this opportunity more confidently than we have done in the past.
We are almost at the point of having a critical mass of economists in this House. While economic debates should not be monopolised by economists—as is well known economists are not much in favour of monopoly—it does help to have the principles of economic policy discussed by those who know and understand some economic theory. I hope that such a development will also improve the quality and confidence of our debates.
I welcome the decision to turn the Select Committee on the MPC into a Standing Committee on economic affairs. As the report notes, the new committee will have a wider remit than the previous one, although, happily, the same chairman and much the same membership. It will be able to look dispassionately at such matters as the balance between monetary and fiscal policy; problems of forecasting that were much discussed in the evidence; what account policy should take of regional variations in the economy; the causes of low inflation; globalisation; debt management and such like.
I would dearly like to engage with Paul Ormerod's view that the low inflation of recent years has nothing whatever to do with monetary policy, especially monetary policy in this country, but that must await another occasion.
I suggest to the new committee a further topic. At present the relationship between the level of taxation and economic growth, or more generally between economic growth and the size of the state, is a matter of intense political, even ideological, division. I would like some progress made towards de-politicising it. An inquiry into that relationship by the Select Committee on economic affairs would help to give the public debate a much firmer underpinning in economic theory and economic evidence, so I hope that they will consider that at some point in the future.
Reading through the report and the fascinating minutes of evidence accompanying it, I was driven to reflect on the differences and on the similarities as regards the way in which these kinds of issues are discussed today compared with the period that I know best, which was the time of Keynes and the Keynesian ascendancy.
1214
I want to pick out two themes. Often it is claimed that Keynes is dead, that governments have given up the attempt to manage economies. Of course, that is nonsense. What is the Bank of England MPC doing? Let me quote Sir Eddie George:
"What we are trying to do all the time is to balance the aggregate demand with the aggregate underlying supply in the economy".
That is true of all central banks, whatever their explicit mandate. Donald Brash, governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand said:
"Monetary policy should be aimed at regulating the level of demand … it is trying to keep demand in line with the economy's sustainable capacity … to minimise the booms and minimise the busts. So … we are fine-tuning".
That is not what Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England before the Second World War, thought he was trying to do. He did not think in these conceptual categories of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. We owe that to the Keynesian revolution and to the associated development of national income accounts. Today no central bank would dream of pursuing a monetary policy, nor would a finance minister dream of pursuing a fiscal policy that would allow aggregate demand to become seriously out of line with what Sir Eddie George called "underlying supply". The fact that they now pay as much attention to excess demand as to deficient demand is a return to original Keynesian virtue, for a time neglected by his followers.
Of course, there has been a change in theory and I believe that it is necessary to understand that in order to understand why there is now an inflation target. That is indicated by the two governors' careful choice of the adjectives "underlying" and "sustainable" before the word "supply". Today we measure the balance between aggregate demand and aggregate supply not by the unemployment rate, but by the inflation rate. The economy is said to be in balance, with unemployment at its equilibrium rate, when there is no tendency in the price level to move up or down. That reflects the influence of Milton Friedman and particularly his theory of the natural rate of unemployment. That theory was put forward in the late 1960s as a critique of the existing methods of demand management, but not against the principle of demand management per se.
During the committee's hearings the question was frequently raised as to whether the Bank's mandate should include a specific requirement to pay attention to the level of unemployment. It seems to me that the Chancellor gave a convincing reply in his evidence when he stressed the symmetrical nature of the 2.5 per cent inflation target. That is the key point. It has been referred to glancingly in the debate but to me it appears to be absolutely crucial. Undershooting the target, which indicates the development of demand deficiency, would be of as much concern to the Bank as overshooting, which is an indication of the opposite. In endorsing that symmetrical target, the report rightly noted that the symmetry is in order to avoid too conservative a monetary policy. In the debate, members of the committee have regretted the feeble

1215
Treasury response to the committee's suggestion that the inflation target may be lowered. I agree that the response was a disgrace.
However, a more effective reply was given by Sir Andrew Turnbull of the Treasury at question 284 of his evidence. He said:
"Can I bring in my Sam Brittan quote, which I think is relevant here? Sam Brittan noted in the FT on April 13th. 'If made now such a change would only increase the impression that the British adopt a bewildering succession of monetary objectives only to drop them when the going gets rough'".
That is an important argument for allowing a particular target to bed down before starting to fiddle around with it.
My Lords, I think that I should stop.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 5.41p.m.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been agreed that debate on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should be concluded at this point. When the Motion has been agreed to, I shall move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 6.30 p.m., at which point debate will take place on the orders on the Order Paper.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.12 to 6.30 p.m.]

Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001
6.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order establishes new arrangements for the review and release of life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland. Its key features are, first, the appointment of life sentence review commissioners to consider the cases of all life sentence prisoners; secondly, the setting of a "tariff" by the court which represents the punitive element of the sentence after which release can be considered by the commissioners; thirdly, the power of the commissioners to direct the release of a prisoner on completion of the tariff period subject to the requirement that release would not present a risk to the public; fourthly, the attachment of licence conditions by the Secretary of State on the prisoner's release; fifthly, the power of the Secretary of State to revoke a prisoner's licence and recall him to prison; and, sixthly, through the underpinning rules, the entitlement of the
1216
prisoner to a hearing of his case, including legal representation, when being considered for release by the commissioners.
Copies of the draft statutory rules have also been made available. They are called the Life Sentence Review Commissioners' Rules 2001. They underpin the operation of the legislation. I have provided those rules simply to ensure as much understanding of the draft order as possible. However, I do not propose to deal with the draft rules in today's debate. They will be formally put before Parliament by negative resolution.
Your Lordships will be aware that we have a second draft order for consideration today, which is a consequential amendments order. That provides for minor, technical adjustment of UK legislation in light of the main order itself. I propose to cover the draft Life Sentences (Consequential Amendments) Order at the appropriate point in my speech, and then move its consideration separately at the end of this debate.
There are two reasons why the Government are bringing forward new proposals in this area: first, the commencement of the Human Rights Act on 2nd October last year; and, secondly, as a result of the report of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, completed as part of the Good Friday agreement and published last year.
In anticipation of the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the Government undertook a review of Northern Ireland prisons law and practice with a view to ensuring Human Rights Act compliance. The review revealed that current procedures in place to deal with prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in Northern Ireland might be inconsistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act.
Legal advice suggested that compliance would require that, once the punitive element of the sentence has been completed, such prisoners should have their cases subject to periodic review by an impartial and independent body, established by law and with specific power to give a legally binding direction concerning the prisoner's release.
The report of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review endorsed that view. The lack of openness of Northern Ireland procedures was commented upon; that is to say, an executive Life Sentence Review Board advising the Secretary of State who then consults with the Lord Chief Justice. The Secretary of State then makes the final decision on all releases. The Criminal Justice Review recommended that an independent body should make such decisions based on risk to the public.
The Government are now proposing to introduce arrangements whereby all life sentence prisoners have the punitive period of their sentence clearly identified in law, and their case for release independently assessed and directed at the appropriate time by an independent body of judicial character. In essence, the proposals will establish for Northern Ireland arrangements for life sentence prisoners similar to the Parole Board system in England and Wales.

1217
Perhaps I may give a very brief description of the key provisions of the order. It contains 13 articles and three schedules. However, I shall briefly focus on five articles. Article 3 provides for the appointment of life sentence review commissioners and defines the factors which underpin commissioners' functions. Expertise in the fields of law, psychiatry, psychology, criminology and the rehabilitation of offenders are the key skills necessary for the assessment of life sentence prisoners for release.
Article 5 provides for the setting of the tariff by the sentencing judge. The "tariff is the period of retribution and deterrence, sometimes known as the "punishment part" of the sentence, which the judge will order in court on conviction.
Article 6 provides the arrangements for the release of life prisoners. On completion of the tariff, cases will be referred to the life sentence review commissioners who will consider detailed case histories and dossiers. They will have the power to direct release provided that there would be no serious harm to the public.
Article 8 provides arrangements for the Secretary of State to impose life licences on release which may require post-release supervision by a probation officer.
Article 9 provides for the recall of life sentence prisoners, either directly by the Secretary of State or on the recommendation of the commissioners. In all recall cases prisoners will be advised of the reasons for their revocation and told that they can make representations. All recalls will be referred to the commissioners for consideration and direction.
The remaining articles provide arrangements for specific issues—compassionate release, transferred prisoners—as well as incorporating current life sentence prisoners and licensees into the new legislation.
I turn to the consultations the Government have conducted on the order. The proposal was laid before Parliament on 15th January this year. We invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider it. We took the opportunity to copy it for comment to organisations with an interest in this policy area. The Northern Ireland Grand Committee debated the proposal on 22nd March. A statement summarising the responses to the proposal, and a further statement of the changes made as a result of these, has been laid before Parliament along with the draft order.
The Government's proposals were widely welcomed. Respondents commented favourably on the proposals for the appointment of commissioners and the setting of tariffs in court. Respondents also made a series of points of detail on individual provisions. I shall not review each individual representation as that would take much too long. I propose to advise your Lordships of the four overarching issues which arose during the consultation process and of our responses to them. The four issues were: first, human rights compliance; secondly, victims' rights; thirdly, ministerial guidance and directions; and, fourthly, implementation. I also
1218
propose to say a few words about the independence of commissioners. That matter was raised by a number of respondents.
First, I turn to human rights compliance. During consultation it was stated that our legislative proposals should comply with current UK and European Court Human Rights law. Human rights is the very basis of the proposals that we have developed. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the core provisions of the order. They were the setting of tariffs in court; the establishment of an independent body of experts with the skills required specifically identified; the hearing of prisoners' cases for release at which they can be legally represented; and the provision of legal aid. The order is human rights driven and the rights of prisoners are fully covered. It is the Government's view that the provisions contained in the draft order are compatible with convention rights.
Secondly, I turn to victims' issues. Representations were made that victims' or their family's rights should be acknowledged and reflected in the legislation. Victims' interests will be catered for. Their views will be sought and made available as part of the review and release process. Indeed, that is already the case. Any victim or his family who wants to be advised of a life prisoner's release can register his interest and be kept advised where appropriate. Under the proposed legislation, that will be enhanced in law to allow victims' views to be provided to the commissioners when they are considering final release. Views will be obtained and provided by the Probation Service.
Victims' needs and interests are obviously issues facing the criminal justice system as a whole. In addition to its recommendations on life sentence prisoners, the Criminal Justice Review made important recommendations in that area. As a government, we shall be looking at ways to further cater for victims' interests. Many victims prefer to put difficult events behind them and to move on. Therefore, across all these arrangements it will be at the discretion of the victim or his/her family.
Thirdly, I turn to ministerial directions and guidance. Representations were made during the consultation suggesting that the Secretary of State should have the power to issue directions or guidance. We accept that there will be a need for Ministers to make clear certain procedures which will apply. An obvious example is guidance for life prisoners on the process. Arrangements for victims to register their concerns, and advising licensees on the conditions of their release, are others. But issuing guidance has, in itself, no statutory authority. Therefore, to provide for guidance in law would have no substance. We recognise the need, and will address it administratively. Officials will be producing and making available guidance notes on all relevant areas to prisoners, victims and the criminal justice system in general.
With regard to the suggestion that Ministers should issue directions, I remind your Lordships that the proposals before the House today are to establish an independent sentencing and review process.

1219
Independence is the key feature. Ministers should not, for example, be directing the commissioners on how to make decisions. Such a step would quite simply run contrary to the concept of independence. It will be for the commissioners to establish standards in their release decisions, guided by the extensive domestic and international case law already in existence.
I turn to implementation. Representation was made that there should be meaningful consultation with relevant organisations prior to the implementation of the legislation. Consultation has already been taking place as our proposals have been developed. We have worked closely with relevant criminal justice agencies, and through the consultation period, our proposals were made available to more than 200 interested parties or groups.
To ensure smooth introduction, my officials will continue to consult with relevant bodies. It is our intention to develop working protocols with and between criminal justice agencies and to encourage a similar approach with the new commissioners. We will also keep prisoners fully advised of progress and we will be working to ensure that all relevant staff are aware of and trained in the new procedures.
Perhaps I may move on to the independence of commissioners. Some respondents seemed concerned that commissioners' independence should be emphasised. Commissioners' independence is provided for in a variety of ways. The draft order establishes commissioners in law and provides them with specific power to give a legally binding direction concerning the prisoner's release. If release is directed, then the Secretary of State must comply. Commissioners will be appointed by open competition. Appointment will be for a period of five years, which is renewable subject to the provisions of the order. If a commissioner were to be considered for dismissal, this can be done only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. The professional expertise of the commissioners is specified in the legislative proposals. Legal qualifications, professional qualifications, and expertise in the rehabilitation of offenders are all provided for. These will be important in establishing credibility, acceptability and professional independence. There is no question of the commissioners' independence.
Before concluding, I should like to deal with the need for a separate statutory instrument—the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001—to provide for the amendment of related UK legislation. The reason for the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order is simply that an order made under Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—which provides the legislative vehicle for the main life sentences order—can amend legislation only as it applies to Northern Ireland. The Section 84 order is a technical requirement, needed to amend legislation as it applies in England and Wales. It provides for the inclusion of references to the life sentences order in the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the International Criminal Court Act 2000 which provide various transfer and repatriation arrangements within and to the United
1220
Kingdom. The order also provides for the inclusion of references to Life Sentence Review Commissioners in the Freedom of Information Act as a group to whom the Act will apply.
I shall conclude my speech by reminding your Lordships of the reasons for the Government's proposed Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order—the need for compliance of life sentence review and release arrangements with the Human Rights Act: and the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It is the Government's view that the time has come in Northern Ireland to transfer responsibility for review and release of life sentence prisoners out of the hands of Ministers. With Parliament's approval, life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland will have their "tariff' set in court; will be referred to the independent Life Sentence Review Commissioners; and will have their release considered at the appropriate time based on the avoidance of risk to the public. The commissioners will have relevant professional and expert knowledge to enable them to take such decisions. Prisoners will be entitled to a hearing of their case at which they can be legally aided and represented.
I am confident that the system we are proposing caters for the needs of society and of victims and ensures the rights of prisoners. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
6.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing the order before the House. In principle, I have no argument with it. It was well debated in another place. I have read the Hansard report thoroughly. My honourable friend Mr John Taylor asked a number of pertinent questions concerning independence, human rights and other matters to which he received satisfactory replies. I have no difficulty in supporting the order.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I have no difficulty in supporting the order. I prefer the concept of an impartial commission looking after this type of activity rather than it being open to political pressure. There is nothing more unattractive in society than a lynch mob, which may be organised through the local tabloid press which is on the case of some unfortunate person. I am satisfied with the concept of an impartial body. I am pleased to hear that membership will last for five years. How many commissioners are there likely to be? I support the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords., I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their support for the order. I was asked how many commissioners there will be. The answer is 15 to 20 depending on business.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001
6.46 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order is necessary to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to permit elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly to take place. The order provides for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is being laid at this time purely as a precautionary measure. It is essential, in order to keep open the option of elections if the Assembly fails to elect new First and Deputy First Ministers within six weeks. But that does not indicate the Government's intention, nor commit the Government or the parties to this particular course of action. It is too early yet to say what will happen. This is contingency planning. All our focus is on intensive discussions with the parties and the Irish Government to carry forward the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
The content of the order, which of course complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, is made under the powers of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We are required to lay this draft instrument as the original order, the new Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, provided only for the original Assembly elections. This order now replaces the one made in 1998 and falls broadly in line with its provisions.
There is one notable change. The timetable for Assembly elections will, in future, be based on a 25 day timetable rather than 19 days, as was set for the 1998 elections. Twenty-five days is more usual for PR(STV) elections in Northern Ireland, being the timetable also used for district council elections. Some minor modifications have also been made in respect of the changes which have been brought about by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. These relate primarily to the control of donations to candidates and the rules concerning the description in nominations and the ballot paper.
1222
As I have mentioned, the 1998 order provided only for the elections which took place that year in forming the new Northern Ireland Assembly. The provisions of this order provide for the conduct for all future elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Assembly elections are scheduled to take place in 2003 and the Government planned to introduce these measures at some point prior to those taking place. However, due to the recent developments in the political situation in Northern Ireland it has become a necessity to lay the order before the House now.
Perhaps I may explain why it is so essential that the order is needed at this time. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the recent resignation of the First Minister means that the Deputy First Minister automatically ceases to hold office at the same time. In those circumstances, the 1998 Act provides that the Assembly must hold an election to fill those vacancies within six weeks. It is hoped that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be successful in electing a new First and Deputy First Minister but should it not, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is then required to exercise his statutory duty in calling fresh Assembly elections. This order ensures that elections to the Assembly could be called if required and is fundamental to keeping this option open.
Noble Lords will note that I speak of an option. At this crucial time in the peace process in Northern Ireland, it is important that we keep all the options laid down in the 1998 Act open to us. It does not force either the Government or the political parties of Northern Ireland into one particular course of action or assume that the search for a new First and Deputy First Minister will be unsuccessful.
Intensive talks with the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government are, as noble Lords know, taking place this week. It is hoped that these talks can pave the way forward in our continuing efforts to implement fully the terms of the Good Friday agreement. However, we must ensure, whether for now or for the future, that the procedures are in place for holding future elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, while we accept that this order is necessary for the reasons pointed out by the Minister—namely, in order to be able to hold fresh elections to the Assembly in 2003—this order is being taken early in this Parliament because of the situation pertaining in Northern Ireland today. Noble Lords will know that it is extremely serious. I understand that two alternatives face the Government: if no agreement is reached tomorrow or over the coming few weeks—the final date is 11th August—the first is to call fresh elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, while the second is to suspend the Assembly and reinstitute direct rule.

1223
I have given the Minister prior notice that I should like to be reassured that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, should he wish to do so, currently holds the power to suspend all those governances that would need to be suspended without the need to lay orders either in this House or in the other place. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to give me that assurance before we adjourn for the Summer Recess.
Matters are moving on in Northern Ireland. The situation is serious and it has changed considerably since the House returned. I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am out of order if I state that we have requested, through the usual channels, an opportunity to debate the situation in Northern Ireland before the Summer Recess. Noble Lords on this side of the House feel that a debate is necessary and would be extremely helpful. We have held a number of excellent, passionate, learned and intelligent debates on Northern Ireland in this House. I hope that we shall be allowed to hold another.
Perhaps I may quote from Hansard of 21st June and thus remind the noble and learned Lord of a statement made by his noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal:
"I personally think that any request from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would have to receive sympathetic consideration"— [Official Report, 21/6/01; col. 111.]
That statement was made in response to an inquiry into the possible need for a debate on Northern Ireland. Matters have moved on considerably since that date. I hope that this request will be looked at sympathetically.
As regards the order laid by the noble and learned Lord, I have no qualms in supporting it.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, this order is necessary but regrettable. It is necessary if the current talks conducted by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach with the Northern Ireland political parties break down. We all hope fervently that that will not be the outcome and that prudence and common sense will prevail. If the negotiations collapse, Northern Ireland will be on the brink of returning to the politics of the preposterous. Other options will then have to be considered.
The institutions created by the Belfast agreement have been suspended once and, in principle, could be suspended again. That particular option did not resolve the fundamental rift that is the root of the problem, and there is no reason to believe that the outcome would be any different if suspension were to be tried again.
That leaves only one other feasible option—to dissolve the Assembly and to call for new elections to it. That is why we are considering the order that has been laid before your Lordships' House today. The risk is that the election may reflect the polarisation that has occurred in the recent general election. The one reason for optimism that this may not be the case in a new Assembly election, is that the voting system—STV—being proportional, gives a much fairer chance
1224
for all shades of opinion to be represented. The problem is that the stalemate over the Belfast agreement is the basic cause of the political polarisation, so that there is a far smaller middle ground to be represented. We shall see.
In the meantime, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, contingency plans have to be made in order to cope with a situation which few wish to see come about. Of course, new Assembly elections may well not do the trick. If that happens, as I said the last time we suspended the Assembly, the likely outcome will be the imposition of direct rule run by a de facto condominium comprising the British and Irish Governments.
We support the passing of this order.
Lord Laird: My Lords, on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, I can see the logic of bringing forward this order. I have no difficulty with it. It is obvious that this is a piece of housekeeping that has to be done. However, it is perhaps unfortunate that the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill currently being discussed in another place was not passed before the recent general election, despite the fact that in 1998 the Northern Ireland Grand Committee stated that there was a pressing need for electoral fraud legislation. It is regrettable that this Bill has not yet made more progress, and that it was not put before the last Parliament.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I agree with much of what he said. Perhaps I may add to a point that he made. I, too, am not sure whether an election will change much in Northern Ireland. That is because the "dreary spires" of Fermanagh and Tyrone will still be there once the dust has settled.
I should like to make one further point. In Northern Ireland, when the people are faced with an election, they tend not to be very flexible. The difficulty we have is that the Sinn Fein elements of the process will not undertake or carry out that which they have said they will do in terms of decommissioning their weapons. This is the major cause of concern for those of us in the Unionist community. We have gone to extreme lengths but, although it is not satisfactory to say it, it is getting us nowhere in the line of history. But our consciences are clear in terms of what we have done and how we have tried to proceed.
We have been let down consistently by Sinn Fein, by the SDLP and its failure to support the police and, indeed, we have been let down consistently by the government of the Irish Republic—none of whom has, in my opinion, rolled in heavily behind us with help and support to make the Belfast agreement work. As a result, we are in a difficult position back home. The community has not been well served. We had a local government and general election process in June and, as we know, those results could have been better. We are not frightened of elections to the Assembly, but I

1225
do not know what it will prove. However, in terms of the business before the House today, I support the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the expressions of support from all sides of the House. I note the question of which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had given me prior notice. I shall comply with his request to give him an answer before the Summer Recess.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Drug Testing of Persons in Police Detention) (Prescribed Persons) Regulations 2001
6.58 p.m.
Lord Rookerrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this statutory instrument relates to new sections inserted into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which introduced new powers for the compulsory drug testing of offenders and alleged offenders at various points of the criminal justice system, including the testing of persons in police detention.
The purpose of these regulations is to prescribe the persons who, if certain conditions are met, may take a sample of urine, or a non-intimate sample, from a person in police detention, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any specified Class A drug in his body. The conditions and procedures for such testing are set out in new Sections 63B and 63C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as inserted by Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
Under these new provisions, police officers will have the power to request persons aged 18 or over in police detention to provide a sample of urine or a non-intimate sample, such as oral fluid (saliva), for the purpose of testing for any specified Class A drug where the person concerned has been charged with a "trigger" offence (as set out in Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000), or has been charged with an offence and a police officer of inspector rank or above, who has reasonable grounds to suspect that the misuse of a specified Class A drug caused or contributed to the offence, has authorised the taking of the sample.
The Class A drugs concerned are heroin and cocaine, including crack, as currently defined in the Criminal Justice (Specified Class A Drugs) Order 2001 (SI 1816/2001), laid before Parliament on 10th May. The "trigger" offences are offences under various provisions of the Theft Act 1968, mainly relating to
1226
acquisitive crime, and certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, if committed in respect of a specified Class A drug.
The draft statutory instrument, in compliance with Section 63B(6) of the Act, defines the person who may take samples from persons in the target group. The classes of prescribed person in regulation 2 are intentionally wide. It is proposed that, in addition to police officers (as provided for in sub-paragraph (1)(a)), the persons prescribed to take samples should also include persons employed by the police force or police authority for this purpose among other duties, and persons employed by a contractor engaged by the police authority or police force to provide the drug testing service.
Sub-paragraph (1)(b) provides for police forces or police authorities to employ civilian staff directly for this purpose among other duties. This would allow for a similar arrangement to that which already exists in some police forces, where civilian staff—sometimes referred to as "civilian detention officers"—are recruited to carry out fingerprinting and other processes, including the taking of DNA swabs, within the custody environment.
Sub-paragraph (1)(c) extends this further to allow the possible future use of persons employed by other bodies contracted by police authorities or police forces to provide the service of taking samples for this purpose.
The draft regulations will provide flexibility to police forces and police authorities to use non-police personnel to take the samples when considered appropriate, and thereby free up police officers for other duties. The Association of Chief Police Officers drugs sub-committee, the Association of Police Authorities and the police forces involved in the pilot drug testing programme were included in those consulted about the persons to be prescribed to take samples.
The regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to allow for better scrutiny by Parliament, given the intrusive nature of drug testing, especially if the sample to be taken is urine. Although the class of prescribed persons is wide, samples can be taken only following a request by a police officer, and there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that those taking the samples can properly carry out the task. These include training in the use of drug testing equipment and procedures; modifications being made to the PACE codes of practice in accordance with the new Section 66(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with the exercise by police officers of their powers under Section 63B; and guidance to be issued to the police, which will be revised, as necessary, to ensure that any future contracting-out arrangements include safeguards in respect of training, security, health and other relevant issues in relation to the persons who will take the samples.

1227
The provisions for testing persons in police detention are to be piloted initially in three police force areas, Nottinghamshire. Staffordshire and part of the Metropolitan Police district. For the purpose of the pilots, only non-intimate samples, oral fluid (saliva), are to be taken, making use of the advancements in drug testing technology. The use of oral fluid is less invasive and avoids some of the health and safety and human rights issues associated with urine testing.
Approval of the draft regulations will help provide police forces and police authorities with sufficient flexibility to engage staff to undertake drug testing now and in the event of further implementation in other areas.
I shall be happy to answer further questions in relation to the regulations. The House will know that SI 2254/2001, which is subject to the negative procedure, also relates to this issue. It gives the power required to carry out the pilot projects. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of speaking opposite the Minister. With due deference as a Whip, I congratulate him on his performance during his first two weeks at the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House, in particular on the prisons' debate last night.
These regulations have the support of my party. The Minister has answered the points which were of some concern to us. This is a pilot scheme and I understand that it will not be rolled out until it has been properly evaluated. He has also covered the question of the training of civilian personnel, which we regard as of paramount importance. We have been assured that the operation will at all times be closely monitored by a police officer.
I wish to raise only one other point. During the passage of the Bill in another place, my right honourable and honourable friends made the point that Class B drugs, particularly amphetamines, might be included. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that, in the Government's view, it was not appropriate at that time. Has the Minister had any further thoughts on this point? Otherwise, we support the regulations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it may have been a technical oversight, but the Minister did not make the usual declaration that this statutory instrument is compatible with the Human Rights Act. I am sure that it is, but Ministers usually do give that assurance.
The Minister recognised that there are human rights aspects to these regulations. My honourable friends in another place have voiced concerns. We are talking about people who have not been convicted of any crime, and. it is therefore necessary that Parliament should look carefully at the powers that the Government and the authorities intend to take.
1228
So far as concerns these powers, we should be very careful about what we put in place. One only has to look at the problems that various athletics and sporting bodies have had in relation to drug testing and the taking of samples to imagine what "my learned friends" might do with sample testing that had not been rigorously carried out. When this testing is being carried out by what the Minister said was an intentionally wide group of people, will there be external witnesses to verify the testing procedures? The Minister pointed out that this was partly intended to free up the police for other duties, but will the police have overall supervision and responsibility for the testing?
We welcome the fact that pilot projects will be carried out. It is an indication that the Government realise we are entering delicate areas. Will we know in advance what the definition of "success" will be for these pilot projects, or will the Government simply say retrospectively that the pilot projects have been a success? It would help to know in advance what "success" is deemed to be.
A point which occurred to me as the Minister was moving the regulations is what would be the situation if the tests produced evidence of a non-Class A drug? If testing produces a result that is outside the terms of the order but still of use in a criminal case, could that be allowed in evidence?
Overall, we, like the Opposition, accept that this is a proper way forward but that it carries some dangers. We recognise that there is now an intimate connection between the levels of violent crime and intrusive crime—that people under the influence of drugs commit crime and that crime is committed in order to provide the funds to obtain drugs. We realise why the Government are taking this route, but they are right to proceed with caution.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I did not include a verbal statement to the effect that we were satisfied that the regulations complied with human rights legislation. We are satisfied. I probably shortened my briefing notes too much and removed a paragraph. I know that in regard to the following order I have kept that statement in the notes.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Opposition Whip indicated, the Minister has had such a successful first two weeks in his new post that it might be good to miss once in a while.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, they have not laid a finger on me as yet!
I am glad to have the opportunity to place these facts on record. As regards evaluation, I cannot score up what will be a success or a failure. Evaluation is not a five-minute job. It will take place over a two-year period and will continue beyond the end of the pilots. As information about changes in re-offending becomes available, we can carry out a longitudinal study. Interim reports are due in spring 2002 and 2003.

1229
They will inform decisions on the extension of the programme. A final report will be available in early 2004. We are not rushing this matter.
I want to make one point absolutely clear for the record. The samples taken, whether they relate to Class A or Class B drugs, may not be used in evidence in respect of any offence. That is not their purpose. Samples can be taken only under the conditions that I have set out; namely, if a person is charged with certain trigger offences. I am happy to give specific details. These are generally acquisitive crimes: theft, robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, taking of motor vehicles and obtaining property by deception. That is where we see the correlation between the use of Class A drugs and robberies and theft in order to fund a Class A drug habit. That is in some ways the purpose of the exercise.
I turn to the supervision of samples. Samples will be taken and tested in the presence of the detainee. The purpose is to identify those drug-misusing offenders who may need treatment. The drugs will be validated using the equipment provided; namely, by electronic identification. The sample will be sent to the Forensic Science Service laboratory for more detailed confirmatory analysis if the test result is disputed by the detainee—if the person says, "I haven't been on these drugs". I hope that covers the point regarding drugs for medication. The Forensic Science Service laboratory will be able to separate out the information relating to medication, which the equipment, good though it is, is unable to do. I used the term "people" widely. I was not saying that any Tom, Dick or Harry could come along and carry out this work. The idea is to give flexibility to police authorities and police forces to decide whether to use their own staff or independent contractors who are trained and qualified to carry out all the necessary procedures.
As regards Class B drugs, we do not have a smidgen of information connecting the kind of crimes that I have listed. So the pilot study is narrow, but it is nevertheless important given the amount of Class A drugs and the amount of acquisitive crime connected to them. To approach Class B drugs in the same way would not be proportionate. We can claim on the evidence we have that what we are attempting to do is proportionate to the kind of crime and what is thought to be the connection with Class A drugs. We do not have evidence that would stand the test regarding Class B drugs. Therefore, to apply the same procedures would be held as non-proportionate. I suspect that my learned friends in the judiciary would throw any such case out. The measure is highly targeted in that respect.
I have covered issues of quality, testing and the breadth of the pilot studies. As the pilots continue and we receive the reports we shall no doubt return to the matter in this House and in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rookerrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so as to assist the House, I shall seek to put the draft order in the context of the legislation that is currently in force; and also to explain the practical impact that the order, if affirmed by both Houses, will have on the immigration and asylum process.
Under legislation currently in force, the power to grant or refuse leave to enter can be exercised only by an immigration officer. These powers are not given to other Immigration and Nationality Directorate officers who, on behalf of the Secretary of State, can only grant, vary or refuse leave to remain. Section 1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 changed this so that the Secretary of State may grant or refuse leave to enter as well as leave to remain. The order will enable those powers to be exercised.
The provisions in the order are part of the general flexibility provisions set out in Sections 1 and 2 of the 1999 Act. We took these powers because it was becoming increasingly difficult within previous legislative restraints to maintain efficient and effective controls at ports while coping with substantial passenger growth. We wanted to create a legislative framework that would allow more operational flexibility and better use of information technology, encourage inter-agency co-operation and maximise efficient use of resources to expedite passenger clearance and deal more effectively with those who seek to abuse or circumvent the immigration controls. These provisions are being brought into effect in a managed and staged way and this order will add to and enhance these.
I hope that that answers the only question I had when the measure arrived on my desk: if these provisions are so important and are part of the 1999 Act, how come that I am introducing them only in July 2001? It is simply because of the changes that have arisen in the management and operation of the Immigration and Nationality Department, with some 3,000 extra staff—the number has almost doubled in the past two years—and £2 billion of extra expenditure. The aim has been to bring about a massive increase in, it is hoped, efficient, firm and much faster decisions in a managed way so as not to overload the changes that have taken place. The changes that we are now introducing are part of that managed process.
The main thrust of the order is that it will give the power to grant or refuse leave to enter to the Secretary of State in cases where the applicant has applied for asylum or on human rights grounds. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act the Government said that the power was likely to be used in such circumstances. The power being taken in the order has been drawn up specifically to improve the

1231
operation of the asylum process. However, the scope of the primary legislation does not preclude the taking of further, wider powers by order if the practical operation of the current order indicated a need or if the profile of applications merited it.
To put the matter in context it may be helpful if I briefly explain how the asylum process works at present and how the provisions of the order will change this. Currently, where an applicant applies at a port of entry for asylum or on human rights grounds the application has to be referred by the port to the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. This is in recognition of the "Basic Requirements" set out in the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugees Status provided by the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. The handbook recommends that there,
"should be a clearly identified authority—wherever possible a single central authority—with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and taking decisions in the first instance".
It is the caseworker at the Integrated Casework Directorate who decides the merits of the asylum or human rights claim, and whether it should be granted or refused. In the case of someone who applies in-country, the caseworker would make that decision and also grant or refuse leave to remain. However, because of the way that the legislation is currently framed, the grant or refusal of leave to enter can be carried out only by an immigration officer. In applications made at ports on entry, therefore, the case must be returned to the port for an immigration officer to serve the leave to enter decision.
It is our view that there are no sensible, logical reasons why asylum and human rights cases should normally have to pass between the caseworker and the ports in this way. It involves double handling of cases, which cannot be an efficient or an effective use of resources. There seems to us no sound reasons why the caseworker deciding the claim cannot also give or refuse leave to enter. Decisions are served by post by immigration officers and can easily be served by post by caseworkers. This will release immigration officer resources and enable them to be used to handle other areas of the control for which they are specially trained; for example, combating clandestine entry, locating absconders, and effecting returns of those who have no basis to stay here.
The powers provided by the order will have other welcome effects. The physical movement of the cases back to ports is in itself a burden to the asylum process. Cutting out this unnecessary double handling will help the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to speed up and streamline that process. We have always said that we shall implement the 1999 Act in a planned and staged way. This order is part of that planned process. We shall implement the specific provisions in a planned manner.
Significant changes to the working practices of the Integrated Casework Directorate and the Immigration Service will be needed. To ensure that the new procedures work smoothly, a pilot is to be undertaken
1232
involving around 50 cases per week in the first instance. This will involve asylum applications made at Heathrow Terminal 3, which will be considered by one caseworking team in Croydon and one in Leeds; or, if appropriate, at the Oakington reception centre. Caseworkers will receive all necessary training. Subject to ongoing review, the pilot scheme will gradually be extended to other ports and to further caseworking teams before its effectiveness is fully evaluated in the autumn.
In accordance with the general commitment that the Government gave during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill 1999, I should like formally to state that, in my opinion, the provisions of the Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001 are compatible with the convention rights as defined by Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Having explained to the House the purpose and content of this order, as well as outlining how it will work in practice, I shall, if required, do my best to answer any points that noble Lords may care to raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].(Lord Rooker.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we support the order in principle. It certainly recognises the considerable increase in traffic through the ports and airports in this respect. The Minister gave us a detailed evaluation of how the two bodies will work together. As regards caseworkers, this proposal is a slight expansion of their current role. However, I am sure that the noble Lord can assure us that they will receive adequate training.
We also welcome the fact that this is a pilot scheme, and that true evaluation will be given to the two projects before the process is rolled out, so to speak. Therefore, as I said, we have pleasure in supporting the order.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister will appreciate from his recent life as a constituency MP, it is often the latter who can judge best how efficiently any particular process is working. Therefore, it may help the House to hear what the adviser to my honourable friend Simon Hughes on immigration matters observed on this order. He said that the order will make a genuine difference, and that:
"Frequently, cases that are referred to the caseworker and then returned to immigration officers are further delayed, thereby slowing down the process. In principle, we are keen to have a speedier process. That is in the interests of everybody, and particularly those whose claim is being considered".
I believe that that endorsement from the sharp end, as it were, shows that the Government are trying to carry out what they promised to do; namely, to get this process of assessment speeded up, which will result in it becoming more humane.

1233
However, just in case the Minister thinks that he is getting an entirely easy ride, my honourable friend asked me to repeat the questions that he raised with Ministers in another place. I quote:
"How can someone who is seeking to come to the UK to claim asylum under the law, or to claim their rights under a United Nations convention, legally get here? How does someone in that position travel from another country to this one, without illegally getting on a ship, lorry, train or plane? … At the moment, asylum seekers cannot be given a legal route to get to this country to put their case".—[Official Report, Commons, 7th Standing Committee, 11/7/01; col. 10.]
My honourable friend asked me to raise the matter again, because he has not received satisfactory responses in the other place. As the Minister is getting such rave reviews, he may, indeed, be able to give the answer tonight.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, asking me questions which the noble Lord knows I cannot answer is bound to lead me to drop myself in it. It is true that we do not generally—I emphasise the word "generally"—accept claims for asylum from third countries. The intention of the United Nations protocol on such matters is that people must have a well-founded belief, and so on, and are fleeing from persecution. By and large, they are not exactly stopping off at the first democratic country that they reach. Indeed, that is our experience. Of course, this issue has been raised many times. In principle, asylum seekers should apply for asylum at the first safe country that they reach. By definition, they have to pass through many safe countries before they get to the United Kingdom. I do not believe that I can give an answer that will satisfy the noble Lord, any more than my colleagues in the other place have been able to satisfy Simon Hughes in their response.
However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for placing on the record the point about support for this important order. There have been tremendous changes in the caseworking directorate. I visited Liverpool this morning and opened the training centre for Caseworking Directorate Liverpool in the old, revamped Cunard building. I should add that people from the Leeds office were also present. It is an incredibly modern facility that will be up and running in August. We have taken on a large number of staff in that part of the world and they have achieved remarkable success in the past 18 months, after starting from scratch. Indeed, some 44,000 decisions have been made. They have gone through a course of training, and will continue with training as the process continues. Of course, many staff at Croydon have done likewise.
It is important that people are fully trained so as to enable them to carry out this important work, because the lives of human beings—indeed, of whole families— rest on such decisions. We must train these people, otherwise we shall not be able to satisfy those who check on us in respect of human rights, and so on. It is absolutely right that we follow that course. We are making every effort to ensure that adequate training will take place.
1234
To avoid any misunderstanding, I should add that we are piloting the introduction of the scheme; we are not exactly piloting the order. We shall be piloting this as a management tool. We are not starting off all at once, so to speak, because, as one can imagine, we need to ensure that the procedures are correct. However, once the process starts, I hope that there will be less chance of my department losing papers, passports, and documents. As Members of Parliament know, one of the most frustrating experiences when you are chasing a case is to be told, "We've mislaid part of the file". If the files are whizzing round the country in the way that has been the case, one can understand how it happens. It is to be hoped that the implementation of this order will also solve that problem. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) (Duration of Powers) Order 2001
7.29 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Minister.
The order, which was approved by a Standing Committee of the other place earlier this week, extends from a period of one year from 28th August 2001 the powers conferred upon the courts and the police under Section 14B (banning orders made on complaint) and Sections 21A and 21B (summary measures) of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
The early evidence strongly suggests that the measures are making a significant contribution to tackling the longstanding menace of English football disorder. That is why a Bill removing the "sunset" clause contained in the 2000 Act will be introduced shortly. This order is required to cover the period during the passage of that Bill through Parliament. There are a number of high risk matches on the horizon and the provisions of the 2000 Act need to be in place to help minimise the risk of serious disorder in Munich when Germany plays England on 1st September and, of course, during the Euro 2004 qualifying matches. There are also bound to be a number of potentially difficult overseas club matches to be navigated in the months ahead.
In accordance with Section 5(5) of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, a report on the working of the Act during the period from 28th August 2000 to 11th June 2001 was laid before Parliament on 20th June. The report, a prerequisite of the introduction of this order, briefly outlines the background and circumstances which led to the 2000 Act, along with its aims and key provisions. It concludes with an assessment of the impact of the Act during the period concerned.

1235
If I may, I remind your Lordships of the measures that we are seeking to extend and briefly explain why we think it necessary to keep them on the statute book for a further 12 months. Section 14B empowers magistrates to impose banning orders on individuals who have not previously been convicted of a football-related offence but in relation to whom there is evidence of involvement in violence or disorder.
This complaint process requires the police to satisfy the courts that the person before them had caused or contributed to violence and disorder and—I stress the word "and"—that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of an order would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches.
Sections 21A and 21B provide a different route to seeking an order on complaint during control periods—this is the five-day period prior to an overseas match involving the England or Wales national team or an English or Welsh club side.
Section 21A empowers the police to detain an individual for up to four hours (six with the authorisation of an inspector) where a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere and for believing that imposing a banning order on that person would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. The purpose of the detention is to enable the police to decide whether to issue a Section 21B notice. A Section 21B notice requires the individual to appear before a magistrates' court within 24 hours and in the meantime the individual is prevented from leaving England and Wales. The magistrates' court will then treat the notice as an application for a Section 14B banning order on complaint.
The need for these powers can be found in the catalogue of shame that has been inflicted on our national reputation by England followers overseas. The most recent and best documented example was provided during Euro 2000. Notwithstanding extensive precautions, English fans were still involved in significant disturbances in both Charleroi and Brussels. Those preparations were successful to the extent that only one of the 965 England followers arrested during the tournament was subject to a banning order imposed following conviction of a football related offence. Yet subsequent police checks revealed that 40 per cent of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder not necessarily connected with football. This provided strong evidence for empowering the courts to impose banning orders (that is Section 14B orders) in circumstances other than on conviction of a football related offence.
The need for the Section 21A and 21B powers was also based on the experience of Euro 2000, which confirmed that the police would not always have sufficient time to pursue the banning order process before the control period for a regulated match or
1236
tournament had commenced. For example, although the local police may be aware that an individual has caused or contributed to violence or disorder, they will not necessarily know that the individual concerned has an interest in football and intends to follow the national team overseas. We now believe that there is compelling evidence for maintaining Sections 14B, 21A and 21B on the statute book for a further 12 months. It is the Government's view that the provisions of this order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The need for adequate safeguards was recognised when the 2000 Act was drafted. As I argued at the time, the measures had to be proportionate. They had to strike a balance between national and international interests and—this is important—individual civil liberties. This, of course, must also include the civil liberties of host populations and well-behaved English supporters who are intimidated by the aggression and xenophobia of some of their fellow supporters.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the impact report confirms that the police have adopted a highly targeted, intelligence-led approach to using the new powers. During the passage of the 2000 Act, the then Home Secretary stressed that the powers we are now seeking to extend would not be used arbitrarily: that personal appearance, for example, would not of itself provide grounds for a Section 21A detention; and that an isolated expulsion unsubstantiated by accompanying evidence of misbehaviour would not provide grounds for seeking a Section 14B order. No orders have been imposed solely on the basis of a deportation from Belgium during Euro 2000.
I am also pleased that the measures have been warmly welcomed by governments and police forces across Europe. Indeed, governments across Europe are now considering a recommendation of European experts on football hooliganism that there is a compelling need for an instrument at European level to encourage member states to pass comparable legislation. No doubt we shall hear more of this during the Belgian Presidency.
I am equally pleased that UEFA has been impressed by the good behaviour of English fans since the measures came into force. The threat to exclude English football from European competition was real and remains in place. UEFA has stressed the importance of that good behaviour being maintained. Perhaps most of all I am pleased that, despite potentially high risk England matches in Paris, Turin and Athens and the vast number of fans—I believe that it is in excess of 100,000—who have traversed Europe over the past year in support of our national club sides, there have been only 43 arrests and no significant disorder since Euro 2000. Since Euro 2000, the number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches overseas has increased significantly from around 100 to over 450 and the legislative gaps exposed by the disorder during Euro 2000 have been closed.
There is no suggestion that the problem of English football violence overseas has been solved: as I said, a number of potentially high risk matches lie

1237
ahead. The Government made clear when the measures were proposed that legislation alone could not eliminate the risk of football disorder: in many respects the phenomenon is a symptom of wider social problems. That is why the Working Group on Football Disorder, which I chaired, was asked to identify what could be done to tackle the attitudes and behaviour that prompt disorder. And that is why the Government are committed to seeing its 55 recommendations taken forward. Therefore, we welcome particularly the launch of "Englandfans"—the FA's new England Members Club. The vetting arrangements put in place should ensure that all persons with recent convictions for violence or public order offences will be denied membership and, as a consequence, tickets for England matches overseas.
In respect of the order, the Government recognise that the police and courts are still exploring how best to use the complaint procedure. But the actual number of orders imposed is but one measure of the Act's effectiveness and is by no means the most important. The key aim was and must remain to minimise the risk of further disorder. The early indicators strongly suggest that the measures we are seeking to maintain have made a significant and important contribution in that respect. There have been no significant outbreaks of disorder; fan behaviour has improved; the number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches overseas has increased significantly; governments across Europe are considering the introduction of similar measures; and legislative gaps exposed by the disorder during Euro 2000 have been plugged. Importantly, the Act is being applied in a targeted and proportionate way. To lose the powers at this early stage would send out entirely the wrong message both to any supporter tempted to misbehave and to authorities and police forces across Europe.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on this side of the House supported the fast passage of the original Bill. The order, which is a holding order until the new Bill comes before us, is very much to be welcomed.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the comprehensive report which will form a useful tool for the formulation of the new Bill. We agree with the Minister that the operation of the measures has been remarkably successful overall. However, with the increased sophistication of electronic communications and the use of mobile telephones by known troublemakers, we must always be on our guard. I am sure that the new Bill will take account of that.
My honourable friend Nick Hawkins, who should have declared an interest as a keen cricketer, pointed out in another place that, since the order has come before us, there has been a regrettable and unexpected series of disturbances at cricket matches. Will the Government consider extending the legislation to
1238
include other sports, of which cricket is the most topical? In other respects, we very much welcome the order.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall probably have to have a restraining order on my noble friend Lord Phillips. I thought that I had better get in first to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats accept the need for a renewal. It would be wrong not to give an extension at this point. However, as I suspect that my noble friend is about to tell the Minister rather more forcefully, we are still worried about some of the civil liberties implications of orders that can sweep up the innocent as well as the potentially guilty. We also feel that the issue goes wider than sport. Some of the people who are the prime causes of anti-social behaviour are not really connected with football, but use it as a vehicle for violence.
I should like the Minister to elaborate on a number of points. The order provides for a one-year extension. He said that legislation would come shortly. Will he give us an idea of how short "shortly" is? As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked, is the new legislation likely to have a broader focus on sports disorder rather than dealing only with football? The disturbances at recent cricket matches show that the problem could spread to other sports.
Is there any pattern in the discretion used by police forces? Have some been more zealous than others in using their powers? Has that been examined?
Looking around the Chamber, this is a little like a reunion. It is nostalgic to see the Minister in his place. Our doubts about the legislation centre on the fact that some of the claims for it are still like the old claims for elephant dust—you spread the dust around and there are no elephants. We have passed an Act and, lo and behold, there is no disorder. I am not sure that the relationship is quite so direct. Let us keep the Act on the statute book, but I hope that the Government keep up the momentum that the Minister's committee produced.
In some ways, I would like that committee to sit again in the medium term to take stock of what is happening. There are other issues to consider. Has there been any study of best practices by host countries? Should bars be open or closed? I imagine that host countries will have mixed feelings about that, because we are talking about a lot of custom for them. Are there any lessons to be learnt from countries that have closed bars within a certain radius of grounds? Ticket touting has also been a cause of disorder and conflict, with tickets getting into the wrong hands and segregation being broken down. As well as looking at the hooligan element, there are some best practices that should be encouraged across Europe.
One example of best practice that we welcome is the introduction of Englandfans. The old so-called supporters association was a cover for some very nasty elements. The action that has been taken is welcome, if perhaps a little belated.

1239
We know how delicately we have to tread with any suggestion of interfering with the media, but it is worth putting on the record that it is no use bemoaning the bad behaviour of England fans if, in the 10 days before a game, our popular press has tried to present it in terms of World War III or described opponents with Second World War stereotypes. The media have a responsibility to remind everyone, especially the fans, that it is a beautiful game, but it is still only a game.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his close and effective interest in the concerns of football clubs and supporters and of the general population, both at the time of the original order and subsequently. I thank him for that and I know how much it is appreciated in the football world.
Before I make one or two cautionary remarks and raise one or two questions, I shall deal with some of the points that have already been raised in this brief debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, shrewdly referred to the Internet and its potential use. We are moving towards the qualifying games for Euro 2004 and we hope that our teams will participate in the tournament finals, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who is usually well informed on these things, tells me will be in Portugal. Attempting to control access to Portugal for a month will be a very different animal from managing one-off games. There is a lot of work to be done, including the important task of monitoring Internet traffic.
My welcome for the provisions is cautious, because the real tests are yet to come. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, hinted that he might like broader measures introduced for other sports such as cricket. The situation for cricket is not the same. We need to start by looking at the effects of drinking for six straight hours a day. A few years ago, drink was banned for a whole test match at Headingley. Many of us who were used to the existing culture were annoyed, but the measure made an enormous difference to behaviour at the game. That is a start and does not require the full majesty of the law to chase down alleged troublemakers at cricket matches.
I have one or two questions for my noble friend the Minister arising from the report, which I found very useful. I take it that the table in paragraph 19 refers to the number of individuals who have had an order made against them. I understand that the total is 468. In one sense, I was pleasantly surprised that only 44 orders had been made under Section 14 and only 30 applications for orders had been made under Section 21. If that demonstrates that highly targeted intelligence has a big leverage effect, I am delighted.
However, those figures provide a mental word of caution that there are significantly more than 78 or 80 hard-nosed, hard-headed troublemakers in and around the football world. In looking to Euro 2004 and the World Cup qualifier, which is to take place this year in Germany, the Act is only just beginning to bite and much caution must still be exercised.
1240
The table in paragraph 19 refers to the issuing of notices preventing travel and the initiating of complaint banning order proceedings. It would be helpful if my noble friend could give the House a flavour of how the Act has been implemented in relation to Sections 14 and 21. What has been the nature of objections? Have magistrates always supported the application orders? What type of issues, if any, of a civil liberties nature have arisen? Given the relatively small number of orders issued thus far, my guess is that they have been very carefully targeted and have been aimed at sure-fire winners. However, it would be helpful to have a feel for that so as to know whether our concerns about civil liberties have received a germ of care.
Incidentally, I note from the appendix that, so far as concerns individual clubs, Leeds United games attracted the largest number of banning order notices. Although the notices amount to only some 25 or 45, which, in one sense, is a very small number, nevertheless the matter is obviously of concern to me as a long-standing and closely associated supporter of Leeds United.
Of course, the number of notices issued shows that a relatively small number of people can make a great deal of difference to the amount of disruption that occurs. However, I say to my noble friend that those of us who attend football games regularly, as I suspect many of us do, find that there is an ongoing tenor of violence and racism, with violent and totally antisocial language, which remains to be dealt with. That is not a matter that can be dealt with only in law; it must be dealt with by the clubs themselves.
My noble friend and the Minister concerned may not have seen the leaflets and material issued by Leeds United this year. The language in that material is as forthright and plain as possible and shows that such behaviour is simply not wanted and will not be tolerated. Football clubs are private clubs and can do what they want within the law. I hope that they will take action and follow the example of the Government.
It would be helpful to know what has happened to many of the 55 recommendations. I believe that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester is equally, if not more, interested in the outcome of the working group set up by my noble friend.
I conclude by welcoming the order. I look forward to further discussions on how it might be taken forward on a more permanent basis. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will approve the order tonight.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, a rather insidious rumour is circulating around the House that the Liberal Democrat Benches have become a smooth and cohesively functioning political force. Perhaps I may put noble Lords' minds at rest. Although I had believed that I was speaking for the Liberal Democrat Benches on this matter, I have discovered that I am not because I am strongly opposed to the renewal of this Act.

1241
I believe that the whole point of introducing a sunset clause was to ensure that, if we renewed the Act, it would be on the basis only of compelling evidence that it was a necessary piece of legislation. When we discussed the Bill, there existed across the House a rather strong coalition of individuals who were deeply concerned about the Football (Disorder) Bill. That concern arose precisely because of the civil libertarian aspects which are at the heart of the Bill and which are unprecedented in our law.
Although the noble Viscount referred to the fact that, during its passage, the Bill had the support of the Conservative Front Bench, I believe that it is perfectly fair to remind the House that the majority of Back-Bench speakers on the Conservative side were hotly opposed to it. They included a wide range, extending from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at one end to more normal civil libertarians at the other. I am probably being unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I can see that noble Lords believe that I am. I withdraw that remark at once.
I want to say briefly why many of us believed very strongly that the measure should never have hit the statute book. First, not only can a banning order be made where there is no football-related conviction—I make it clear that, where there is such a conviction, the notion of a banning order is perfectly acceptable—but the measure allows a banning order to be made where there has been no previous conviction. It allows a banning order in respect of lawful conduct up to 10 years in the past. It also allows a banning order to be imposed on a civil test—that is, on a balance of probabilities—rather than on the normal criminal test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Finally, the measure does not contain the defence which is at the heart of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; namely, that the conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances.
In other words, the conduct in respect of which the application for a banning order is made could none the less be held to be reasonable in all the circumstances so as to defeat the application for a banning order. Those four matters constitute a unique set of objections to a measure, which, I repeat, is without precedent in English law.
With regard to the working of the Act in the period from August last year to 11th June this year, what do we find? The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, put his finger on it. Only 44 banning orders have been made on complaint under Section 14B or indirectly under Section 21B. That is out of a total of 468 banning orders. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, mentioned the 30 notices which have been issued under Section 24B. However, I believe that I am right in saying—I believe that the Minister will back me up—that those 30 come within the 44 orders made.
As the report states, one must consider that more than 100,000 English fans travelled to matches and tournaments abroad during that period. I put it to the House that that does not provide evidence of a brilliantly focused piece of legislation which has clinically picked off the troublemakers. I put it to the
1242
House that it is clear evidence of a measure that is not needed and, indeed, is not used. The overwhelming majority of banning orders are in respect of football-related offences.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would be good enough to refer to one matter when he replies. How many of the 44 orders issued were in respect of people on the FCIS list of known troublemakers? The answer would be extremely telling. Noble Lords may remember that, when we discussed the matter when the legislation was passed in the wake of the Euro 2000 fracas in which 900-plus British fans were expelled from Holland and Belgium, even then only 30 of the 950-odd fans were on the FCIS list. Therefore, with regard to warranting the continuance of the legislation, I do not consider that we have come anywhere close to the test that I believe was implicit when we put a sunset clause into the Bill.
I turn to the report, which states that there are several interrelated reasons why English fans appear to have adopted better behaviour during the interim period. One reason is because the,
"fans themselves are 'sick and tired' of the trouble".
The report continues,
"many host police forces are adopting low friction tactics",
and it points out that:
"The safety of visiting English fans is increasingly featuring as a higher planning priority".
There is no evidence to suggest that football fans are aware of this extremely complex piece of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said that they certainly are aware of it but I should like to see evidence of that; I am not willing to accept the claim without any backing.
When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, introduced the order, he began by saying that so far as could be gathered the evidence strongly suggests that Sections 14B and 21B are making a significant contribution—I believe that those were his words—and he later talked about "compelling" evidence. I do not believe that there is compelling evidence or even strong supporting evidence in that regard. We should attend to the basic legal objections relating to this offence, which is unparalleled and extremely dangerous, particularly because it apparently makes what is in truth a criminal offence a civil offence. I am afraid that I have to object to the renewal of the legislation.
I close by reminding the House that I tried to help when the Act was discussed last year by suggesting that extra territoriality should apply in relation to our football offences—those who breached the provisions abroad could be tried and prosecuted in this country. I still think that that would have a most effective result. The approach would be highly publicised and it would allow us to use tried and trusted public order legislation and the like.
For those reasons I regret to say that I am strongly opposed to the Act's renewal, even if only for one year. I should have been much happier if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and his working party, which came up

1243
with 55 recommendations, had continued their work. The measures that are referred to in the report made the difference in the interim.
8 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on one thing at least; namely, his consistency. Those of us who are veterans of the one genuine all-night sitting that I have experienced during my two years in your Lordships' House will recall that he spoke with the same passion and conviction during those very long hours when we discussed the legislation almost exactly a year ago.
In view of what happened during the past year and, in particular, the preceding years, I am absolutely amazed that the noble Lord opposes the order. The legislation was necessary because an immediate response was needed to the events that occurred in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000. They followed a succession of appalling incidents of crowd disorder involving England fans going right back to those in Luxembourg in 1977. Paragraph 2 of the Home Office report to Parliament details all such incidents; I need not read them out tonight.
If we had not agreed to the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, one more incident involving disorder among England fans when the England team was playing abroad would almost certainly have led to its expulsion from UEFA competitions and possibly from FIFA World Cup matches and English club teams would not have been allowed to play in Europe. It is greatly to the credit of the Government and in particular my noble friend Lord Bassam that that tide has turned. With great steadfastness, my noble friend steered the legislation through this House and he chaired the working group on disorder, which produced 55 recommendations.
Something could go terribly wrong at the match in Munich on 1st September, when the England team plays a crucial match against Germany. However, like all noble Lords, I desperately hope that that will not be so. I am confident that the chances of disorder were reduced by the enforcement of the legislation. If the legislation had not been introduced there would be a risk that an event like those that occurred in many European venues during the past 15 years could have recurred in Munich.
Noble Lords referred in particular to one of the recommendations of the working party chaired by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I was privileged to serve on that group and I hope that I made a modest contribution to it. That recommendation involved the decision by the Football Association to disband its old England members' club. That was not an easy decision for it to take; the club involved a cosy arrangement that meant that people who went regularly to matches could be sure that by continuing their membership they would go on getting tickets for matches. However, many people who were members of the old club were also at the heart of the disorders that occurred in World Cup and European championship
1244
matches during the 1980s and 1990s. If the working party's endeavours have managed to exclude from the new England fans' club those people, its work will have been worth while. Such people display extreme forms of xenophobia, they are often appallingly racist in their language to foreigners, black people and other minorities, and they have all the other unpleasant attributes that are associated with the extremism that accompanied England's fans during the past 20 years. The working party's other 54 recommendations are also relevant.
I unreservedly welcome the order and hope that it will be agreed to. I look forward to the more substantial permanent legislation that was promised in the gracious Speech. I was interested by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the question of disorder at cricket matches. I raised that matter two weeks ago at Question Time. I have to say that I did not get a great deal of support from anywhere in the House for suggesting that the offences that were proscribed by the Football Offences Act 1991—particularly those relating to hurling objects, including fireworks, on to a pitch and encroachment on to the field of play—might be extended from football to cricket. However, when we consider the more permanent legislation—we will presumably do so later in this Session—we can discuss that matter and decide whether, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested, we should have a sports offences Act and not simply a football offences Act.
I have attempted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with whom I shall never agree on this matter. I welcome the Bill and extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I begin by thanking those noble Lords who made kind comments on my work in this area and stress how much those comments are appreciated. I intend to take a continuing interest in this matter, not least because I am a football fan and also because the problem requires continued thought. It involves the search for solutions to long-term problems. Hooliganism, after all, has been with us for some 20-odd years. I remember the first nasty outbreaks when I watched football as a teenager. We need to bear down on the problem at all times and find genuine answers. Such answers cannot be provided only through legislation; I do not believe—I did not believe this when we passed the Act last year—that law of itself will solve all of the problems. That was why I was particularly insistent that a working party should examine some of the problem's underlying causes and try to tackle them.
Noble Lords asked pertinent and valuable questions and I shall try to answer as many of them as I can this evening. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked when the legislation would be introduced. I suspect that it will be introduced sooner rather than later. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, touched on one reason for that; namely, that would ensure that there was adequate time to debate and carefully consider the provisions. As a civil libertarian myself—I do not see why the

1245
noble Lord should have a monopoly in that regard— I believe such matters should be given careful consideration. We are, after all, dealing with important powers which will impinge on people's civil rights and civil liberties.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether some forces were more zealous than others. My guess is that some probably are, perhaps because they have an abundance of football clubs—perhaps some of the higher profile clubs, such as Leeds United, Manchester United or Arsenal—in their area. They may therefore take a keener interest in all aspects of the legislation. They have probably got dedicated units that spend quite a lot of time working on the issue with clubs, fans and so on. They will seek to use the powers as and when they are required.
As to the future of the working group, interestingly when I went to speak to John Denham—the new Minister with responsibility for it—I made the point that it may be important to reconvene the working group to check on the progress of the 55 recommendations. Clearly, there has to be a follow-through. I hope that in the future there will be further reporting to Parliament, not just on the effectiveness or otherwise of these measures but on the way in which the programme is being implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about best practice. I think best practice is being developed, not just here but across Europe. When I have travelled abroad and talk to representatives from the football authorities they look very closely at what we are doing. They pay close attention to the measures we have introduced. I think that they are becoming much more aware of the need to develop more intrusive links into the football community to ensure that the sorts of problems we have had over the last 20 years or more do not emerge in the violent way in which they have from time to time.
One of the more important measures in the report put in place has been the taking apart of the England Members' Club and its reformulation into England fans. I thought the Football Association was particularly brave in seeking to limit the number of tickets to be made available to members of the new club. I think that will have an important impact on the distribution of tickets and perhaps limit the number of people who try to get around the controls on tickets and abuse the right and privelege of having a ticket to an important top-class football match.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, made a very sensible point that probably the real test is to come. We will be foolish if we ignore the importance of the England/Germany game on 1st September. I argued earlier that it was important for these measures be restored for that game and that we should ensure that they are in place. I certainly believe that to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, also referred to paragraph 19 in the table—I think his understanding of it is the same as mine. It contains important and significant detail. He also asked what sort of evidence
1246
was brought forward at cases. Cases have to be very carefully prepared. In itself, that has acted as an important balance or check in the way the police and courts have used these powers. The Act makes plain what sort of examples can be used in support of a complaint—overseas court decisions, deportations or exclusions from a country outside the UK, removal or exclusion from football grounds in the UK or elsewhere and conduct recorded on video or other means.
I think it is the case that evidence collected in the disturbances involving Arsenal fans in Copenhagen has probably been used in court to attempt to secure a banning order. The police have been very careful and targeted their efforts in this regard. It is in that context that I find the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, challenging, because I think the Act has begun to work. It has had a salutary impact on the behaviour of travelling football supporters. It will make an important contribution to ensure that we have a more peaceable, if not partisan—and I hope they are partisan and enthusiastic—body of supporters travelling abroad when they follow England and the Welsh national side and club sides.
The noble Lord said that there was no compelling evidence. The history of the last year or so provides that compelling evidence. The balance has been struck, rightly, as far as civil liberties are concerned. While it is true that the courts are only obliged to apply the civil test when considering the evidence, I think it is the case that magistrates are erring on the side of considering it in a criminal context and raising the threshold of evidence with which they are confronted. That is very important. The noble Lord may want to study some of the cases more closely. I am not going to give chapter and verse in each case from the Dispatch Box—that is not for me and not my responsibility or that of my party.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. He made a very important remark. As he knows, one of the core issues is that of the criminal or civil test. I think I heard him say he thought that in a lot of cases magistrates were applying the civil test but that it was edged up towards the criminal one. I should be grateful if he would let me know whether that is a hunch or whether it is based upon fact.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a hunch, my Lords. But if the noble Lord talked to prosecuting authorities, I think they would probably say that is what they were experiencing in bringing cases forward. The noble Lord is an experienced criminal lawyer. If he attended one of the courts where these cases were brought, he would probably find that likely to be the case.
The noble Lord asked about the FCIS list—I think he is referring to NCIS. I cannot give him the information for which he has asked this evening. I shall ask officials to have a look at that to see what other information can be brought forward.

1247
The noble Lord also referred to the proposal he made when we were considering the legislation. At the time I was struck by the suggestion and thought it to be an important one. It has been looked at again. The noble Lord and I had a meeting about the issue—why not have extra-territorial jurisdictions? There is a question of practicality here. We have a reservation in respect of Article 21 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance. This means that extra-territorial proceedings can be pursued only if explicit statutory provision is made in respect of the offence concerned. At present, as the noble Lord is probably aware, this is limited to serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and certain sexual, terrorist and cyber crime offences. The vast majority of football-related offences are of a relatively minor public order nature, although they are serious in their impact—certainly collectively serious—on host nations.
Extra-territorial proceedings have never been an integral part of the law in the UK, largely because it is extremely difficult to secure convictions. I invite the noble Lord to consider these points. There are a number of practical reasons. The requirement of our justice system for oral evidence makes it difficult. The need for evidence to be gathered equivalent to British evidential standards is another important consideration; and within this the need to transport witnesses from the overseas jurisdiction to a court within our own jurisdiction. Also to be considered are the difficulties in obtaining the necessary documentation from overseas authorities. Those four points are very serious. They would need to be addressed urgently if we were to give further consideration to the point the noble Lord made at the time of the legislation.
The other issue raised during this short debate was the relationship between these powers and the recent cricket disorders. I answered a Question recently on this from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—quite properly asked. It touches on an important subject. We do not think it would be appropriate to pursue the course we pursued with football-related disorder in so far as cricket and other sports are concerned. We have had discussions with the cricket authorities. It is obviously something that will be kept under review. No doubt your Lordships will return to this subject when the Football Bill comes before the House for further debate and discussion later in the year.
This has been a good opportunity to air views on the issue. I welcome the all-party support with one notable and distinguished dissenter—and long may he dissent on this issue; it focuses all our minds. I am grateful for the warm support given to the Government's measures. I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his support and his active participation in the working group, which produced many worthwhile and important recommendations. I commend this matter to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall speak also to the draft Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges of UNESCO) Order 2001 laid before the House on 25th June.
The International Criminal Court Bill received Royal Assent on 11th May 2001. The present draft order is one of a series of items of secondary legislation to prepare for ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute was signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 30th November 1998 and presented to Parliament as Command Paper 4555. This draft order implements Articles 4(1) and 48(2) of the statute. In addition to conferring the legal capacities of a body corporate on the court, the order provides that the judges, the prosecutor, the deputy prosecutors and the registrar shall, when engaged on or with respect to the business of the court, enjoy the like privileges and immunities as are accorded to the head of a diplomatic mission, as well as official act immunity after the expiry of their terms of office.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) will be a permanent court situated in The Hague, to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind: genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes and perhaps in the future the crime of aggression. There have been aspirations to the creation of such a court for the past 50 years, since the United Nations was founded in 1945 and after the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals.
The ICC will have jurisdiction over individuals, not states. The court will be able to prosecute not only those who carry out crimes, but those in authority who order crimes to be committed—including Heads of State and government officials. The ICC will work as a court that is complementary to national courts. National courts will retain primary jurisdiction. The ICC will take over investigating and prosecuting a crime only when the states with jurisdiction are unable or unwilling, genuinely, to do so.
The ICC will consist of a chamber of 18 judges divided into pre-trial, trial and appeals division, an independent prosecutor and a registry. The ICC statute contains detailed provisions safeguarding due process and fair trial in accordance with the highest international standards. The ICC may sentence individuals to terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or, where justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. Fines and forfeiture of proceeds from the crimes in question may also be ordered.

1249
Funding will be through contributions from states parties to the court and it will receive some funding from the United Nations (in particular where the UN Security Council has referred a situation).
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is one small part of a legal jigsaw, important but I believe non-controversial. I trust that your Lordships will approve it.
I now turn to the second order. The United Kingdom rejoined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on 1st July 1997. The present order is required to restore to UNESCO the immunities and privileges provided for by the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Cmnd. 855).
Before the United Kingdom withdrew from UNESCO on 31st December 1985, the relevant immunities and privileges were conferred under the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974 No. 1260). The 1974 order is still in force but, as a result of UK withdrawal from UNESCO, automatically lapsed in respect of that organisation. The new order makes provision for the 1974 order to apply once again to UNESCO in accordance with its terms.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, on this side of the House we support both orders.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we also support these orders. We have always strongly supported the creation of the International Criminal Court and we also welcome the now changed circumstances of UNESCO, and that the United Kingdom has returned to take its seat there.
I should like to make one brief point on the International Criminal Court. It is my understanding that the rules of the International Criminal Court are to be prepared by a working group which is composed of representatives of the first 30 states to ratify the statute. We have now missed that target—I believe 36 have already ratified. I regret therefore that it was not possible to speed up the ratification to ensure that we got into the first 30. Having said that, we are entirely happy to support the two orders.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I can confirm that 36 states have now ratified.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges of UNESCO) Order 2001
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sub-Post Office Start-Up Capital Subsidy Scheme Order 2001
8.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the network of Crown and sub-post offices plays a vital role in our society. Many of the vulnerable and elderly rely on it to deliver services to them, as well as it being a convenient place for the community as a whole to access government services, financial products and, of course, postal services.
The network is much more than just a retail outlet, especially in rural areas. It is also a public service. The local sub-post office represents vital human contact for many of its customers. Sub-postmasters know their clients by name, and can often be the first ones to raise the alarm if an elderly customer fails to collect their pension. They are a trusted point of contact with government. And the local post office is often the only place where the community can easily access cash.
I am sure noble Lords will want to join me once again in placing on record our thanks for the service to their communities that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses perform. This is a network built on the dedication of individuals. Yet ironically, that can also be one of its weaknesses. When an individual sub-postmaster decides to retire, Consignia is in a position where it must find an alternative person to take on that business. A new sub-postmaster must be found.
Consignia has begun to make setting up as a sub-postmaster more attractive—for example, by dropping the initial payment sub-postmasters were required to provide before taking on an office. The Government are also committed to ensuring that the network is a viable business and that running a sub-post office is and remains an attractive business proposition.
For example, new life will be injected into the network through two business streams identified following last year's Performance and Innovation Unit report: Universal Banking Services and the Government General Practitioner scheme. The GGP scheme will be piloted from this month in Leicestershire and Rutland. A further range of new

1251
services, including access to stakeholder pensions and entering into the fast-growing market of e-retailing and home shopping is being added to this.
The Government recognise the need for both short-term and longer-term support to assist the network as it seeks to build these new income streams. We are supporting the network through the introduction of three specific schemes. The first two look to the future. One will implement the PIU recommendation that in urban and suburban areas there should be better, brighter offices. The second will provide transitional funding to cover the gap between the payment of benefits direct to bank accounts (ACT) and the new income streams coming fully on line. The third, a short-term measure, is the subject of this order which has been brought forward to address the very specific circumstances that I will outline.
Often, someone can be found to be the new sub-postmaster and the existing premises will still be available to be used as the post office, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, although someone may be willing to become a sub-postmaster or a group of volunteers may want to preserve an important local service, there may not be an available facility. The retiring sub-postmaster may not be willing to make the premises available, or, if he or she is willing, alterations may be required to separate living and retail accommodation. Alternative premises, such as a church or a community hall, may be available, but may need to be made suitable by, for example, upgrading security.
Post Office Counters has an established team dedicated to preventing the closure of rural sub-post offices. The team is often frustrated to see a worthwhile and well-thought out community initiative to save its post office fall at the last hurdle for the sake of a relatively small amount of start-up capital funding. A. few thousand pounds may be needed to improve security or access to the premises, or to install a counter. Those are small sums, but to a small community seeking to raise funds on a voluntary basis, they can seem like mountains to climb. The plans get put on hold, and so the community loses its post office.
The scheme set out in the draft order addresses this problem. It will make available funding for the preservation of existing post offices in rural areas or their replacement. This scheme was first announced in another place by my honourable friend Alan Johnson on 15th February 2001. Following its announcement, my department wrote to all 12,000 parish and community councils across the country to draw their attention to the fact that we planned to make this funding available. The response has been very encouraging. We have received many expressions of interest and a number of specific suggestions and ideas as to how the money could be applied. Indeed, Post Office Counters has already signalled that it is prepared to fund two local schemes where the need is particularly urgent on the understanding that the Government were to bring forward this order for debate.
1252
Before I give some details of how the scheme would work, I believe it would be helpful to give an example of the kind of communities that may benefit from this fund. A typical example is Capel le Ferne in Kent, where the community wants to re-establish its post office in the village hall. Modifications to improve access and security and to extend the hall are planned; the villagers have raised £3,000 towards the cost with a "buy a brick" campaign and the local authority has also promised to give assistance. However, there remains a gap that this scheme should be able to fill.
I now turn to the detail of the scheme. The scheme is established under Section 103 of the Postal Services Act 2000, which allows the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the making of payments for the purpose of,
"assisting in the provision of public post offices".
The scheme itself will establish a £2 million fund to make available subsidy in respect of the costs of establishing a sub-post office in settlements with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants where an existing sub-post office has recently closed or is likely to close. We used the Countryside Agency definition of a rural settlement, which was also used by the PIU last year. We have deliberately targeted rural settlements, because in such settlements the loss of a sub-post office has the greatest impact on the community and often a convenient alternative is unavailable.
That new commitment underpins the PIU conclusion that the Government should place a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network. We have done so, and the scheme backs up the policy with carefully targeted capital funding.
We have worked closely with Post Office Counters and we have involved the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, PostComm, PostWatch and the devolved administrations in the development of these proposals to ensure that the scheme targets deserving cases effectively.
The scheme provides for subsidy of up to £20,000 to be paid in any particular case. Post Office Counters advises us that in many cases the amount of money needed to save a post office is small. We expect the fund to help to secure the future of up to 200 community-based sub-post offices. It is not intended to be an ongoing source of funding. The scheme is part of the package to bridge the "confidence gap" in the network until the longer-term finances of the network, with new income from Universal Banking Services, the Government General Practitioner and the other income streams and a framework for government funding of the rural network, are in place.
It is essential that the scheme dovetails with the existing arrangements within Post Office Counters to preserve the rural network. The business has appointed a senior manager to oversee the work and has established a dedicated team of rural transfer advisers. That is why we have proposed that the scheme is administered on our behalf by Post Office Counters. Subject to agreement to establish this scheme in this House and in another place, the

1253
Secretary of State will write to Post Office Counters to appoint the company to operate the scheme and to set out in detail how the scheme is to be run.
Post Office procedures for seeking a replacement sub-postmaster are well established and documented in a code of practice agreed with the postal services consumer council, PostWatch. The scheme before this House integrates with those existing processes, so that potential new sub-postmasters will be able to liase with a single unit in the company rather than being passed around between the company and the Government.
The company seeks, first, to find a commercial solution, advertising the post office business widely. Where no candidates come forward on a commercial basis, local authorities and local community organisations are approached to see whether a community-based solution can be found. Many communities succeed not only in devising a means of saving their post office, but also in securing funding from local sources. It is important not to stifle such initiatives, so this scheme is designed as a top-up scheme, either to make good a shortfall in funds raised from other sources or, where it is clear that the community has tried to raise funds but has not been successful, to fund the full cost of the work.
Noble Lords may notice that the scheme avoids pinning down in great detail the circumstances in which a payment may be made. Paragraph 4 sets out the circumstances which the scheme is intended to cover, but we have been conscious that every case for funding will be different and we have sought to avoid a scheme which inadvertently rules out a payment for a good case just because we had not thought of that particular solution. Therefore, the scheme builds in some discretion in Paragraph 6 which will allow those on the ground to reach sensible decisions, on a case by case basis, on whether they should be funded. The Post Office Counters team evaluating the applications will take into account attempts made to raise funding from other sources, value for money and the proximity and convenience of alternative post office facilities.
This is an important scheme. It is a key element in our strategy to support the network of rural sub-post offices through a transitional period and to see it thrive. It will allow rural communities to save their local post office or to make arrangements to have an alternative. More than that, it recognises the vital role that post offices play in our communities.
I, therefore, commend this order to noble Lords and I hope that this House will be able to give it, and post offices in rural communities, its support. In doing so, it is the practice for a Minister inviting Parliament to approve a draft statutory instrument to volunteer a view regarding its compatibility with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In my view, the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the convention rights. I am extremely pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is present to hear me say that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committe].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, last February the Government announced new initiatives for the sub-post office network by encouraging new entrants. Those initiatives are welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on the basis that all contributions are gratefully accepted. The initiative that we are discussing today, and the one described by the Minister as the third, according to the DTI press release was:
"a new Government fund to help with the costs of relocating and refurbishing rural post offices".
The brief went on to say that the aim is,
"to help support initiatives by volunteers and community groups to maintain or re-open post office facilities where the traditional post office is closing".
This is a massive exercise in bolting stable doors— and precious few stable doors at that, according to the same press release, because the Minister confirmed that we are talking about establishing up to 200 community post offices in the UK and no more.
Rural post offices are closing because they are invariably housed in the local community shop which is currently suffering from the fierce competition from the giant supermarkets. The changed shopping patterns of the public mean that these days they often go to the out-of-town shopping centres for what they call their weekly "big shop" and simply use the village shop as a convenience store for when they run out of something or want to buy their newspapers. For people without their own cars, the disappearance of the village shop is an absolute disaster.
For many, the local shop is their only means of getting their hands on cash. But the threatened discontinuance of the payment of benefits via the post office—is not only a source of direct income to the post office but means that customers drawing their pensions or other benefits are likely to spend some of the money in the shop—is a major reason why so many sub-post offices are closing.
The Government's scheme will save the Treasury a theoretical £400 million a year. That is money taken directly out of the pockets of small businesses and out of the local economy. I say "theoretical" because an untold number of businesses will close; thousands of people will be thrown out of work in rural areas where there is no other employment and the taxes paid by the lost businesses will cease.
The short-term gains by the Treasury will be outweighed by the costs it will have to bear. And meanwhile small businesses will have been destroyed, the public put to enormous inconvenience; and they will have suffered the loss of essential amenities.
What do the Government offer in return? All they can offer is jam tomorrow from the income streams that they hope will become available in 2003 to keep sub-post offices open. That is a long time ahead and the sub-post offices are closing at an alarming rate. One of the streams which the noble Lord mentioned is

1255
the so-called "universal bank". The commercial banks are seemingly not falling over themselves to bail out the Treasury from the problems it has caused by strangling the sub-post offices.
By 2003, if the average decline continues at the same rate, another 1,000 post offices—more than 5 per cent of the present depleted network—will have closed their doors forever. All the Government can do is to offer this miserly one-off sum of £2 million.
Naturally, I welcome the assurance given in the other place to my honourable friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire that benefit claimants will be able to receive cash over the counter. However, to that I must add the qualification, "So long as there is still a counter there for claimants to use, which seems increasingly unlikely".
I have to add another observation about this subsidy scheme. I invite your Lordships to take a look at the annex to the order which lists the items for which the subsidies will be paid. They include all capital costs for items such as building and decorative work, legal and professional expenses and so on. But where is there any assistance with the actual running costs of these do-it-yourself post offices? The Treasury expects them to be run by unpaid volunteers in unheated, unlit premises. presumably provided rent and rate free by some local benefactor.
The scheme was rightly described by my honourable friend as.
"a sticking plaster over the gaping wound that the Government have slashed across the face of our sub-post offices".
The wound is the removal from the sub-post offices of 30 to 40 per cent—and in some cases as much as 70 per cent—of their income. That is the money which a government, who have little knowledge of business and who habitually shed crocodile tears for small businesses in particular, do not seem to realise comes straight off the bottom line.
I spoke earlier about the bolting of stable doors. Continuing with the same metaphor, I am certainly not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and we are certainly not going to vote against the order today. However, I want firmly to put on the record that we believe that it is too little to resolve the problem which the Government have themselves created.
I was pleased to read in the accounts of Consignia that in the year 2000–01 there is a £66 million post-tax profit, which was a turnaround of a loss from the previous year of £264 million. But I say to the Minister that the dividends the Government will receive from Consignia for that amount to £93 million. With all our worries about sub-post offices, it seems to me that it would have been far better if the Government had intended to plough that back into the network rather than the miserly sum of £2 million. However, that is better than nothing.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has given a powerful indictment of the order. It is a small and ambitious piece of government action.
1256
She highlighted the concern that as regards the hoped-for new business—the seventh cavalry for the rural post offices which the universal bank and other initiatives will bring—we are doubtful about when they will arrive and what they will deliver.
Here is a perfect example of "not joined-up" government. There is evidence that the Government are addressing the real problems of rural areas and of keeping communities together. For example, the figure of 10,000 inhabitants is extremely small because much larger communities are losing their post offices.
Furthermore, there is an absence of lateral thinking. As the noble Baroness indicated, the proposal is characterised by the local community initiative, do-it-yourself-post-office approach and I strongly doubt whether that is a real solution to the problem. Part of the problem relates to the different changes of retailing patterns; some of the old familiar retailing outlets had enough foot-fall. I may be using some retailing jargon with which the Minister is not familiar, but the general through-put which kept a butcher, baker or candlestick maker no longer exists.
There is more hope in looking at joint enterprises which may take on a range of duties in a local community; for instance, part of pub, laundrette, chemist or garden centre premises used as a post office. However, I am not clear whether such lateral thinking would benefit from what is offered in the order and whether the subsidy can take effect if other economic enterprises are related to it. Are the Government determined to keep to the do-it-yourself approach, which might squeeze through as justifying the application? If so, I do not believe that the communal effort in the village hall realistically meets the needs of rural communities or is likely to happen in the real world in all but a few isolated cases.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the lateral-thinking approach, which would allow other enterprises to take on the role and still benefit from the subsidy, still applies? Why have the Government set such a low target? A community of 10,000 is very small and does not reflect the problem faced by larger but definitely rural communities.
Finally, the sub-post office also plays an important part in inner cities where some of the closures have an impact on communities that can be just as isolated as those in rural areas. I should also like to see some signs of joined-up government in terms of the impact of closures on those areas.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, although we shall not oppose this measure we should like some recognition by government that this small scheme is very limited in its ambition and, we suspect, its impact.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to this important short debate on the order. I declare my interest as a patron of VIRSA, of which I believe the Minister is aware. VIRSA is an education charity that has done an enormous amount of work with rural sub-post offices within the community. I shall comment on that shortly. I also declare an interest in that I live in Leicestershire and look forward

1257
to seeing how the trial proceeds. I understand that the scheme is due to start in June of this year. Is it to run for six months; and, if so, will it be evaluated immediately thereafter? How soon will we know the results? That is important in the wider context of this order.
I understand that the £2 million that is to be made available is not a gift but is to be repaid. I do not see in the order, unless I have missed it, the time-scale over which repayment is to be made. Paragraph 6(1)(b) of the order refers to "reasonable value". Perhaps I may double-check with the Minister—he almost answered the point in opening—who decides what is "reasonable value". The noble Lord referred to the input of the local authority and of Post Office Counters which would run the scheme, but the position is not clear. Can we have greater clarity as to who assesses whether giving money to one particular sub-post office amounts to "reasonable value"? In addition, how long will it take for help to be given; in other words, will it occur within a month, two months, or more quickly?
I reinforce the observations of my noble friend Lady Miller. I too am very concerned that the sum of money involved is too little. The establishment of new sub-post offices in, say, village halls is likely to be much more costly than support of existing sub-post offices. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
I should like to put a question to the Minister which is not directly linked to the order. However, it is hugely important that we clarify the two matters that we are considering in looking to the future survival of sub-post offices. One is the setting up of universal banking services, which the Minister, my noble friend Lady Miller and I often debated during the passage through this House of the Postal Services Bill. I remain extremely apprehensive that a year later we still have no idea of what is to be put in its place, but that is another matter.
As to universal banking services, I understand that some 66 million could qualify to use the system. Can 66 million people use it? Has sufficient money been put aside for that, or has only so much money been allocated to universal banking services? One wonders what the Government's thinking is on that matter.
I add my concern about the change of benefits payments. Most sub-post offices receive between 40 and 70 per cent of their income from welfare payments. I listened long and hard to the Minister about the schemes that the Government had in hand. We are told not to worry and that the change will not happen until 2003, but there is very real concern among sub-postmasters who cannot see a secure future and remain worried about it. Perhaps the Minister can also clarify the position.
Finally, I return to the point with which the Minister started. The noble Lord said that rural sub-post offices were an important part of the community, and I reinforce that point. Rural sub-post offices perform a vitally important role in the community, and human contact is enormously important.
1258
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the amount involved is small. However, we are grateful for anything. The noble Lord did not believe that the community would be able to make an effort. The work done by VIRSA with local sub-post offices is an example of what can be done. Although I echo the noble Lord's concern, I do not share his total pessimism in that respect. I believe that it is possible to do it, but to enable this to happen requires a great deal of commitment and support from the Government and the sub-post offices themselves. I am sorry that I have put some direct questions, but I hope that before the House passes the order the Minister is able to comment on them.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very happy to try to deal with some of these points to which it is very important to provide answers. This is targeted investment to deal with a particular problem and is one of three schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the Government trying to shut the stable door after the horse had bolted. I remind the noble Baroness that under the previous Conservative government there were 3,500 closures and no attempt was made to bolt the door. On the contrary, we are trying to do something about it in a targeted way that invests money to achieve a purpose. It is important both to be prepared to invest resources but also not to assume that an unlimited amount of money is the way to solve the problem.
I also remind the noble Baroness that it is not until 2003 that ACT starts to become the method to be used. I also reassure the noble Baroness that there has never been any question about whether people will be able to obtain cash from the post office under this system; nor will they be required to pay any fees for that. I also remind the noble Baroness that the reason for the huge loss in the Post Office last year was the substantial write-off of all the expenditure on the benefits payment card. That was probably one of the most ill-conceived projects ever to take place in this field, and it is the ACT banking system which will replace it. This is one of three schemes. Although it is not a huge sum of money, it is directed at a very specific target and must be looked at with the other schemes.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We have taken the figure of 10,000 because it is necessary to have a definition. That definition is used by the Countryside Agency and appears to make a good distinction between a rural and urban community. I also remind the noble Lord that later this year we shall bring forward a scheme for urban sub-postmasters which essentially does the same thing for them.
The noble Lord dealt with the whole question of retailing in local communities. The major issue here is not to do with supermarkets but the arrival of the car. Previously, people did all their shopping locally or made an occasional bus journey to the nearest town. All of the dynamics of that have been changed by the car. Cars, plus fewer people in many rural communities, have put pressure on sub-postmasters,

1259
because people can drive to shops in larger towns. The problem is that those without cars become vulnerable, which is why we are so concerned about this issue.
I can also reassure the noble Lord that places such as pubs and other commercial businesses as well as community halls will be included in this provision if they fulfil the criteria set out in the statutory instrument. We have deliberately given this matter a great deal of flexibility so that we can respond to particular circumstances, rather than trying to put everything into "one size fits all".
I turn to the other points raised. The trial is for six months. It is, however, a grant rather than a loan. Therefore, there is not a repayment period. It is a straightforward grant. It will be assessed by Post Office Counters Limited people. The reason is that they are already involved in the whole process of whether one can set up a commercial post office. It therefore seems right that it should be integrated into that process. That will mean that the people who really know the situation can make the decision and that the sub-postmaster or community group does not have to keep turning to different arms of government in order to get an answer on the decision. One cannot give an easy answer to the question about time because that would be integrated into this process of decision-making.
I am not certain what figure the noble Baroness was referring to when she talked about 66 million people. Clearly there cannot be 66 million accounts. If the figure was 16 million, that could be the people who receive benefits. Obviously, many people receiving benefits do not get them through the Post Office; they get them through their normal bank accounts. Whatever the number is, the new system will be able to deal with it.
1260
I hope that I have answered most points raised. The order ensures that postal services can be provided in some of the most isolated and rural communities where there is a real desire in the community to keep them. It will be of benefit to thousands of people living in hundreds of villages and small settlements up and down the UK.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the noble Lord commented on how many post offices closed during the last Conservative Government. I do not have the figures with me, but, from memory, I believe that it was an average of 99 per year, whereas during the last Labour Government it was 351 per year and this year, alone, it was 541. I only say that because it is on an escalating basis. While we accept that this is just the first of three initiatives, as pointed out by the Minister, the other two initiatives do not come on stream until 2003, by which time there may not be any sub-post offices left.
The Minister need not comment on this matter now, but perhaps he could write to us. At paragraph 7(2) the order states:
"A payment of subsidy under this Scheme which becomes repayable shall be recoverable as a debt".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can give the answer to that. In the case of fraud it can be recovered as a debt.
Perhaps I may say that the figure was 3,500 post offices, and, as under the present Government, there were wide variations between different years, with some years closures being as high as 475 and some years much lower. I simply wanted to make the point that in spite of all those closures no action, was taken to do anything about it. I simply contrasted that with what we were doing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.

  Lancashire Constabulary: Ethnic Balance
  Lancashire Constabulary: Ethnic Balance
  Policing of Cannabis
  Policing of Cannabis
  Forensic Science Service
  Forensic Science Service
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Financial Services and Markets Act: Commencement
  Financial Services and Markets Act: Commencement
  Schools: Private Sector Involvement
  Schools: Private Sector Involvement
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  Nursing Care
  Nursing Care
  Mayor and Cabinet Executives: Referendums
  Mayor and Cabinet Executives: Referendums
  Railtrack: Government Investment
  Railtrack: Government Investment
  Appellate Committee: Audibility
  Appellate Committee: Audibility