Sitting of 5 March 2001

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

  HAMMOND INQUIRY
  Ordered,
  That there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Review by Sir Anthony Hammond KCB of the circumstances surrounding an application for naturalisation by Mr S.P. Hinduja in 1998.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. David Heath: What estimate he has made of the proportion of appeals against medical assessment leading to refusal of benefit that are upheld by the independent appeal tribunal. [150480]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): For all appeals held between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000 that
    2
    concerned decisions on benefits involving a medical assessment, appeal tribunals upheld 54.9 per cent. of the original decisions.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that information, but rather disappointed by it. In 1999, the hon. Gentleman told me that in 1997 he inherited a figure of 59 per cent and that, although it had decreased to 48 per cent., it was still too high. It appears that it has risen again. If nearly half of all appeals are being upheld, many people are being wrongly assessed, and that figure does not even include people who do not have the ability or opportunity to take their case to an appeal. Does he agree that it is about time that we had a system that gave disabled people a proper medical assessment and got decisions right in the first instance rather than on appeal?
    Mr. Bayley: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we want to get every decision right first time, and I should like fewer decisions to be changed on appeal. However, he must agree that since disability living allowance was introduced, about half the cases that are taken to appeal result in a different decision. In many cases, that does not mean that a different rate of benefit is awarded—simply that the benefit is paid for a different period, which is usually longer.
    I also agree that we want to ensure that high-quality medical evidence is given. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have taken a number of steps to improve the quality and consistency of decision making, through better management of the doctors whom we use and better training of them. In February last year, we introduced a procedure to allow an appeal tribunal that is dissatisfied with the quality of the medical evidence given by the Department of Social Security doctor to raise its concerns with our chief medical adviser. We welcomed that important innovation and, since then, tribunals have raised five cases in which there have been concerns about such medical evidence.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is not the key word "quality"? Every MP deals with heart-rending cases

    3
    of appeals that are turned down or doctors' assessments that are not considered satisfactory. Equally, however, we have a responsibility to constituents who are concerned about any working of the system that might result in an abuse. We need quality and strictness so that we are fair to both sides of the benefit appeals system.
    Mr. Bayley: The Government have introduced a number of reforms to the decision-making and appeals system which are intended to make decisions more consistent. Together with the Royal College of Physicians, we have introduced a diploma in disability assessment medicine to set a benchmark of high standards that we want our doctors to meet. We have also introduced better and more consistent training for them. That used to be organised ad hoc by a senior doctor in each medical boarding centre. We now have a national programme of training, which adheres to a national syllabus, that is delivered by trained trainers. We hope that that will make the improvements that all hon. Members want.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We appreciate the Minister's answer. Is he disappointed or surprised that only five cases have been referred on the basis of their medical details? Medical assessments are part of the problem. We are told time and again that the adjudicating officer makes the mistakes, but on appeal we discover that poor medical responses have been at fault.
    Mr. Bayley: Clearly, there are cases of poor medical reports. However, those are written far less frequently than many hon. Members might suspect given the amount of attention that such a report attracts. I do not want a high or low number of complaints. I want people, including the chairmen of appeal tribunals, to have somewhere to go if they believe that a poor medical report has been written, in the knowledge that their appeal will be thoroughly investigated. If that means that remedial action has to be taken with the doctor, such as retraining or tighter management, or, in the most extreme cases, if we have to stop using that doctor's services, then that is what will happen.

    Fraud
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the cost to business of the measures arising from the Social Security Fraud Bill. [150481]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The vast majority of businesses will be unaffected because generally only the large companies—typically, financial institutions—will be asked to provide information. The hon. Gentleman asks about costs. For one large bank, the annual cost of providing the information under the Bill is estimated to be equal to just over one hour's profit.
    Mr. Swayne: These additional costs, which are estimated to be £7.6 million, are on top of the costs of administering the working families tax credit, the stakeholder pension and so on. Is that £7.6 million going to be worth paying given that clause 79 is soft on fraudsters because it provides for sanctions for only 13 weeks and for any number of exemptions?
    Mr. Darling: The Bill provides that if someone is convicted of benefit fraud twice, their benefit is stopped, which did not use to happen. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost to banks. I repeat that the cost to a bank or other large financial institution in an entire year is estimated to be equal to just one hour's profit, so he will realise that what we are asking is not unreasonable. It is in the interests of banks and insurance companies that we stop fraud because people who defraud the DSS could also be interested in defrauding those financial institutions. That is probably why our proposals have been widely welcomed as a valuable contribution to the fight against social security fraud.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most businesses, and certainly those in my constituency, will feel that the small amount of extra work involved represents good value because it tackles the major problem of social security fraud? Does he agree also that the introduction of the ONE service will provide a major means of tackling such fraud? It not only saves claimants from having to go from pillar to post but enables the Benefits Agency to build a relationship with claimants and to see them through the system, and in the process staff may be able to spot fraud at an early stage.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, banks and other financial institutions have welcomed what the Government are doing because they recognise that it is in their interests that fraud should be tackled and discouraged. He is also right to say that experience has shown that the more often people are seen and their benefit claims are checked, the more accurate the payment of income support and other benefits becomes. For the fist time, we have seen a significant reduction—6.7 per cent.—in fraud and error in the payment of jobseeker's allowance and income support because we are checking details far more often.
    The Government fixed a target to reduce fraud by 10 per cent., which was to be reached in 2002, and I can tell my hon. Friend that we are on track to do that 18 months early. That is because we are tightening the gateways to the benefit system in order to cut fraud and error. The Bill is just one means of doing that. It should have happened years ago.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress in tackling benefit fraud. [150482]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I have just said, the results that we published in November show that we have already made a 6.7 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in the payment of income support and jobseeker's allowance. That is the first ever significant reduction. As I told the House, we are on course to meet our first target, of a 10 per cent. reduction in fraud and error, 18 months ahead of schedule.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that information. However, under this Government there has been announcement after reannouncement about the need to tackle benefit fraud—I have counted almost 50 so far—and whatever the Secretary of State promises in future, it will not change the fact that two things have happened.

    5
    First, the amount of benefit fraud has gone up. His Department estimates that its value is about £7 billion. Secondly, the number of prosecutions is going down. Are not those two facts evidence of the way in which the Government—first, other Departments and now this one—talk toughly but act softly?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on just about everything that he said. The number of prosecutions and sanctions has increased during our time in office. The previous Government, of whom he was a member, did not begin to measure fraud in the social security system until 1995, and no significant measures were taken to tackle the problem until 1997—some 18 years after they first took office.
    In case the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, I repeat that for the first time there has been a significant reduction in the amount of fraud and error in the payment of JSA and income support. We will have reached the target that we set for reducing fraud and error by 10 per cent. 18 months ahead of schedule. That is because we are increasing the powers available to the Department and investing in the information technology needed to keep track of people's claims—investment that the hon. Gentleman's party opposes.
    Finally, by stabilising the staff whom we employ on the front line, we are able to check more claims and get them right. If the Conservatives cut 5,000 Benefits Agency staff, as they now pledge, there will be more fraud and error, not less. We have a record on which we are happy to fight. We are beginning to turn the corner in the fight against fraud and error, which the Conservatives never did in 18 years in office.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the increase in checks that has been implemented to tackle fraud in income support has resulted in a saving during this Parliament of £1 billion? Does he agree that the critical factor in clamping down on benefit fraud and the best way in which to prevent it is to get the right payment going to the right person in a timely fashion? That not only tightens up on fraud, but delivers the correct benefit to the person who genuinely needs it, and it should be the objective to which the Government's efforts are directed.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. It is important to prevent fraud from entering the system in the first place. As I said, by investing in the IT that the DSS needs—when we took office, some of that was approaching 30 years old and becoming increasingly ineffective—and by making sure that we have enough staff on the front line to check claims and demand verification of information, we are ensuring that we have ever more accurate information.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that during this Parliament we shall save £1 billion simply by halving the error rate in income support that we inherited. The Conservatives must face up to the fact that they had 18 years in which to sort out that problem, but did not do so. We are sorting it out. For the first time ever, figures show that we are beginning to turn the corner and bear down on the amount of fraud and error in the system.
    6
    More money was lost through fraud and error than it cost to run the Department. That is an indictment of the 18 years that the Conservatives had to put matters right.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Are the Secretary of State's comments not refuted by his former colleague, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that his first discovery on taking office was the realisation of his colleagues' political reluctance to bear down on welfare fraud? Has not that observation been borne out by running down the beat-a-cheat line, closing down spotlight campaigns against fraud, missing all the fraud targets so far and cancelling the benefits card, which would have been the most effective means of stopping fraud?
    The Secretary of State says that we did not measure fraud until 1995, but will he acknowledge that ours was the first Government in this country or any other in the world to devise a method of doing that? Officials had said that it was impossible until I decided that it had to be done.
    Mr. Darling: I have no wish to be churlish, especially as I read last week of some extremely complimentary remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Government's stakeholder pensions. I am grateful to him for having recognised how valuable a contribution they will make.
    On the question of fraud, I understand why the right hon. Gentleman seeks to clear his name, but he will know that it was not until 1995 that any serious attempt was made to measure fraud and error in the system. It is true, as I said, that in 1997 some efforts were made to deal with the problem; however, they focused almost entirely on simply detecting fraud that had already entered the system. The National Audit Office recognised the shortcomings of that as the sole strategy, because it almost encouraged people to let in fraud by rewarding them for detecting it. We have stopped fraud entering the system in the first place.
    As I have told Opposition Members who have asked the question, the fraud and error rate in income support and JSA is down for the first time ever. We are on track to meet our target to cut fraud by 10 per cent. and we are going on to reduce fraud even further. We shall do that through legislation, by tightening up the gateways to benefit, by investing in new IT—which, as the NAO has recognised, is vital if we are to control DSS expenditure—and by ensuring that there are sufficient staff on the front line to carry out checks. As a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman will know that if his party were to get away with cutting 5,000 Benefits Agency staff, which is what they pledge to do through a freeze in civil service recruitment, the result would be more fraud and more error. That shows why the Conservatives' sums do not add up.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Before the right hon. Gentleman approved expensive advertisements in today's newspapers on benefit fraud, did he read the report on the trials in the pilot areas? Is there justification for what appears to be a long catalogue of reasons why people should commit benefit fraud? The cost of one page of the advertisement works out at more than £1,000 a word. Nothing is said about what a person is supposed to do if he finds a benefit cheat. There is no reference to the

    7
    hotline. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not pay attention to the report that was lodged in the Library last week?
    As for the trials, the report stated that the
    "result of the campaign was that respondents within the test area perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit."
    Thanks to the Secretary of State, the entire country knows that benefit fraud is easy to commit. I know that he is hurt by the Opposition's suggestion that his policies are all spin and no delivery, but we never believed that he would respond not by increasing delivery but by reducing the quality of the spin.
    Mr. Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's reading skills did not enable him to read the whole report. If he had done so, he would have found that the advertisements in the north-west raised people's awareness of fraud and got across to them that fraud is theft from the country and that they should be concerned when it is committed. It is important to change the culture so that people recognise that fraud is bad. It took years before people accepted that drinking and driving should not be tolerated, and so it is with benefit fraud.
    If the hon. Gentleman wants proof that our policies are working, I repeat that a reduction in fraud and error in income support has been achieved 18 months ahead of schedule. By ensuring that we improve the error rate in income support calculations, £1 billion has been saved. Those are examples of all the things that the Tories could have done, but did not do. We are delivering on reducing fraud and error. One reason why social security spending is growing at its lowest rate since the second world war is that we are tightening the gateways to the benefit system, which is long overdue.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. John McFall: What plans he has to inform older people of the pension credit proposals. [150483]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We set out our proposals for how pension credit will work in the consultation paper published on 9 November. That has been made widely available and is free of charge. At the latest date, we had issued more than 4,000 papers. The website has been available since the date of publication.
    Mr. McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shame and scandal of the pension industry is that, far from being rewarded to date, those on occupational pensions and those with savings have been penalised for their thrift and prudence? Does he agree also that the consultation document changes the pension landscape for the first time? Will he reassure the many millions of pensioners that something will now be done for those who had the foresight to save for their retirement? Will he ensure that once he has studied the consultation document proposals they will be made available to everyone so that everyone can claim what is his or her right?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It does not pay to save in this country, and it never has since 1948. The pension credit will reverse that. For the first
    8
    time, it will pay to save, and that message must go out. More than half the pensioner population—more than 5 million people—will gain directly when pension credit is introduced. Our plan is to introduce it in 2003. There have been more than 400 responses to the consultation document. The closing date was only last week, and we have not analysed all the responses, but to the best of my knowledge not one submission has opposed the pension credit. We thought through the policy idea before we published the consultation document, and it has received universal approval.
    The flowers on the Opposition Benches sometimes wilt—I know that you do not like us criticising them, Mr. Speaker—and their policies change every week. The pension credit system will be universally successful and will be seen to benefit more than half the pensioner population.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister talks of the beneficiaries of the policy, but does he not accept that, as a consequence of the implementation of the pension credit, more than half of this country's pensioners will be forced on to means-tested benefits? That is a direct consequence of the Government's commitment to targeting, rather than investing in the universal basic state pension. Our policy is clear. Why do the Government not accept that their policy consigns pensioners to a future in which the basic state pension will wither away?
    Mr. Rooker: If that is a signal that the Liberal Democrats oppose the pension credit, which will directly benefit 5.5 million pensioners, it is fine to have that on record. One cannot equate the language of the means test with the proposed pension credit. It is not a weekly means test; it is not an annual means test; it is not even a bi-annual means test. Pensioners will be examined on their circumstances at the age of 65, and again at the age of 75. If anything changes in the meantime, they will not have to report it. If they want to make an extra claim, that will be fine. Once they are over the age of 75, there will be no further examinations. To equate that with what has happened since the early 1930s and 1940s and the language of the means test, when over 50 per cent. of pensioners will benefit, is a travesty of the proposal.
    Mr. David Willetts: Is the Minister aware that the Institute of Fiscal Studies said that the abolition of capital rules and the new pension credit could leave some pensioners "worse off"? Will he give the House and pensioners an assurance that no pensioner will lose out as a result of the changes in 2003?
    Mr. Rooker: The thrust of the IFS's report supported the pension credit, which will make the biggest single contribution to pensioner incomes under any Government since the start of the welfare state. Of course, we made it plain in the consultation paper that the final shape is not clear; that was the reason for consulting. The plan is not that people will lose out. The fact is that in April the relaxation of the capital rules—which were frozen for years under the previous Government—will be of substantial benefit to 160,000 to 200,000 pensioners. Our

    9
    plan is to abolish capital rules under pension credit. It is ludicrous to argue that that would disadvantage pensioners.
    Mr. Willetts: It is appalling that the Minister cannot give a simple assurance to pensioners that the changes in 2003 guarantee that no pensioner will be worse off. There is no point in his talking about a change in the capital rules now; we want that simple assurance. If he cannot give it, pensioners will have been warned that his changes in 2003 could mean that some with modest savings will lose out.
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the figure that is below the capital rule at present. We have made it abundantly clear that 5.5 million pensioners will benefit from the change and get direct extra cash. Unlike the previous Government, we will for the first time ever reward pensioners with small occupational pensions and people who continue to receive modest earnings after their retirement. The credit is not exclusive to those who receive pensions. It is not intended that the abolition of capital rules will disadvantage pensioners who, in ordinary terms, have tuppence ha'penny in the bank. I have already said that.

    Winter Fuel Allowance
    Mr. David Winnick: What the cost is of the winter fuel allowance paid in the winter of 2000–01. [150484]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have made about 11 million winter fuel payments so far this winter, at an estimated cost of £1.7 billion. At our best estimate, 16,000 of those payments were made in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Winnick: That is money well spent, bearing in mind the climate at the moment. Has my right hon. Friend found any pensioners in his constituency or elsewhere who have described that sum of money as "a gimmick"—the description used by Conservative Front Benchers on numerous occasions? Why was there no such help before the Labour party came to office in 1997?
    Mr. Rooker: It was basically because the other lot did not care—not to put too fine a point on it. That is the truth. The winter fuel payment of £200 per household has proved extremely popular. It is double last year's payment and how it could ever be described as a gimmick, I do not know.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: A number of my constituents have contacted me, having listened to Ministers saying that all pensioner households would receive the winter fuel payment, but having subsequently discovered that because they did not turn 60 or 65 by the middle of September, they would lose out—as did those who were in nursing homes. Will the Minister be more careful in presenting such policies? Does he agree that if the payment were a top-up of weekly benefits, all would benefit from it?
    Mr. Rooker: That is another change of policy. I understand why some people argue as the hon. Gentleman
    10
    does. As for all benefits, there are eligibility criteria, one of which is the date. We had to fix a date, which, I recall, was in September. That was fixed so that we could guarantee that the majority of payments were paid before Christmas. If the date had been set any later, we would not have been able to achieve that. We delivered on that commitment. For pensioners who were eligible on the relevant date—that is the factor—those payments were made before Christmas. The only payments that are still being made are to those who must claim. In general, those are men between the ages of 60 and 65, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to abolish the winter fuel allowance? I ask because in my constituency, "Focus", the leaflet from the Liberals, stated that they are the only ones who would retain it.
    Mr. Rooker: I expect that for every Liberal "Focus" in one constituency pledging one policy aspect, we can find another one in another constituency promising the exact opposite. The only thing that the two major parties have in common is suffering from the fact that the Liberals do not have a consistent policy. The Labour Government invented the winter fuel payment, and we have increased it year on year. We are committed to keeping it, as the Prime Minister said recently.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The winter fuel payment is safe in our hands. The winter fuel allowance for households in which there is someone over the age of 60 has provided invaluable assistance given the disastrous snow storms that we have had in south-east Scotland. The allowance will make a valuable contribution to households suffering from the effects of the inclement weather. Will the Minister confirm that severe weather payments, which are also available through the social fund to people who are on means-tested benefits, will be triggered? They are a valuable addition to households in south-east Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom that have suffered severe weather. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that departmental officials will do all that they can to get those payments made, and that regions such as south-east Scotland will receive severe weather payments in the immediate aftermath of the storms?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. For those on means-tested benefits, cold weather payments of—I think—£8.50 a week, which are quite separate from winter fuel payments, have been triggered since the onset of winter. So far, we have made more than 3 million payments at a cost of £28 million. The vast majority have, by definition, been in the north of the country, particularly Scotland. They are triggered and paid as the conditions are met.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: What plans he has to increase the income of the parents of children living in poverty. [150485]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): "Opportunity for All" describes a range of measures that we are taking to

    11
    reduce the number of children living in poverty. From April this year, the working families tax credit, for instance, will guarantee a family with one child and one adult in full-time work a minimum income of £214 a week. The effect of all the changes that we have made means that, by April, all families with children will be better off, on average, by £15 per week in real terms compared to 1997, with the poorest gaining, on average, twice that amount.
    Mr. Ennis: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Government came to power, more than 100,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in Yorkshire and Humberside alone? That is good news for my constituency, which, as he knows, has the lowest level of gross domestic product per capita in the UK. Does he agree that one group of parents who face particular difficulty are those of disabled children? How do the Government intend to help those parents?
    Mr. Bayley: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right. In Yorkshire, 100,000 children are now living above, rather than below, the poverty level. The number is far greater throughout the country as a whole, where 1.1 million children have now moved above the poverty line. In last week's Child Poverty Action Group report, Jonathan Bradshaw, who wrote the child poverty chapter, stated:
    "There is no doubt that when the election takes place there will have been a substantial reduction in poverty, particularly child poverty, by any measure you care to use."
    We are this year increasing the disabled child premium in income-related benefits, which are received by the poorest families with disabled children. We are doing so because we recognise the need to target more help on families with disabled children.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: The close association between poverty and disability has already been mentioned; I suspect that it applies especially when breadwinners and families are involved. Given that association, what consideration is the Under-Secretary giving to the fears expressed by the Remploy unions and others that incentives to so-called progression under the workstep scheme may lead to deskilling and poorer incomes for disabled people who are now in supported employment?
    Mr. Bayley: The Government continue to support Remploy through my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, who have introduced new leadership for the company and are planning a long-term secure future for supported employment. However, that is only part of the picture of what the Government are doing to improve employment opportunities for disabled people. We introduced the disabled persons tax credit and, through the new deal for disabled people, we have been piloting ways of enabling the many hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are on incapacity benefits and want to get back into work to achieve that ambition.

    Winter Fuel Allowance
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: How many people he expects will benefit from the winter fuel allowance for 2001–02. [150486]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As I have told the House, we have issued about 11 million payments this winter, about 21,000 of which were made in my hon. Friend's constituency. We will announce our proposals for next winter in due course, in the usual way.
    Mr. Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are a striking testament to the effectiveness of the Government' a policy in pursuing the winter fuel payment? Given that extraordinarily high take-up, does he have any estimates of the cost that would be incurred by civil servants if they had to disaggregate and question every single pensioner in the country about whether to retain the separate winter fuel payment or to incorporate it in pensions?
    Mr. Rooker: It would amount to a crass waste of public money, even if the Opposition were to ask the civil service to carry out the assessment, as they are entitled to do in the run-up to an election. Making such a change would collapse the income tax and social security systems. It would be merely a figleaf, as there would be no consistent uprating policy for pensions and the winter fuel payment. A tax-free cash payment that is made to everybody and that has proved extremely popular seems the best way to continue.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In considering the number of claimants of this year's winter fuel payments, will the Minister of State take into account what the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), told me last July? She said that all backdated claims would be paid by the end of September, but I understand that that has now been put back to March. How many claims will still be outstanding in March in respect of last year's payments?
    Mr. Rooker: The only people about whom we are talking are men between the ages of 60 and 65 who, generally speaking, happen to have made no contact with my Department. In other words, they will be at work and will not be receiving any benefits, and the Government do not know where they all are. They have to make a claim and they can do so at almost any time. Claims are continually coming in and some remain to be processed.
    Some 140,000 claims are currently in the process of being clerically assessed and 70,000 claims are determined and awaiting payment, which is due to be made in the first two weeks of this month. Some 20,000 claims are currently being processed. Some people aged between 60 and 64, including hon. Members, may choose not to claim, but may then change their mind. It is as simple as that.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Minister agree that the key merit of the winter fuel allowance is that it is not taxed and that it does not hit benefits? That would not be the case if it were added to the basic state pension; many Conservative Members would like us to do that. Is it not time for the Tory party to admit that the winter fuel allowance works and that it should be here to stay?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. If everything were subsumed in the way Conservative Members advocate, the winter fuel allowance would wither on the

    13
    vine, and in future people would not be able to tell what had happened to it. Under a Labour Government, people can tell—because we are paying it.
    Mr. Andrew George: The Government should be congratulated on the increase in the winter fuel allowance. However, what assessment has the Minister made, in the run-up to the Budget on Wednesday, of a proposed extension of the winter fuel allowance to disabled people? Do the Government realise that approximately 1 million people under the age of 60 would benefit from an extension of the winter fuel allowance to those on the higher rate of disability living allowance? That is not covered by the mobility and care components of DLA.
    Mr. Rooker: No, but the cost of fuel is already covered in the benefits, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is not living in the real world if he believes that he could confine an extension of the winter fuel allowance to selected, targeted groups of disabled people.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What his most recent estimate is of the number of pensioners in receipt of the minimum income guarantee and the number of eligible pensioners who have not applied. [150487]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Nearly 2 million pensioners currently benefit from the minimum income guarantee. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is difficult to be sure of exactly how many people might be eligible for it or of how many never apply.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the massive increase in the minimum income guarantee in April, from £78 to £92 a week for single people, and from £121 to £140 a week for couples, will there be an advertising campaign, similar to last year's Thora Hird campaign, to try to ensure that those who are eligible but do not apply are told of their rights and receive that superlative increase?
    Mr. Darling: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been advertising the minimum income guarantee over the past few months, and the campaign will continue. Indeed, we are about to write to pensioners who, until now, have been excluded by the low level of the capital rules. They are being increased to £12,000; that means that more pensioners will be eligible for the minimum income guarantee.
    When the capital rules disappear from the social security system for the first time in 2003, many more pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee as part of the pension credit. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House a few moments ago, that will result in 5.5 million pensioners benefiting from a significant step forward in tackling pensioner poverty as well as ensuring that the millions of pensioners who have been thrifty and saved all their lives are rewarded, not punished, for their efforts.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not know the number of
    14
    pensioners who could benefit from the minimum income guarantee. It is a big flaw in the Government's strategy for tackling pensioner poverty if he cannot tell hon. Members the number of people who are eligible and the number who receive that minimum income.
    On the broader question, does not the Secretary of State agree that the majority of pensioners want a guarantee not of a minimum income, but of a decent pension? In the light of what he has told the House, does he have faith that the social security system will provide that? Should not the Government re-examine their support for the state pension system?
    Mr. Darling: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's two points. First, as he should know, estimates of the number of people who might be eligible for the minimum income guarantee vary widely. The state does not hold information on everybody's bank accounts or on people who do not choose to contact it; that has always been the case.
    On pensioner support, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to remind the House and him that, in April, pensions will increase by £5 a week for a single person and £8 a week for a couple; the following year, they will increase by a further £3 a week for a single person and £4.80 for a couple—the Conservative party could never do that because it would not have the requisite money. On top of that, we are increasing help for the poorest pensioners. In this day and age, it is scandalous that so many pensioners live in poverty; that is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92 a week in April. From 2003, it will increase to £100 a week.
    When it comes to the bit, British pensioners will know which party in government can do the right thing: eradicate pensioner poverty and help all pensioners, including thrifty pensioners through the pension credit, and which party in government would have the money to make that decision in the first place. The Tories most certainly would not.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: While encouraging the Government to do all they can to increase the state retirement pension, may I also thank the Secretary of State for what he has done for the poorest pensioners in my constituency? About 14 per cent. of those who benefit from the minimum income guarantee are in the north-west, and they are most heavily concentrated in Merseyside constituencies such as mine. My right hon. Friend has targeted the poorest pensioners in my constituency, who are the most significant group, and the new thresholds will target the next most significant group of pensioners. Will he assure the House that he will continue to target the pensioners whom I represent?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, far too many pensioners—particularly in parts of the country where wages were historically low, or where there were long periods of high unemployment—were being expected to live on nothing but the basic state pension. That was not enough. The Government's first priority on being elected was to begin to tackle pensioner poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which was opposed by the Conservatives. It is interesting that their proposals are designed to benefit the top 10 per cent. of the pensioner population and not the others.

    15
    On top of introducing the minimum income guarantee, the second stage of our policy is to help the millions of pensioners—some of whom live in my hon. Friend's constituency—who are by no means well off but who have saved a little money, only to find that the social security system that we inherited penalises them for what they have done. The pension credit, on top of the minimum income guarantee, will mean not only that we help millions of pensioners out of poverty, but that we help the hard-working men and women of this country who have scrimped and saved throughout their lives. They will now receive extra help that was never there in the past.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Following the end of the £15 million take-up campaign, will the Secretary of State confirm that only about 100,000 people have benefited from the minimum income guarantee? Although we are pleased that those people have some extra money, will he tell us what he plans to do to contact the 400,000 missing people whom Ministers said were legally entitled to an increased minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady should not be so patronising towards people who have applied for and obtained money under the minimum income guarantee. The average amount that they receive is about £20 a week, which makes a big difference to pensioners who qualify. Let me repeat—as the hon. Lady is evidently hard of understanding, if not hard of hearing—the point that I have made on many occasions. The reason many people do not qualify at the moment is that, under the present system that we inherited, the capital rules hit anybody who saves a modest amount of money. [Interruption.] We want to ensure, through the minimum income guarantee, that from 2003 no pensioner will have to live on less than £100 a week. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has asked a question; she should listen to the answer.
    Mr. Darling: The Conservative party is having some difficulty in coping with a Government who have a consistent pension policy that lasts more than nine months, and has not had to be torn up because it is discovered to be all wrong. Our policy is delivering more money to millions of pensioners, as well as overhauling the pension system to ensure that, for the first time ever, we not only eradicate pensioner poverty but help millions of pensioners who have put a little money by and who should be rewarded for their thrift, not punished for it as they were under the Conservatives.

    Child Support (Service Personnel)
    Caroline Flint: What action he has taken in collaboration with the Secretary of State for Defence about revision of the services pay regulations that prevent Child Support Agency deductions of earnings orders being implemented on service personnel. [150489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): In 99 per cent. of child support cases involving service men, the full amount of maintenance is deducted from their pay. In less than 1 per cent. of cases, the full amount is not met because it
    16
    exceeds the maximum deduction rates that are set by the Ministry of Defence. We have discussed with the Ministry of Defence the problems encountered with this small minority of cases.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but I find it a little disappointing. I have campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and although it affects only a small percentage of families, it seems strange that we are saying that someone who joins the Army can, in some way, escape their CSA payments. May I urge my hon. Friend to look into the matter, and particularly into the circumstances in which service personnel who leave the service get an end-of-service payment? The CSA should be urged to liaise with the Ministry of Defence to see whether, at that point, before the service man disappears, the payments that he should have made could be met in full.
    Angela Eagle: I know that my hon. Friend has a particularly difficult individual case to deal with and that she has been working hard for her constituent with respect to it, but 99 per cent., which is the compliance rate in the services, compares very well with the compliance rate in civilian cases, which stands at 72 per cent.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In confirming what the Minister has said, may I urge her not to follow the recommendation of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? Will the Minister confirm not only that the services compliance rate is higher than in civilian life, but that, unlike civilians, service men and their families face a huge range of disadvantages? They are taxed as though they are resident in the United Kingdom, a range of UK benefits are not available to them and, when they leave the services, they are grossly disadvantaged in the housing market.
    Angela Eagle: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, and the compliance rates do compare favourably. The maximum deduction rates—25 per cent. and 50 per cent.—were put in the in-service rules for a particular reason following experience in the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has had a debate with the Ministry of Defence about the matter and she needs to continue to make representations there.

    Means testing
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on means testing of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [150490]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on Government policy on means testing of pensioners' benefits. [150494]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Numerous representations have been made over the years. As the hon. Lady will know, the benefit system has always combined universal, means-tested and extra-cost payments. Each plays a part in meeting people's needs.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State proud of the fact that, under his stewardship, savings have gone down

    17
    while means testing has gone up? According to his own Department's figures, at least 500,000 pensioners who should be receiving the minimum income guarantee have not applied. Will he pay heed to the representations that he has undoubtedly received from Age Concern, to the effect that means testing does not help the poorest pensioners, but simply puts them off applying?
    Mr. Darling: Day by day—indeed, minute by minute—I become increasingly confused about what the policy of the Conservative party is. It was in power for 18 years, and means testing as a proportion of the benefit system increased from 17 per cent. in 1979 to 35 per cent. in 1997. For the sake of completeness, I might add that the figure is now 30 per cent. She must recognise that any Government who want to help the poorest pensioners cannot do so through universal, across-the-board increases. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee.
    Of course the hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that as many eligible people as possible receive the minimum income guarantee. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have told her, we have to assess how much pension people are due when they retire; so when the pension credit is introduced, from 2003, we shall work out whether they qualify for the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. In that way, we shall be able to target and eliminate pensioner poverty and reward saving. Unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there should be no means testing in the social security system, which is not a policy usually taken up by most elements in the Conservative party and which would be cripplingly expensive, she must accept that the Government are tackling pensioner poverty in the right way.
    Mr. Viggers: The Secretary of State has not answered the question. Before the election, the Labour party campaigned on the basis of ending the means test for elderly people, but in government it has increased its use. The figure is 50 per cent. and rising has something gone wrong or have the Government changed their mind?
    Mr. Darling: It is always touching to hear the Conservatives' new-found concern with pensioner poverty, which they allowed to grow when they were in office. When we were elected, we made it clear that our first priority was to deal with and then eradicate pensioner poverty. That is possible only if the money is targeted on the people who need that help most, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. From April, it will rise to £92 a week. The Conservative party has no policy for tackling pensioner poverty, and the only proposals that it has made for pensioners would disproportionately benefit the better off.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have done more to help the poorest sections of the community? If we are to do so at an affordable cost, there regrettably has to be means testing. Will he assure the House that at some stage there will be only one means-testing form for income support, for the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners and for housing and council tax benefit, so that we can reduce the number of forms that have to be filled in?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. If any Government are serious about tackling pensioner poverty or child poverty, they must give more to the people who need it most. In addition to tackling pensioner poverty, we must help the people who are by no means well off—those who have saved and have a little money in the bank—and that is what the pension credit will do. We are taking that approach for other benefits. Through the working families tax credit, we can help people on low wages to increase the amount of money that they take home, so that they see the benefit of being in work and the difference that the credit can make to their take-home pay.
    Right across the board, the Government's strategy has been, first, to deal with poverty; secondly, to ensure that the right incentives are in the system so that it pays to work and to save; and thirdly, to benefit the incomes of the population as a whole. That is what we have started to do, and if we are returned at the next election, that is what we shall continue to do. That is in stark contrast with what the Tories are about, which is to restore the inequalities that they presided over during the 18 years they were in power.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. David Ruffley: What plans he has to reform the administration of housing benefit. [150491]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Following years of neglect by the previous Government, improving administration is the biggest challenge facing the housing benefit system. We published our strategy to achieve such an improvement in December, and one of our first steps has been the formation of the expert help team. Working in partnership with local authorities, the team will help to turn things around.
    Mr. Ruffley: The Minister will have a list of the 10 local authorities with the worst record of tackling housing benefit fraud. Could she tell us which ones are Labour controlled?
    Angela Eagle: As most local authorities are Labour controlled, that is a pretty pointless question.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend recognise that housing benefit creates particular difficulties in areas with high housing costs? The threshold at which a return to work is worth while requires some people to work 20 hours just to cover the loss of housing and council tax benefit. Will she bear in mind the fact that a reform of the housing benefit system to address that issue would be most welcome in Hertfordshire?
    Angela Eagle: There is a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says. We need to work on the work-incentive aspects of housing benefit, but we will not fundamentally reform the system until after the reform of rents, which was dealt with in the Green Paper, and that will be in the medium to long term.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Government have made no fewer than 85 changes to the administration of housing benefit, does the hon. Lady rule out an 86th?
    Angela Eagle: No; and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall shortly introduce a change to ease the single room rent restrictions, which have caused so much hardship to the single homeless. I expect that he will be against such a measure, but it will be a great help to the socially excluded.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement that east Ayrshire is to be included in the housing benefit expert team project was warmly welcomed by its
    20
    Labour-controlled council and by its 10,500 housing benefit recipients. I am glad that it is a Labour-controlled council in a Labour-controlled country. Under that initiative, what steps can be taken to improve clarity and simplify the form, and to reduce the mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy that is generated by housing benefit applications?
    Angela Eagle: I add my thanks to East Ayrshire council for agreeing to allow the expert help team to assist it with the administration of housing benefit, which is a difficult benefit to administer.
    Working with the benefit fraud inspectorate, the Department has for the first time produced a template of a housing benefit form that is readable and user friendly. It is now being made available to all local authorities, and I hope that many will take advantage of it.

National Minimum Wage
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the national minimum wage.
As the House will know, in June last year I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to produce a further report on the national minimum wage by July of this year. In particular, the commission was asked to consider whether there was a case for increasing the rate of the minimum wage. In considering any increase, it was required to take into account movements in earnings, the effect on employment, the impact on individual sectors, including small business, and the likely and future impact on the economy.
The commission announced at the end of January that this year it would produce its report in two parts. It had a clear message from employers that the length of notice given of any changes would be critical.
Today we are publishing volume one of the commission's third report. It looks solely at the main rate, and makes recommendations to have effect on 1 October this year and next. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
I thank the commission chairman, Professor George Bain, and its other members for the time, commitment and detailed consideration that they have given in preparing today's report. The strength of its recommendations comes from the detailed analysis, and also from the fact that it is a unanimous report, agreed by, for example, the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union as well as the deputy director general of the Confederation of British Industry
The report concludes that the minimum wage has been a success, with nearly 1.5 million benefiting without any adverse impact on employment or the competitive position of British business. More than 70 per cent. of those benefiting are women. The commission concludes that, in narrowing the gender pay gap the minimum wage has had the most beneficial effect on women's pay since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 more than 30 years ago. It has also helped close the gap in regional pay differences. Since its introduction, the largest increases in average earnings have been in traditionally low-paying parts of the United Kingdom. While the national average increase in earnings for the first year of the minimum wage was 3 per cent., average earnings in the north-east rose by 5 per cent. In Wales, the average increase in earnings was over 4 per cent., and in Yorkshire and the Humber it was 3.5 per cent.
The minimum wage is about ensuring that people throughout the United Kingdom share in the country's economic prosperity. Twenty years ago, pensioners made up the largest section of those in poverty. Today it is those living in workless working-age households who are in poverty. Simply compensating people for their poverty through benefits is not good enough; the task must be to deal with the causes of poverty. The best form of welfare is work, and having a job. That is why it is crucial to make work pay, and the national minimum wage makes a vital contribution to the achievement of that objective.
Of course, there are those who opposed the very concept of a national minimum wage. They said that its introduction was the height of irresponsibility. Some said
22
that it was a cretinous idea. Others said that it would deal a blow to low earners and would cost more than 1 million jobs.
The critics have been proved wrong, wrong and wrong. Employment has increased by nearly 450,000 since the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999 and by more than 1 million since we were elected with a clear pledge to introduce it. The number of jobs in the hotel and catering sector, which includes a high proportion of low-paid jobs, increased by 14,000 between March 1999 and September 2000.
In recommending a new rate, the commission had to satisfy itself about the likely impact of any increase. A rate that was not manageable would hurt the prospects of the very people whom it was meant to benefit. The commission is confident that there is scope for a significant increase in the rate of the minimum wage. The aim has been to make recommendations that are bold enough to make a real difference, but prudent enough not to have an adverse impact on employment or the economy. The commission's report is unanimous. It recommends that the adult rate, currently £3.70 an hour, should increase to £4.10 an hour on 1 October this year.
The Government accept that recommendation. It will mean that someone on the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see their earnings increase by £16 a week. It will mean a £10 a week increase for someone working 25 hours a week. Coupled with the working families tax credit, the Government are ensuring that work pays. The commission also recommends that the adult rate should increase in October next year to £4.20 an hour. In principle, the Government also accept that recommendation, subject to the economic conditions prevailing at the time.
The commission's report looks in detail at the impact of an increase to £4.10. It finds that the estimated wage bill impact will be modest—lower than the wage bill increase that resulted from the introduction of the minimum wage—and that the minimum wage had no discernible impact on the main measures of inflation. Analysis shows that the rise in the wage bill that would follow from the proposed increase to £4.10 adds 0.07 per cent. to inflation in the first year and 0.05 per cent. in the second.
The new rate for the minimum wage will apply across the board: to part-time and full-time workers, to agency staff and to those who work from home. I understand that there are some who would exclude businesses that employ fewer than 100 people from all legal requirements, apart from health and safety. That would mean nearly 8 million people being denied decent rights in the workplace. We reject such an approach. That is why the minimum wage will apply to all those in work, whatever the size of organisation that employs them.
The introduction of the national minimum wage has been one of the Government's great achievements. It has already had a real and much-needed impact on the lives of many hard-working people and their families, helping to raise the pay and standard of living of almost 1.5 million people.
The minimum wage combines economic efficiency and social justice. Increasing it to £4.10 an hour will take people further out of poverty pay. It is a significant

23
increase that is affordable and will make a real difference to those who receive it. It brings reality to the phrase "dignity of work." I commend the increase to the House.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me some notice of his statement today.
Last October, the national minimum wage was uprated by 10p an hour. Before that, the Secretary of State made no oral statement to the House. Today, however, he has announced in the House that there will be a 40p uprating in the minimum wage. Is the difference in the announcement and the way in which it was made anything whatever to do with the fact that there will shortly be a general election?
When we take office after that general election, businesses will be planning that uprating and adjusting their payrolls accordingly. We shall therefore not oppose this uprating—[Interruption.] I want to make that clear at the outset. However, I do have various conditions and questions for the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing. The Minister received a hearing; the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to one.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
Why has the Secretary of State been so anxious to make this announcement on the minimum wage while at the same time adding to the regulatory burdens on the very businesses that will be delivering the jobs in future? I remind him that, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, over the lifetime of this Parliament, that regulatory burden amounts to an extra £10 billion on British business. Would he like to confirm that, contrary to his earlier claims, that £10 billion figure does not include the financial costs of the minimum wage?
Is the Secretary of State aware that small business organisations are extremely alarmed at the damage caused by those regulations—which are added now to a substantial uprating later this year—particularly in vulnerable sectors such as village shops, sub-post offices and care homes?
I should like the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the point about the costs on private care homes. Is he aware that, this year, most care homes are receiving a funding increase from the Department of Social Security and from local authorities of between 1 and 2 per cent., whereas those same homes will now have an increase in their total costs of more than 7 per cent? For an average 20-bed care home, that will increase those costs by £2,600 annually. That is a Government responsibility. This is a Government problem that is being made worse by the Secretary of State's announcement. What offsetting arrangements is he making to get over and solve that crisis in care?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that it is not within the Low Pay Commission's remit, but up to the Government, to assess the economic effects of increasing the national minimum wage in that manner? What could the damage be if this turns out to be at the top of the economic cycle? Will he confirm that unemployment
24
decreased more slowly in the first three years of this Government than in the last three years of the previous Government? Will he therefore give his own assessment of the effect that the uprating will have on future employment growth, on which national prosperity and the prosperity of the low paid depend?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the report today by the organisation Incomes Data Services—which is authoritative in this sphere—which shows that pay settlements are running substantially ahead not only of inflation, but of last year's equivalent wage settlements? Those data were not available to the Low Pay Commission when it drew up its recommendation.
The Secretary of State gave a very low figure for the inflationary consequences of his announced uprating. Will he tell us whether that takes account of the preservation of differentials when the national minimum wage is increased by 11 per cent. and also of the earnings figure that has now been disclosed by IDS?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in "Economic Trends", the Office for National Statistics records that under this Government, the tax burden on the poorest 20 per cent. of households has increased from 37 per cent. of gross income to 40 per cent.? So the sharpest rise in taxation under this Labour Government has been imposed on the poorest fifth of households. Will he confirm those Government figures? If the House takes seriously its duty to help the lowest paid, as it should, it will pay at least as much attention to that problem, and to the problem of future employment growth, as it does to this uprating of the national minimum wage.
Mr. Byers: Well, there we have it. I admit that I had some sympathy for the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory) at the beginning of his response, because he had to accept that the Conservative party agree with the decision that the Government took, having opposed, day in and day out, the introduction of a national minimum wage.
The people of this country know the Conservative party's approach to the national minimum wage—it disagrees with it in principle, and it would allow it to wither on the vine. That is why the right hon. Gentleman said that the minimum wage would deal a body blow to low earners. That is his view of the national minimum wage, and he knows that it has not changed. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) called it a "cretinous" policy. Well, he should know—but the reality is that 1.5 million people have benefited from its introduction. The right hon. Gentleman said little on the details of the proposals that we have announced this afternoon.
On the impact on small businesses and, in particular, on the private care sector, the Low Pay Commission has considered in detail the impact of the increase, sector by sector, and has decided that it would be prudent to adopt a significant increase to £4.10. That increase will make a real difference to those who receive it, but it will not have an adverse impact on either the economy or employment levels. That is the position. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the areas where we have had the biggest increase in employment growth, he will see that they happen to be those that have traditionally been in the low-paid sector. That is the reality, as he will know.
Yet again, we have heard the cry about burdens on business. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman made a distinction between red tape and bureaucratic

25
burdens and decent, minimum standards. Today's announcement is about decent, minimum standards. The right hon. Gentleman will not challenge directly the basic standards that the Government are providing because he knows that they have broad and popular support. Instead, a code is used—the right to time off in emergencies involving children, the right to four weeks' paid holiday and the right to a national minimum wage is all red tape and bureaucracy. Well, it is not; it is what people should expect at the beginning of the 21st century. Under this Government, they will get those decent minimum standards; under the right hon. Gentleman, they would be taken away.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is like having two Budgets in a week.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that no Labour Government with a majority in Parliament have ever introduced a minimum wage? The Attlee Government did not achieve it; neither did the Wilson nor the Callaghan Governments. That is why it is important that my right hon. Friend has made a statement today, even though the Tories do not want to hear the truth. Is he aware that this minimum wage is vital to people in areas where the bosses have got the whip hand and where the pits were shut and people were paint spraying at £2.10 an hour? I went through those Lobbies glad to vote for the minimum wage, muttering "£5" as I went through, and I look forward to the day when, in the next Government, my right hon. Friend will take the figure up to £5 an hour. Then he will get another plaudit from me.
Mr. Byers: We shall probably have to wait for the Low Pay Commission to report. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have decided to make the commission permanent—it had been reappointed on an annual basis. However, under this Government, the minimum wage is here to stay, which is why the Low Pay Commission is to be made a permanent body.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the minimum wage is significant for individuals. I know from my own constituency of many hundreds of people who have benefited from the minimum wage. I remember vividly a security guard coming to my advice surgery. He pulled out his wage slips and he showed me that he was paid £1.80 an hour for working evenings and weekends. He said, "Now, because of what you have done, I am being paid £3.60 and hour", which was the rate at the time. He added, "This has simply made a difference to my life that I could not have believed before you introduced it." That is why the Labour party and this Government are committed to retaining the minimum wage and ensuring that it will not wither away.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I welcome the announcement, particularly on behalf of my colleagues who represent constituencies in the south-west, the north-east and Wales, where wages are below the national average?
Although I was given 20 minutes to read the Government's 170-page report, I have several questions for the Secretary of State about it. First, table 4.2 suggests that one of the main beneficiaries of today's announcement will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer because there will be a substantial saving in benefit payments amounting to about £100 in million plus increased
26
tax and national insurance contributions. As the reduced working families tax credit payment amounts, in effect, to a tax on business, what plans does the Chancellor have to feed back the money from the Treasury to business?
Secondly, what analysis has the Secretary of State conducted of the impact of the changes specifically on the competitiveness of manufacturing industry? Table A.3.1 in appendix 3 suggests that, at the present level of exchange rates, we now have the highest minimum wage of any country in Europe apart from Luxembourg. What assessment has he made of the impact of that on the unit costs of manufacturing and what proposals has he to enable British manufacturers, who have to compete for trade, to sustain the increase in costs?
Finally, although most groups in society will benefit from and appreciate the increase, some specialist groups have concerns. I am sure that the Secretary of State has read the Mencap report on people with learning difficulties. What thought has been given to the impact of the minimum wage on Mencap and associated groups and how does he propose to deal with their particular problems?
Mr. Byers: The Low Pay Commission is considering the hon. Gentleman's final point about therapeutic workers and that will form part of its recommendations in volume two of the report, which we expect to receive in a few months.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the tax and benefits position, we should probably all wait until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget statement on Wednesday. That may have an impact on these matters.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the competitive position. The Low Pay Commission was particularly tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that any increase would be significant to individuals, but would not effect the competitive position of British business. That balanced approach is important, and I am confident, from the Government's analysis, that the commission's recommendation of an increase to £4.10 will not affect the competitive position of British manufacturing.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is axiomatic in his statement that, if the Low Pay Commission gets it wrong, that could have an adverse effect on employment and the economy? Is not the simple fact that, if the minimum wage is set below market levels, it is otiose and, if it is set above market levels, it will simply result in job losses in the economy? Does the Secretary of State agree that either the minimum is not needed at all or that, if it is applied in this way, it will result in job losses?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is repeating what he said in the House on 4 May 1997.
Mr. John Bercow: It was not on 4 May—that was a Sunday.
Mr. Byers: It was 14 May—the hon. Gentleman is right. We all remember that weekend very well.
When the Labour party took office, we announced the introduction of the national minimum wage in the Queen's Speech. The hon. Member for Banbury

27
(Mr. Baldry) shows that Conservative party policy has not changed; the Conservatives still fundamentally disagree with a national minimum wage.
It is important to have a significant increase that helps individuals without producing the adverse consequences that the hon. Gentleman mentions. A minimum wage of £3.70 has made a difference to people who receive it, and an increase to £4.10 in October will be significant. That bold move can be afforded. It is manageable because of the economy and its strengths. I think that we have achieved the correct balance. We are not threatening the economy or jobs; rather, we are increasing the national minimum wage to a decent level.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I asked his counterpart in the previous Government what a constituent of mine was to do because his hourly pay as a security guard had been reduced to £2-plus and his average working week had been increased to 70 hours, he said that my constituent had the choice of resigning, even though the constituency had some of the worst unemployment in the country and the worst youth unemployment in England? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, by capping the working week, providing minimum pay and cutting unemployment vastly—youth unemployment has fallen by two thirds in my constituency—the Government have transformed many of my constituents from virtual menial slaves to respected working people who contribute to society?
Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. His illustration of the way in which his genuine question was dealt with by the Minister responsible at the time demonstrates a typical Tory reaction to a pressing issue. He is correct in outlining the benefits that his constituents and many millions of other hard-working people up and down the country have received. We were elected to govern for all our people, and that is exactly what we are doing, whether by introducing the national minimum wage, providing working-time paid holidays or ensuring that people can balance work and family life. Those important measures are also sympathetic to the needs of business. The increase in the national minimum wage reflects that approach.
Angela Smith: Many of us are overjoyed by my right hon. Friend's statement because we have campaigned for the minimum wage to be uprated. Does he share my disappointment to hear the whingeing of Conservative Members? Given that Members of Parliament are on a salary of almost £50,000 a year, is it not miserly to begrudge an increase to those people whose salary will, even after today's announcement, be only about £8,500 a year? Although his statement is good news, will he also consider, before the rate is introduced in October, the youth rate of the national minimum wage so that there is not a greater discrepancy between them?
Mr. Byers: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment, but I am not surprised by the reaction of Conservative Members because we know their view about the national minimum wage. On the youth rate, I assure her that we
28
have asked the Low Pay Commission to consider that in volume two of the report, which will be produced a little later this year.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be appropriate changes to the level of tax credits to ensure that the increases in October will lead to a real increase in living standards, rather than simply being an accountancy exercise? Does he agree that in some seaside towns there is an anomaly because employees in cafes and restaurants receive substantial tips from the customer on top of the minimum wage, while employees in the shops next door simply receive the minimum wage? Can that be resolved? Although I appreciate that it will be difficult to do so, I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that it is a problem.
Mr. Byers: Tips do not count against the national minimum wage, and there may be a particular problem to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I understand his concern about the possible impact of the minimum wage on seaside towns. The Low Pay Commission considered the hospitality, catering and hotel industries because, as we are all aware, they are traditionally low-paid sectors. We wanted to ensure that an increase to £4.10 an hour would not have an adverse effect on them, and the commission's analysis shows that it will not.
On the interface between the tax and benefits system, I repeat that it is worth waiting for the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday.
Mr. Jon Trickett: The national minimum wage will be one of the greatest monuments to this Government. I welcome the speed and boldness with which my right hon. Friend reported to the House this afternoon. He said that the impact of the minimum wage on inflation is less than 0.05 percent. Families in the pit villages that I represent and in the coalfields of Yorkshire more generally will feel that £16 is a massive increase in their weekly household income and will greatly welcome it.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that he would not oppose the measure. That form of words is more than a verbal circumlocution; it indicates a fundamental dividing line in the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories have always resisted the national minimum wage and other measures to improve the living standards of working people?
Mr. Byers: It is a traditional role of the Conservative party to do precisely that, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who work 40 hours a week will see their earnings rise by £16 pounds a week and those who work 25 hours will receive an increase of £10. That will make a real difference to hard-working people and their families. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did not say that the Conservatives' policy of exempting employers of up to 100 people from bask employment legislation, except for health and safety provisions, would not apply in this case. A raft of employees would therefore be exempt from the national minimum wage. We shall certainly make sure that people throughout the country are acutely aware of that.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I thought that we were here to discuss the Government's policy. Will the

29
Secretary of State therefore answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about whether those who run care homes will feel a particular impact following his announcement? Given that the number of care homes that are closing is causing alarming problems, especially for the health service and related areas, what will the Government do to help care homes?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We must ensure that every sector involved is able to manage the increase, and the Low Pay Commission is confident that that is the case. The private care sector plays an important role in our society and it is valued. We would not introduce any measures that would threaten its future, and we are confident that the measures that I have announced today will not do so. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman said is that people working in the private care sector should not be paid the national minimum wage, and we disagree.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons that the Government have remained popular is that Ministers are concerned about ordinary people, not least those who desperately require Parliament's protection—namely, low-paid workers? Is he surprised to learn that far from wanting an election, the Tories are absolutely terrified of having one?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken people out of poverty pay through the national minimum wage, which was introduced in the face of total opposition from the Conservatives. Their words might have changed, but we know that their beliefs remain the same: they do not accept even the concept of a national minimum wage.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I welcome today's announcement and congratulate the Government on sticking to their principles in this respect? I have a couple of questions, the first of which relates to the long-term future of the national minimum wage. Does the Secretary of State accept that subsidies to the low-paid will continue, for example, in the form of the working families tax credit, which can be seen in that light? In the long term, will he consider raising the national minimum wage to a level at which those subsidies do not kick in, and recycling the Treasury money, perhaps in the form of support for small businesses?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman examine where real poverty in the workplace now occurs? Increasingly, it is the small self-employed tradesperson—the farmer, or the person who runs a small rural post office—who is affected. Such people cannot avail themselves of the national minimum wage but increasingly receive less than the national minimum wage. Will the Government consider whether that problem can be addressed through the tax system, so that poverty does not increase in one part of the economy while it is decreasing in another?
Mr. Byers: We must ensure that we have measures in place to make work pay, whether for the self-employed, farmers or workplace employees. The issue can be addressed in a variety of ways: one is through the tax regime; another is through the introduction of the national
30
minimum wage. As for the working families tax credit, it is important that we have in place measures that complement the safety net of the national minimum wage; the working families tax credit achieves precisely that. We have to achieve a balance and set the national minimum wage at a level that takes people out of poverty pay but does not affect employment opportunities. Getting that balance right is the crucial test.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that Wales is a part of the United Kingdom that has benefited most from the introduction of the national minimum wage in terms of both the number of people it covers and the increase in average earnings it produces. That increase in average earnings has been of real benefit to the country of Wales and, under the Labour Government, it is secure for the future.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend know how many people in Wales will benefit from this excellent measure and what will be the full-time annual wage of someone receiving the national minimum wage in Wales? Today's announcement heralds an important social and economic advance, which Wales will be pleased to receive from the Government. Why are the Conservatives looking so miserable, sad and out of place? Will my right hon. Friend send for the House of Commons nurse to aid them?
Mr. Byers: One reason might be that there are no Conservative Members of Parliament to represent the 80,000 people in Wales who benefit from the national minimum wage and will benefit from the increase announced today.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that I am never miserable and that I have always supported the principle of a national minimum wage—indeed, I operated a company in the United States that was subject to the national minimum wage. However, he will recall that in 1997 his own party predicted a national minimum wage of between £5 and £5.50 an hour, which is why the Conservative party said that the result would be high unemployment. Far from the Conservatives being "wrong, wrong, wrong", as he put it, the national minimum wage is just another Labour promise made in 1997 that was broken, broken, broken.
Mr. Byers: I think that the hon. Gentleman opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage. He will be aware that when we appointed the Low Pay Commission, we said that it was for it to decide the level at which the minimum wage should be introduced. The hon. Gentleman said that
"the minimum wage and other Bills going through Parliament will harm rather than enhance women's employment prospects."—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 67]
He has forgotten that there are more than 600,000 more women in work now than there were under the Conservative Government. There are more women in work, and they are better paid because 70 per cent. of them benefit from the national minimum wage.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend rightly received wide-scale plaudits last Friday when he visited the north-west, announcing improvements in the science base. Today, he will receive more plaudits from other parts of the community.

31
When he next visits the north-west, may I invite him to see lone parents in my constituency who have benefited in their attempts to get into work and obtain real paid work that takes them off benefit as a result of the minimum wage policy? The policy has made a fundamental difference to those people and others. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that message goes back to the Low Pay Commission? Will he tell it to keep up the good work, and will the Government continue to support the commission?
Mr. Byers: One reason that the Low Pay Commission is such a strong body is that it visits regions and talks to those who have benefited from the national minimum wage, as well as employers who are responsible for paying that wage. The members of the commission have a balanced and rounded approach to the recommendations that they make.
I have no doubt that my announcement will be good news for the tens of thousands in the north-west who will benefit from it. It is about ensuring that work pays and that there is real dignity for those in the workplace. The national minimum wage is an important element in securing those objectives.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What advice would the Secretary of State give to small business men and women who perhaps employ only one or two people and work many more hours than their employees? Given the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, their net take-home pay will be considerably less than that of the employee in receipt of the minimum wage. Will the Government make up their wages through the social security system? That cannot be done now because they are self-employed. If someone cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel in terms of his business—he may be a farmer, for example—should he sell up before the increase in the minimum wage comes into effect in October?
Mr. Byers: When the Low Pay Commission considered its recommendation, it looked at the impact that it would have on all sectors of the economy. I am confident that the recommendation that we have been prepared to agree will escape the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is a balanced approach. It is prudent and bold in that there is a significant increase, but it is being introduced in a way that will not adversely affect the economy or employment generally.
Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be extremely welcome in my constituency, where more than 2,000 people—most of them women—have already benefited from the national minimum wage.
There are always Scrooge employers who try to use every dodgy practice going to avoid paying a penny. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his Department will mount an effective publicity campaign so that people know what they are entitled to? A clear message must be sent to miserly bosses that they need to pay what is due to people.
Mr. Byers: We need to ensure that there is effective enforcement, and we have committed a good deal of time
32
and resources to that end. Enforcement will be one of the issues covered by the Low Pay Commission in the second volume of its report, which will be available in a few months' time. We lave put measures in place to ensure that people are aware of their entitlement. We have already run an advertising campaign; no doubt we will want to do so again, to publicise the fact that there is to be an increase to £4.10 in October. In the interim, individuals or employers who need guidance or have questions should contact our helpline number, which is 0845 6000 678.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State referred to benefits for women, especially in respect of the hotel and catering industry. Has he had time to read the latest Bank of England quarterly report, which indicates that the trend in the increase in employment is less towards full-time jobs and much more biased towards part-time jobs? Does he recognise that the increase in the national minimum wage will therefore involve less full-time employment and an increase in part-time employment? That is fine if that is what women want when their children are at school, but not if the women are the main breadwinners and bringing up young children.
Mr. Byers: As I said, the rates will be the same, whether employees are full-time or part-time. As a result of today's announcement, the national minimum wage will go up to £4.10 an hour from this October. It is important that people have a genuine choice; many of them choose to work part-time. I welcome the fact that, as a result of employment growth under this Government, people now have that option and can decide how to balance their lives. If people want to work reduced hours or go part-time, it is important that they should be entitled to do that, particularly if they have responsibilities for child care or looking after an ageing parent. In a genuinely flexible work force, employees can choose to work fewer hours, if that is what they want.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he confirm that there are no grounds at all for differential rates, whether by sector or geographic region? In particular, will he resist calls from Liberal Democrat Members for a lower rate in the south-west and Yorkshire and Humberside?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out what the Liberal Democrats' policy was; I am not sure what it is nowadays. [HON. MEMBERS: "Neither are they."] That is probably right. When the national minimum wage was introduced, the Liberal Democrats wanted regional differences in the application of the rate, which would obviously have an adverse impact not just on Yorkshire and Humberside, but on the north-east, the north-west and Wales in particular Under this Government, the national minimum wage is exactly that: it is a national minimum, which does not vary according to sector or geographical location. Wherever someone works in the United Kingdom, in whatever sector, in whatever size of organisation, he or she will be able to get the benefit of the increase that we have announced today.
Mr. John Bercow: I accept that a powerful case has been made for the national minimum wage and that my fears about it have not been realised—

33
[Interruption.] I do not find that embarrassing; my mother always said that it was quite a good idea, and I probably should have listened to her earlier.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that farmers who earn substantially less than the national minimum wage will shortly be on the receiving end of Government largesse? Further to the pertinent inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what specific discussions he is having, or intends to have, with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business about the impact of the uprating on micro businesses?
Mr. Byers: The important point is that the Low Pay Commission has consulted and engaged with all organisations and has considered the impact of the national minimum wage. We, too, have looked at its impact, and are confident that some difficulties about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned will not arise. The report was published early in the cycle to ensure that small businesses have plenty of notice of the intention to introduce an increase in October this year. We are now giving them that notice. I have no doubt—and this point was reflected in the report—that, with that period of notice, the change will be manageable for micro businesses and other small businesses.
Helen Jackson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly as it comes at the beginning of international women's week? Is he aware that, before the statutory minimum wage, countless women went out to work, often part-time, for what was derogatively called "pin money"? One effect of the statutory minimum wage has been to raise the status of part-time work—for example, in cleaning and private care homes, where formerly work was nothing more than exploitation.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. Before we introduced the national minimum wage, there is no doubt that there was exploitation of workers, especially of women in the workplace. Through the introduction of the national minimum wage, we have made sure that work pays for those women, and that part-time workers have the same rights as full-time workers. They are no longer treated legally as second-class citizens. We will ensure that part-time work has status and dignity. Of course, the majority of people working part-time are women, so I am pleased that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we made the announcement at the beginning of international women's week.
Mr. Chris Pond: I know that the whole House will want to congratulate the mother of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on her good sense. It is sad that she did not have more influence on him, so that we could have avoided a single sitting of 23 and a half hours in Standing Committee while he and his colleagues tried to talk down the national minimum wage.
I welcome my right hon. Friends confirmation, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), that the youth rate will be considered before October. Did my right hon. Friend hear Mr. Chris Humphries of the British Chambers of Commerce this
34
morning, when he said that his members, mostly small and medium-sized firms, did not oppose the national minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the membership of that organisation—firms with fewer than 100 employees—were exempted, that would mean the abolition of the minimum wage for a large number of vulnerable employees?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out that if employers with fewer than 100 employees were granted an exemption from the national minimum wage, hundreds of thousands of people would lose the benefits of it. That is why we stated clearly that it should apply to all employers. I did listen to Chris Humphries this morning. I know that the British Chambers of Commerce endorses the principle of a national minimum wage, and I hope that now that he has had an opportunity to see the details of our proposals, he will welcome our approach to the matter.
On the specifics of the youth rate, my hon. Friend can be assured that the second volume of the Low Pay Commission report for this year will address it within the next two or three months. When the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has read the Low Pay Commission report, he will see that it considered in detail the impact of differentials in relation to the recommendations that it made. In the light of that, the Low Pay Commission recommended a significant increase, which the Government have endorsed.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of the youth rate? When he considers the next report, which will deal with the youth rate, will he also consider extending the national minimum wage to young people aged 16 to 18? As I am sure he is aware, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many 16-year-olds are grossly exploited because they are not covered by the national minimum wage, and some employers take great advantage of that. Will he consider, too, the problem of the increasing benefit trap in areas of high housing costs? When people get a job, the loss of benefit combined with very high rent costs unfortunately means that they are worse off. Finally, will he put another 90p on the national minimum wage?
Mr. Byers: The Low Pay Commission has been charged with the responsibility of examining the youth rate, but we have not restricted that to the existing youth rate; we have specifically asked the commission to examine the position of 16 and 17-year-olds, so they will be covered by the second volume of the report, which is due in a couple of months.
As for the impact of the national minimum wage on the benefits system, the Government keep it under review generally, because it is important that the existing barriers to work—my hon. Friend identified one of them—are removed, so that people are rewarded when they go out to work and recognise that there is a better future for them in work than on benefit. It is important that the barriers are removed wherever possible.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Devon and Cornwall, where pay is traditionally very low. Thousands of families in the region have benefited from the national minimum wage, so is it not telling that not a

35
single Conservative or Liberal Member from those counties is present to welcome the announcement? Furthermore, is it not time that we were given a fulsome apology by those who opposed the minimum wage? They claimed that it would boost unemployment, but there is record employment in Devon and Cornwall and throughout the country, and it is still rising.
Mr. Byers: I welcome the fact that we have been proved right on the introduction of the national minimum wage. As my hon. Friend said, it benefits the tens of thousands of people in Devon and Cornwall who have been taken out of poverty pay because of its introduction. Those people will benefit also from the significant increase that will be made in October, as I have announced. I share his disappointment that no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members who represent constituencies in the south-west were present to hear the announcement.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: In low-paid constituencies such as mine, the announcement of the £4.10 figure will be much welcomed, as will the assurance that the Low Pay Commission will continue its work, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to continuing the national minimum wage at the right level and to ensuring that it will be relevant in future years.
There is one further thing that we should do in relation to the minimum wage: we should recognise that many employees are worth a lot more than the minimum. We must urge employers who can afford to pay more not to rest on the floor of the minimum wage. When they can pay more and their workers deserve more, we should ensure that a fair wage is paid.
Mr. Byers: The minimum wage is a safety net below which no employer can legally go. Obviously, it is to be hoped that individuals who merit a higher wage will receive proper rewards, but I am pleased that thousands of hard-working people in Burnley will benefit from today's announcement. The minimum wage is about rewarding communities and individuals, and that is exactly what it does. As a result of the increase, 1.5 million people will be better off in October than they would otherwise have been.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the Opposition's forced weasel words of support, there can be no doubt that if a Conservative Government were elected, the national minimum wage would be allowed to wither on the vine? Does he also agree that the success with which the measure has been introduced and extended should give us greater confidence to proceed with further family friendly employment policies?
Mr. Byers: I agree with that final point. We must ensure a balance so that work and family life can be lived to the full. My hon. Friend was also right to point out the Opposition's view. It was the shadow Chancellor who announced what appeared to be a policy U-turn by saying that the Opposition would support the national minimum wage. He did so having had very little consultation with his Front-Bench colleagues.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How do you know?
Mr. Byers: Because they have told me. Later, on the "Today" programme, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said: "You know, we're not great enthusiasts about the minimum wage." That is absolutely right.
Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Byers: At least the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) agrees with that. He is among the foremost of those who do not believe in the national minimum wage, bur the reality is that most Conservative Front-Bench Members who speak on trade and industry matters do not believe in it either.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that north-east England will benefit most from the minimum wage? It is another great achievement for the Government, but, above all, it is a socialist achievement.
Mr. Byers: It is an achievement that manages to combine economic efficiency and social justice. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased for the thousands of people in Blyth Valley who will benefit from the increase announced today. Indeed, hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north-east will take particular pleasure in the announcement. We know that for far too long, good, hard-working people in the region that we represent have simply not been rewarded for their endeavours. As a result of the national minimum wage, that is now happening, and they will benefit from the significant increase that is to be made in October of this year.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend realise that fewer than a dozen Conservative Back Benchers are present to hear his statement? They have escaped an afternoon of humiliation here by going to their constituents to apologise for being wrong for the past 22 years. Members of the shadow Cabinet are reversing all the policies that do not match the Government's, while others, such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), are busy working out which party to support in the general election.
Does my right hon. Friend agree—I am sure that he will—that the announcement is a great triumph for the Labour Government? It means that 3,000 of my constituents, who faced the daily insult of dirt pay for many years, will earn wages that will lift them out of the dependency culture and give them a reasonable reward for their labours.
Mr. Byers: There is no doubt that the national minimum wage has taken people out of poverty pay and that it rewards them for their endeavours. The significant increase that we have been able to announce today will make a real difference, not only to my hon. Friend's constituency but to the 1.5 million people and their families who rely on the national minimum wage. Today's announcement constitutes a genuine benefit for them; they know that it was introduced by a Labour Government and

37
that it is safe under this Government. They also know that the Conservatives do not believe in a and would take it away at the first opportunity.
Mr. David Watts: Many small employers in my constituency will welcome today's announcement because, for many years, they were seriously undercut by employers who offered £1 and £2 an hour.
Now that we have acted on pay, will my right hon. Friend consider the many people who are on temporary employment contracts? They continue to suffer because they have no security of tenure.
Mr. Byers: On my hon. Friend's final point, we are considering the fixed term directive and the steps that we need to take on that.
My hon. Friend made the important point that many small businesses encouraged the Government to introduce the national minimum wage because they were worried about the way in which other small businesses exploited their position and paid very low wages.
The Government have set up an enforcement line and many calls have come from employers, not employees, who have told the Inland Revenue and my Department about other employers who pay wages that are below the national minimum level. That demonstrates that business accepts the national minimum wale as an important provision. Indeed, it is widely accepted and welcomed, not only by those who receive the benefit of it but by decent, fair-minded people who know that a national minimum wage is about decency. At the beginning of the 21st century, the least that we can expect of a Government is the introduction of such a provision, We have done that, and we are proud of it.

Points of Order
4.33 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall the anxiety that was expressed by hon. Members of all parties last week about the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and especially hon. Members' wish to obtain as much information as possible from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Departments. It is natural at such a time that our constituents may want to apply to us for information that they are experiencing difficulty in obtaining, or for clarification of that information. To be fair, the Minister of Agriculture responded to those anxieties by saying that he would establish information machinery for hon. Members.
I received two difficult constituency representations and rang the Minister's private office. I refer to you and your judgment on that matter, Mr. Speaker, because, to my surprise, the private office referred me to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), the Parliamentary Private Secretary, and her private office. I believe that that is unprecedented. I make no complaint about the courtesy with which my inquiry was handled, and I am sure that the person who spoke to me wanted to be as helpful as possible, but, given the seriousness of the matter, it is somewhat cock-eyed and inappropriate to handle it in that way.
Would it not be better for those who listen to these issues to take the matter back to the Ministry and set up proper machinery at an official level, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can refer their cause to the Ministry and get the matter officially clarified?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not know that my hon. Friend was going to raise the issue, but I would like to concur with what he said. A way must be found for Members of Parliament to put cases directly to Ministers. I rang the Minister's private office not long ago, and was also directed to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly).
A farmer in my constituency has calving heifers on land about two miles away from his farm. He is unable to get to those animals and to be with them while they are calving. The Minister must come to the House and make a statement, so that hon. Members have the opportunity to raise such concerns as these.
Mr. Speaker: The points of order raised by both hon. Members are matters for the Minister. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I got the feeling that he wanted to give as much information to the House as possible. I am sure that the concerns expressed by both hon. Members will be noted by the Minister and taken on board.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
4.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I shall not let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to a great Welshman who, sadly, was buried a week ago. Cledwyn Hughes was a great Welshman because of his passion for Wales: in that, few were his equal and none his master. His passion for devolution was deep, but he was also proud to be British and I know that, were he here, he would argue strongly for the continued partnership between London and Cardiff in the post-devolution world.
Cledwyn Hughes was also a great Welshman because he was a true internationalist. He stood opposed to fascism in the 1930s because he knew that events on the continent of Europe were not about far-away lands of which we knew little, but had a direct bearing on all of us on these islands, too. He was a man who had the vision to see the importance of Europe for Britain's future. At the Welsh Labour party conference last week, Neil Kinnock lamented Cledwyn's passing and expressed his regret that he had never been made Foreign Secretary. I, too, feel that history would have been very different—and that that difference would have been to the benefit of all of Britain—had that appointment been made.
The past few days have been trying times for many people in Wales. I know that the House will want to express its sympathy and understanding for the many involved in farming in Wales who face desperate worry and uncertainty as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Those involved expect the Government, Parliament and the Assembly to act, and act collectively we have. We have acted speedily to do what we can to restrict the spread of this infection. We have acted to give local authorities the powers that they need to restrict public access to footpaths and bridleways. Again, I urge the public to stay off those paths, and warn anyone who breaks the law that they will face the prospect of heavy fines.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making the point about staying off footpaths. I am a keen walker, and was walking in Talyllyn in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) only two weeks ago. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to emphasise that people should not only stay off the footpaths that are clearly marked, but refrain from crossing fields and other areas that may not be clearly marked as out of bounds?
Mr. Murphy: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am glad that he was walking in Wales some weeks ago.
We have started to allow the movement of healthy animals for slaughter and subsequent sale. The House will know that we must proceed with caution, so movements have been relatively limited thus far, and that we have acted to secure agrimonetary compensation for farmers. We have done so through a strong partnership between Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. All the Ministers involved—my right hon. Friend the Minister of
40
Agriculture, Carwyn Jones, Ross Finnie and Brid Rogers—deserve credit for their willingness to act swiftly and decisively.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State rightly refers to compensation and the European funding that is being accessed to help farmers. He will be very much aware that others directly associated with the agriculture industry such as slaughterhouses, hauliers and others will equally be hit and may be put out of business. Indeed, the tourist areas of Wales are being hit especially hard and bookings over Easter might be undermined by these developments. Is there any help at all that the Government foresee being available to those who are indirectly affected by this tragedy?
Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman will know that in previous outbreaks of the disease farmers who lost their stock were directly compensated. There was a danger that their stock would infect other stock. Consequential compensation has not yet been considered, but I shall make sure that his points are put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: At the weekend, I spoke to my brother-in-law, who is a farmer, and to other farmers about compensation. A number of people have been indirectly affected. Many of my constituents are small hoteliers. They have been drastically affected by the cancellation of the rugby match, which was entirely to do—[Interruption.] These are not small matters, as the cancellation meant losses of £5 million to the Welsh Rugby Union and considerably more to small hoteliers around Cardiff. If indirect compensation is considered, I hope that the Government will take account of matters such as the cancellation of major events, which have large knock-on effects for many small businesses.
Mr. Murphy: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the compensation has so far been limited to those who are directly losing their stock, which would pose a danger to other stock. His points about Cardiff are well taken and I am sure that my colleagues in other Departments will take note of them. I do not underestimate the problems that have arisen because of the disease, which in some senses go far beyond the farms themselves, but compensation was not paid in respect of such matters in the past.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This morning, I heard that slaughterhouses are seeking to exploit the situation by reducing the price that they offer farmers. If that is happening, does the Secretary of State wholly deplore it, because farmers are in a desperate situation and they need to get their meat to slaughterhouses? Will the Government do everything they can to facilitate farmers getting their stock to slaughter where it is safe to do so, and, in the longer term, will he undertake to consider with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reopening more small slaughterhouses so that animals do not have to be carted vast distances to slaughter?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and Members from Welsh constituencies will be aware that a number of abattoirs have opened to receive such stock in north

41
Wales, mid-Wales and south and west Wales. I take his point, which is valid and, if I may say so, very interventionist for a Conservative, but obviously we are all conscious of the problems that the disease has brought to our local communities—not simply those that are wholly rural, but mixed communities, to which I shall refer later.
I find it extraordinary that so many Conservative Members seem to think that there is something outrageous about the idea of strength going hand in hand with diversity. That is absolutely and completely what devolution is about: Welsh domestic approaches to Welsh domestic matters in a strong partnership with the United Kingdom Government.
There is a corollary to that. Serious politicians spend their energies tackling problems that they have an ability to influence, and that is the approach Taken by the Labour party in the National Assembly. The Welsh nationalists, Plaid Cymru, seem to have other ideas. They see the Assembly as little more than a platform for their own ideas. They have nothing of substance to offer by way of an alternative to the programme being implemented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and his Administration, but that is for them to deal with in the Assembly.
The Conservatives, too, have their plans. No doubt they will make plenty of attacks on the Assembly Administration in this debate. They seem unable to face up to the fact that devolution is here and that it works. They will get over it sooner or later—probably later. Much later, I expect.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. Does he accept that it is not only Conservatives who criticise the operations of the Welsh Assembly? His colleague, the First Secretary, staled in the Western Mail on 10 October 2000:
"The National Assembly is very unstable and far too prone to concentrating on procedural points of order, votes of no confidence and petty wrangling, instead of getting on with the job in hand—that of making decisions."
Does the Secretary of State agree with that?
Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many Conservatives were involved in such activity. My right hon. Friend was referring to the need for stability in the National Assembly. The partnership in the Assembly between my party and the Liberal Democrats exists to ensure stability.
This Wales day debate will be of considerable interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a Welsh person. It marks another milestone in the history of the new, post-devolution Wales. It offers us, as Members of the House of Commons, a chance to look back at a full year of devolution. It gives all of us an opportunity to review the work of the UK Government, and to consider what might happen in the year ahead.
I am, of course, fully confident that the people of Wales, when they come to decide will endorse the Government's record. Some figures published in the past few weeks might help the House to understand why I am so confident about that outcome.
First, the new earnings survey published in December showed that the earnings of full-time employees in Wales rose by 4 per cent. between April 1999 and April 2000.
42
That was the second highest figure for any part of the UK, and it compares with an increase of just 1 per cent. in London and 2.6 per cent. in the south-east. The reason for that increase is clear: the national minimum wage. To emphasise the point, the same survey showed that the earnings of adult women in Wales rose not by 4 per cent., but by 5 per cent. The minimum wage has helped more than 80,000 Welsh people, which represents almost one in 10 of Welsh employees. It is a pay rise from the Government for all those people in Wales. Only today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a further increase in the minimum wage: another pay rise for many thousands of people in Wales. As I said to the Welsh Grand Committee recently, that Labour pay rise was for years resisted by the Conservative party.
I should also like to draw the House's attention to the policy of the Liberal Democrats. They thought that it was wrong that Welsh employees, especially Welsh women, had such pay increases thanks to the minimum wage. Their policy was—or is, unless it has changed—a regionally varied minimum wage, which would mean lower wages for Wales.
Mr. Richard Livsey: That is not the case. I have never supported a regional minimum wage. I believe that the minimum wage is being misused by powerful companies in, for example, the health care industry. They go down to the lowest common denominator and take on new employees at the lowest possible level, which did not happen before, when they were in the national health service, for instance.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for that intervention, but I am not much clearer about the policy of the Liberal Democrats on the national minimum wage. At least the Conservative shadow spokesman for trade and industry said that, although his party had misgivings, it welcomed today's announcement. But there we are. We shall wait and see.
After the earnings figures published in December came the employment figures. I know that many people in Wales still face the threat of redundancy, and at least 300 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their jobs with Corus.
On Friday, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, I met representatives of all the steel plants affected by the company's proposals. We listened not just to the expressions of justified anger and upset—how else would we expect workers at some of the most efficient steel plants in the world to react when faced with closure announcements?—but to people who were determined to do all that they could to keep as many jobs as possible at those plants.
Mr. Barry Jones: Steel workers at Shotton are very grateful to my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Private Secretary for what they have tried to do to help them in the corridors of power, notwithstanding the 400 redundancies that we face at that plant.

43
Are the Government considering any measures to take into account the comparatively high wages that young redundant steel workers have been earning? Will it be possible to make up the difference when those workers have new jobs?
Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend has worked hard on behalf of his constituents at Shotton. As he knows, the Government are considering a variety of packages. He will also know that, as we speak, the trade unions are working out alternatives to the Corns proposals. It would be wrong for me to go into detail until those alternatives had been put to the management.
The trade unions' pitch to Corns is firmly based on the commercial realities of the steel industry. We in the Government and the Assembly are pledged to do all that we can, within the tight constraints of the coal and steel community treaties and codes, to assist them. It is a tragedy that Corns has so far refused to engage constructively with either the unions or the Government, but I hope the whole House will join me in urging the chief executive, the chairman, Sir Brian Moffat, and his colleagues to listen to the unions' commercially based proposals.
Mr. Huw Edwards: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the chief executive and chairman gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on Thursday. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) suggested to the chairman, Sir Brian Moffat, that the Bryngwyn plant was profitable, the chairman stated that he had no knowledge of its profitability. Does that not demonstrate the incompetence of senior management who are prepared to shut a plant regardless of whether it is profitable?
Mr. Murphy: That is clearly of considerable concern; but what concerns all of us who represent steel constituencies in Wales such as Ebbw Vale. Shotton, Gorseinon and Llanwern is the fact that steel plants that are among the most efficient and productive in Europe, if not the most efficient, are to close or at least partially close. That strikes me as a national tragedy from a Welsh and indeed a British point of view.
Mr. John Smith: I am sure most Members support all that my right hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that if Sir Brian Moffat proceeds with his proposals, does not listen to the unions and decimates the steel industry, the knighthood that he received for services to the industry should be withdrawn?
Mr. Murphy: I am not in a position to comment on Sir Brian's honour. I am much more interested in what he is proposing to do to 3,000 people in Wales, their families and their communities. I hope he will listen very carefully to the alternatives that the unions and others will put to him in the next week or two.
Steel, however, is not the only industry in Wales. In recent weeks we have seen Ford's £240 million investment in the Bridgend engine works, which will create or secure 500 jobs in a leading-edge technology. Investment of £17 million is going to Mostyn docks in
44
north Wales to secure 85 new jobs. There are 100 new jobs at IQE in Cardiff, announced in December, and 83 at Surface Technology Systems in Newport. Moreover, 1,700 jobs are to be created by BAE, and 1,000 are to be safeguarded at General Domestic Appliances. There are to be 400 jobs at Lloyds TSB, 400 at On:Line Finance and 230 at Paramount Food. There will be 264 new high-tech jobs at Wireless Systems International in my constituency, and 110 at Pure Wafer Ltd.
Manufacturing output and manufacturing investment are rising. There have been difficult times, but the climate, including the relative exchange rate between the pound and the euro, is improving. Manufacturing output is up 3.5 per cent. Exports are up 9 per cent. in the past year alone. Inward investment since 1997 is worth £2.2 billion.
Overall, the increase in jobs in Wales has outstripped any losses by 17,000 in the past year. That rate of growth is greater than that in the UK as a whole. It is greater even than that in London or the south-east of England, but jobs are not the last piece of good news for the Welsh economy. Last week, the Office for National Statistics published new data on regional GDP. I know that those data are often subject to change and reassessment, but it is only fair that I quote it, given that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has been so happy to use it in the past few weeks. He said:
"The latest regional estimates, published on 27 June by the Office for National Statistics…show a decline in GDP per head in Wales relative to that of the whole UK".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 November 2000, Vol. 357, c. 216WH.]
Perhaps he might wish to use any speech that he might make this afternoon to update the House. The latest figures, published on 27 February, show that Wales's relative share of GDP has risen from 80.2 per cent. of the UK average in 1998—itself a figure that was revised upwards—to 80.5 per cent. in 1999.
What matters to our constituents? Do more jobs matter to them? We are getting that. Does better pay matter to them? We are getting that. Does more prosperity matter to them? We are getting that. Do low interest rates matter to them? Interest rates are falling. Does low inflation matter to them, too? Inflation excluding mortgage rates is at its lowest since records began; including mortgage costs, it is enjoying its longest run at low levels for many decades.
I know that many in our rural communities feel that they are suffering from particular economic stress—something more than just the immediate effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. Labour Members are more than aware of that feeling. Mine is a mixed constituency: I represent farmers as well as steel workers in the House. Overall, the Labour party represents more rural and semi-rural constituencies in the House than all the other parties in Wales combined; indeed, it represents more such constituencies than all the other parties in the UK combined.
We—the UK Government and the National Assembly—are acting to assist rural communities, and not just through the £15 billion that is paid in subsidy to farming throughout the UK every year. The Assembly is acting in partnership with the Strategic Rail Authority to improve rural rail-bus links and to restore passenger services to the Vale of Glamorgan.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Before the Secretary of State moves off the economy, will he confirm that,

45
when the Government came to power, Wales's GDP was 82.8 per cent. of the UK average and that what the Government have presided over—there has been a slight readjustment lately—is a decline in GDP of more than 2 per cent.?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that Wales is getting better—in its economy, prosperity, jobs and in the relative way in which people live in Wales. That is typical of the Welsh nationalist party. All the time, it grumbles and whinges about what the economy is like when everyone knows, in his constituency, in my constituency—in the constituencies of all of us who represent Welsh seats—that things are getting an awful lot better.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Murphy: I give way to someone who does not represent a Welsh constituency, but we will listen to what he says.
Dr. Lewis: Unlike me, the Secretary of State was not, I believe, born in Wales. Will he, in his great concern for the farming community in Wales, dissociate himself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who stated on "Farming Today" on 22 March:
"Of course there are farmers in serious difficulties, but I believe they have greatly exaggerated their case. And much of their case is based on distortions or plain untruths."
If that were not good enough, he was also quoted in Farmers Weekly on 4 February as saying:
"And the main reason why there's a large number of suicides among farmers is because they have shotguns handy."
Does the Secretary of State dissociate himself from those remarks?
Mr. Murphy: First, I should like to say that I most certainly was born in Wales. I was born in the parish of Llanbradach, near Usk, which at the time, I suppose, was in Monmouthshire—although in out hearts that was a Welsh county. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just returned to the Chamber and can reply to the hon. Gentleman's comments after we inform him of them.
The Assembly's rural development plan has been accepted by the European Commission, so in future subsidy payments to agriculture will be modulated, with additional United Kingdom Exchequer funds to strengthen not only farming but rural communities more generally. It is of course fallacious to suggest that measures such as the children's tax credit or the minimum wage work only to the benefit of urban areas. As I have already said, most Members in Wales represent mixed constituencies. I know that those measures are as important in rural parts of Torfaen as they are elsewhere.
In last year's Welsh affairs debate, I was able to tell the House that the Government had agreed to establish in statute a Children's Commissioner for Wales.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of the serious crisis hitting so many parts of Wales, may I tell him something? No one would begrudge the full compensation that the farming
46
community will receive for the nightmare that it is going through, but if we are in the business of compensating all the citizens of Wales who are suffering severe losses because of no fault of their own, should we not also be thinking of compensation for steel workers who may be losing their livelihoods, many of whom will probably never work again? I am told that, in redundancy payments and other compensation, they will be receiving about one fifth of what Dutch steel workers would receive. In this era of compensation, with all the incidental losses being suffered by people outside the farming industry, should we not be thinking of full compensation for steel workers?
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to compare what would happen to a steel worker's family with what would happen to a farmer's family when we hit times as bad as we are experiencing now. Some of his comments have probably dealt with the points made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
As I said, the Government agreed to establish a children's commissioner. That announcement reflected the importance of this House and this Parliament in passing primary legislation for the people of Wales. Since our last Wales day debate, my office has overseen the parliamentary passage of new Welsh law not only on the children's commissioner, but on care standards more generally, on education, on training and on local government.
When we first dealt with the issue of the children's commissioner, we were limited to using the legislative vehicle then available—which has become the Care Standards Act 2000. That necessarily led to the creation of a commissioner with a limited role. However, I am pleased to say that, as we all know, our further measure was welcomed on both sides of the House and quickly passed into law. I am very grateful for the co-operation that was shown by all parties on the children's commissioner.
Today I am in an even happier position. On 1 March—less than one year after our announcement in last year's debate—the new commissioner took up his post. A Bill to widen the scope of his work to the full canvas of the Assembly's work is now being considered in another place, having completed its passage through this place in a matter of weeks, with, as I said, the co-operation of all parties. This year, Parliament has debated not only the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, but Welsh aspects of the modernisation of the national health service.
As hon. Members may recall, last year the present Conservative spokesman on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) told the House:
"Labour has also failed to ensure that Wales receives its funding from the European Union."
Moreover, despite the Prime Minister's promises, the hon. Gentleman added:
"Labour is refusing to give a commitment to secure the extra funding that Wales needs."—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 649.]
The hon. Gentleman was, of course, referring to the funding of the objective 1 programme. As the House knows, objective 1 is an opportunity for west Wales and the valleys to catch up some of the economic ground that they lost in the 18 years of the Conservative Government. It must

47
therefore have been something of an embarrassment to the hon. Gentleman when, in last July's spending review, we did indeed fully fund the objective 1 programme.
Mr. Robert Walter: I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not quite understand the point being made not only by me but by other hon. Members—those in other parties, as well as those in the Conservative party. We were talking not only about the European Union funding, but about the additional funding that was supposed to come from the United Kingdom Government. There was no additional funding from the Government; the only additional funding comes from the existing block grant to the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken; he knows that almost £500 million over the next three years will be additional to the Barnett block. If that is not additional, I do not know what is. He does not understand the funding arrangement. As he will be aware, both when the Conservative Government were in power and when I was a Northern Ireland Minister dealing with such matters, all the money involved in objective 1 structural funding—in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or England—had to be found from the block itself.
The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand, first, that the block has become much bigger in the past year—it is the biggest settlement ever paid to Wales by a United Kingdom Government—or, secondly, that between £400 million and £500 million will be paid over and above the Barnett formula in the next three years, so that we can draw down those funds. That represents an enormous development in the way in which public finances work. Any hon. Member—from whichever party—who suggests that that does not represent a major surplus for Wales does not understand the nature of that funding.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Murphy: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to make the same point as the hon. Member for North Dorset, because he knows that it is wrong.
Mr. Wigley: I understand the nature of the funding, and I welcome part of what the Secretary of State has just said. He has acknowledged that until now, not one brass farthing of European money over and above the Barnett block has come to Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom that is supposed to receive money from Europe. Will he acknowledge that, whereas we are supposed to receive £180 million a year for objective 1 from Europe, we do not, in fact, get that much in addition to the Barnett formula? We receive a sum above the Barnett level, but not the full £180 million—let alone the necessary match funding. That is why expenditure on education in Wales is being increased by a lower proportion than expenditure on education in England; the money has to be diverted to provide the match funding.
Mr. Murphy: Obviously I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Here are the figures: the additional funding in 2001–02—the new financial year, which begins in a few weeks—will be £113 million; the year
48
after, it will be £148 million; and the year after that, it will be £160 million. That amounts to £421 million in total over those three years. The point is that in the past, all the money had to be found from the block itself, but those sums are additional to the block. That is a major change in the way in which we deal with public finances. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if the United Kingdom Government were not prepared to pay that money, the same amount would come from money raised in Wales alone? I very much doubt whether it would.
Mr. Alun Michael: I suppose that we have heard the nearest that we shall ever get to an apology from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for supporting a lie in the Welsh Assembly just over a year ago. It is just as well that that did not happen in the House. Will my right hon. Friend invite the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Plaid Cymru to stop the continual whingeing that we have heard for so long, support the initiatives that objective 1 status can produce and start to help to improve the economy of Wales, instead of damaging it by continually discouraging people from proposing schemes?
Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend is right. There was a lot of fuss and bother about whether we would get that money, but we did get it, and in a special way. However, all our energies in Wales were spent on arguing with each other about whether the money would come, rather than on preparing the schemes for the objective 1 areas, which are so important. We must not fall into that trap again. The money is there, the will is there, and it is now up to everyone in Wales—from north to south and from east to west—to encourage the partnerships and to ensure that we spend the money wisely.
As I said, it must have been something of an embarrassment to the hon. Member for North Dorset that the funding was found. He denies that he was embarrassed by his failure to understand the issues, but the money is there. His embarrassment could only have been compounded when Conservative central office denounced that decision, and the rest of the spending review, as a "public spending binge" and as a return to "tax and spend".
The briefing for Members of Parliament—it was for Conservative Members, I hasten to add, but I am pleased to say that a copy has also found its way to me—goes on to say that there is a £16 billion spending gap between what the Conservatives say is affordable and what Labour plans to spend. However, Wales will suffer badly if the Conservatives ever get their chance to close this "gap", because the 2000 spending review increased Welsh spending through the block faster than Government spending as a whole. The Welsh block will rise by about £2 billion over the next three years. That means more money for schools and more money for health. Welsh services dealt with outside the block, such as the police, have also done well, so there is also more money for policing in Wales.
How do the Tories propose to fill that gap? I know: they will cut, cut and cut. They will cut our schools budget, they will cut our health budget and they will cut our police budgets. In Wales, they will slash the very objective 1 budget that the hon. Member for North Dorset commended only a year ago. What else could we expect from a party that has swung so decisively against Europe?

49
Yesterday's speech by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was condemned by the Financial Times today as
"as disingenuous as it is distasteful".
The reality, as the newspaper makes clear, is that the Tory anti-European bandwagon is now hurtling towards the precipice marked "Withdrawal". As the newspaper's leader column adds:
"Short of British withdrawal from the EU, the Tories are making promises that cannot be delivered."
Withdrawal from Europe would represent an economic and political disaster for the whole United Kingdom, and for Wales in particular; we would suffer most. Conservative prejudice and intolerance would leave thousands out of work, close off our export markets and destroy our agriculture.
Of course, the Tories' intolerance finds its echo in the words of Councillor Seimon Glyn. [Interruption.] I thought that Plaid Cymru Members would be upset by this; they do not like to hear about him. His view is that 80 per cent. of his fellow countrymen and countrywomen, such as me, speak a foreign language, and that incomers from Chester need to be "monitored and controlled". I notice that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), the leader of the Welsh National party, is not here today to talk about these issues. The only difference is that while the Tories want to withdraw from Europe, the nationalists want to withdraw from Britain. Of course, many nationalists must want the Tories to be returned to power, because both parties have a common interest in undermining the devolution settlement.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am rising to the right hon. Gentleman's bait on the question of what Seimon Glyn did or did not say. However, did the right hon. Gentleman read what the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said in The Western Mail on Saturday, in which he acknowledged that there was a problem with support for the Welsh language? The silence from the Labour Government on that matter is deafening.
Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend was speaking from Zagreb. I happened to be speaking in Swansea, where the Labour party conference was meeting, and the view from Swansea is very different from the view from Zagreb.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 1980s, Cymdeithas yr laith Gymraeg used the well-known phrase, "Heb waith, dim iaith"? This Government have done more to create work in Welsh language areas and to preserve the language than any Plaid Cymru carping could do.
Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend; I know that she takes an interest in these issues.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State has misrepresented the Conservative party's policies in a way that is unworthy of him. Would he now care to comment on the Labour party's stewardship of the health service in Wales? Since the election, in-patient waiting lists have gone up by nearly 15 per cent., out-patient waiting lists have almost doubled and the number of those waiting for more than six months to see a consultant has gone up by 700 per cent. Will he comment on those figures?
Mr. Murphy: I was wondering when the Conservative party was going to attack the National Assembly. I must
50
tell the hon. Gentleman that the national health service in Wales will, I think, receive an extra £1.3 billion over the next three years. That is the biggest increase ever, and the service treats more people in Wales than ever before.
As for the speech by the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party over the weekend, Welsh people are disturbed by such comments. The devolution settlement, which we all believe is the way ahead, could be seriously undermined by such an attitude to the European Union. Objective 1 European structural funding is vital to ensure that our gross domestic product and economy improve. What would happen if we withdrew from the EU?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State knows that we are not going to do that.
Mr. Murphy: Conservatives suggest the next best thing. They never have a warm word for what comes out of Europe. Their spokesmen, from party leader down, have nothing good to say about the EU, even though the lives of millions of people in Wales will be improved by EU structural funding.
Xenophobia about all things foreign, whether that is expressed towards a foreigner from the EU or a foreigner from England, undermines the devolution settlement and the basic tolerance of the Welsh people. Were the Conservatives to win the election—which they will not—I suspect that this would be the last Adjournment debate on Welsh affairs. It is their policy that all Members of Parliament should cease to be equal. According to the leader of the Conservative party, it is their priority to strip Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament of their rights to vote on many matters that come before the House. For the first time, we would have different classes of Members of Parliament. The Conservatives are supposed to be the party of the Union, but on English laws they plan to have nothing but English votes.
We hear English nationalism from the Conservative party and Welsh nationalism from Plaid Cymru, but none of that coincides with what the Welsh people want. They want to be part of the United Kingdom, and they want their representatives to play a full role in the House of Commons. They do not want to be in a Wales that is split off and cut away from the rest of the UK.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State think it right that the decision on hunting with dogs in Scotland is being taken by the Scottish Parliament, but that Scottish MPs could come here and decide that issue on behalf of England and Wales?
Mr. Murphy: It is right. As soon as we try to make Members of Parliament who represent different parts of the UK have different rights and different ways of operating, we undermine the basis of the House of Commons. The vast majority of hon. Members represent English constituencies. If they all voted together, they would easily outvote Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The House has never divided the way in which it works between different parts of the UK. If that were to happen, it would be a recipe for the break-up of the UK and the House of Commons. Even such an illustrious person as yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, would find it difficult to rule whether this Adjournment debate was a Welsh or a UK matter.

51
Would turkeys vote for Christmas? Would the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) or the hon. Member for North Dorset vote to put themselves out of a job by backing such proposals? If the answer is yes, perhaps they should explain their participation in a debate on Welsh affairs, not to mention their participation in our proceedings on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, when Members of Parliament who represented Scottish, Northern Irish and English constituencies—including even hon. Members from constituencies in Lancashire and Dorset—could come to the House of Commons, participate in the debate and vote on an exclusively Welsh Bill. As soon as we start dividing up matters for debate, that will be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The people of Wales created the Assembly by voting for it. Conservative Members should understand that a combination of their policy and that of the party that wants complete independence from the United Kingdom would undermine the devolution settlement and the unity of the nation.
Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State said that the people voted for the Assembly. Did not 75 per cent. of the Welsh people either abstain or vote against the Assembly?
Mr. Murphy: I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, two Conservative Prime Ministers between 1979 and 1997 represented minority Governments. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman himself was elected with a majority of just over 200, and I suspect that more people voted against him than voted for him.
If the Conservatives' answer to my earlier question is no, we are clearly about to witness another of the policy U-turns that has disfigured their stumbling election campaign over the past few weeks. I await further discussion of that matter. Meanwhile, Labour Members intend to preserve the foundation of democratic rule—the notion that all Members of the House, be they ever so mighty or ever so low, be they Welsh, English or from Northern Ireland, have an equal vote.
The past year has been something of a roller-coaster ride for us all. Those who predicted the death of Welsh parliamentary politics because of the creation of the National Assembly must be feeling rather foolish today. As we have seen, our debates on Welsh matters are as lively as ever, whether they take place on the Floor of the House, in Standing Committee or in the Welsh Grand Committee, yet that has all happened at a time when Wales has had its own political voice in the form of the National Assembly. It is not wishful thinking on my part to state that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom; it is everyday experience. If devolution is to grow and flourish, we must all work constructively with the new institution. Labour Members are fully committed to doing just that.
Our vision is of a strong and confident Wales within a strong and confident United Kingdom. We want a Wales where we enjoy high-quality, efficient public services that are accountable to the people of Wales, and where jobs, education and opportunity are available to all. We want a Wales where we are not afraid of our European partners or our European role, but willing and able to play our part at the very heart of European decision making, both
52
through the United Kingdom and with our own voice where appropriate. Above all, our vision is of a tolerant and inclusive Wales that values all its peoples as its greatest assets. In the past year we have moved closer to all those goals, and in the year ahead I know that we can move closer still.
5.23 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is a delight for me to take part in this annual St. David's day debate. Mostly, we get no delivery from the Government, but we have late delivery of this debate, albeit by only a few days this year.
I share the Secretary of State's sentiments about the late Cledwyn Hughes. He was a Commons man and a Lords man, actively involved in both Houses. He was a parliamentarian for half a century, and there are few people about whom we can say that. He was passionate about Wales, Britain and politics, and politics is the less for his passing. I was in Ynys Môn on the day that he died, and the people there showed genuine sadness at the news of his passing I understand that Holyhead was at a standstill during his funeral, which is a tremendous tribute and mark of respect for a man who loved politics. I believe that politics loved him.
On those matters where the Government are prepared to listen, there is tremendous support from Opposition Members. Indeed, during the current appalling outbreak of foot and mouth, we have fully supported the Government's measures to contain that dreadful disease, which is blighting an industry that was already reeling. We have also demonstrated our support for the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, which was recently passed by the House of Commons and is now proceeding through the House of Lords. We wish that Bill well; we want it to be on the statute book as soon as possible.
However, in many other areas, we are unable to support the Government because they simply do not listen. They are all spin and no delivery. That was reflected in far too many comments mile by the Secretary of State for Wales today. I am amazed that he did not claim credit for Welsh rugby—that he did not spin the news that, when Wales played England this year, Wales came second, which was tremendous news for Welsh rugby. He is all spin and no delivery, which is why many people are becoming increasingly fed up with the Government.
Last Thursday saw two by-elections. One was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), now present; the seat was retained by the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) is looking rather shifty. There was a by-election in his constituency in which the seat was retained by the Conservatives with a swing of 12.5 per cent.
Mr. John Smith: I take offence at that remark uttered in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is being highly disingenuous. He knows well that the by-election in my constituency arose in extremely unusual circumstances, not the least of which was the tragic death of an old friend of mine—politics apart—Councillor Ray Davies.
Mr. Evans: I always welcome the hon. Gentleman's interventions. He is right in what he says about Ray's passing. None the less, the seat was won by the

53
Conservatives with a total vote of 67 per cent. We shall miss the hon. Gentleman's characteristic interventions in debates after the general election, when Susan Inkin will take over from him.
I have been greatly entertained in the past few days by speculation about who is to run the Labour party's campaign in Wales. On 26 February the Western Mail carried the headline "Hain carries flag but is he strong enough?" He might be the weakest link; the next day, the headline read "Murphy—not Hain—to spearhead election drive". In only 24 hours, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was "slapped down" and put in his place.
On 26 February, the Western Mail said that Labour would turn to the hon. Member for Neath
"to spearhead its general election battle in Wales amid fears that the Tories will take key marginal seats."
It said
"Labour fears it could lose to the Conservatives"
in the Vale of Clwyd—the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) is missing—and in Conwy. The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) is also absent: both are probably in their constituencies campaigning. It is good to see other hon. Members whose constituencies were mentioned in the article in the Chamber today. They include the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), whose seats the hon. Member for Neath thinks will be lost by Labour. The hon. Gentleman also warns that the constituencies of Cardiff, North and Vale of Glamorgan might be lost to the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman did not give a comprehensive list, having missed out the constituencies of Clwyd, West and of Cardiff, Central, both of which we believe we will win. Nor was mention made of other seats that we believe we will get, including the Liberal Democrat seats of Brecon and Radnorshire and of Montgomeryshire, as well as Ynys Môn. No doubt, the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) is in his constituency today, leaving only three of the four Plaid Cymru Members pre sent during a Welsh affairs debate that we have only once a year.
The Labour campaign might show itself willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, which brings me to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). He is the First Secretary and self-styled First Minister, which in Welsh is Prime Minister. As for the House, he is the First Secretary. He said:
"Let Labour carry on building the house of socialism in Wales and Westminster … We can deliver so much more for the people of Wales if we are given another chance at the General Election."
Labour will not be given another chance at the general election.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt will want to apologise to the farming industry for some of the appalling and dreadful comments that he has made over the past few years.
Mr. Flynn: I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to his parliamentary profile. It chronicles that when he stood in a by-election in Wales, the Conservative vote slumped from 9,000 to 5,000. It records his memorable remarks in 1992, when with confidence he forecast that at the next
54
election the map of Wales would be bluer. Will he remind us what happened in 1992 and in 1997 to Conservative Members?
Mr. Evans: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not want to address himself to his recent comments about farming, which is in such a plight.
I remember well the by-election that I fought in Pontypridd in 1989: the Conservatives went on to win the 1992 general election. We look forward to the next general election, whenever the Prime Minister decides to call it.
There is no doubt that the
"Labour Party in Wales is in 'crisis', and in … need of regeneration."
I am sure that it agrees about that, and that there is
"a stark warning in Wales in"
the Labour heartlands. I am sure that the Labour party would agree that that is so. It has
"been too complacent for too long"
and it must open up its "style of politics". I am sure that it would agree with that as well. Labour needs
"to regenerate the party otherwise"
it
"will pay the price in the future."
I assume that that refers to the general election that we are about to have. Labour Members have not intervened to attack that view because, of course, those—
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I notice that the hon. Gentleman missed my constituency from his list. It has not been in Conservative hands for more than 100 years.
On support for the Labour party, I remind the hon. Gentleman of an opinion poll that received little publicity last week. It was conducted by National Opinion Poll for HTV, and it gave Labour 52 per cent., Conservatives 19 per cent. and Plaid Cymru 14 per cent. It anticipated a general election result for the Labour party in 2001 almost identical to that in 1997.
Mr. Evans: I ask the hon. Gentleman to get real. The day before the referendum in Wales, we were told by the outcome of an opinion poll that it would be won by 2:1. Instead, it was won by 0.6 per cent. if the hon. Gentleman's belief in opinion polls gets him to sleep at night, and perhaps during the day as well, I am only too happy that he believes in them. We do not. We believe in the polls that have only recently taken place. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Vale of Glamorgan, where there was a swing of 12.5 per cent. to the Conservatives.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the potent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the subsequent challenge by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has still failed either to apologise for or to explain his calumny upon Welsh farmers in accusing them of exaggeration, distortions and plain untruths, and in suggesting that the

55
suicide rate among them is attributable merely to the ready availability of shotguns? Should not his speech be the occasion for a frank apology?
Mr. Evans: I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is able to speak in the debate. That will give him an opportunity to apologise for the views that he expressed on the "Today" programme, which I thought were appalling. An entire industry deserves an apology from him.
As I was saying, it is interesting that no Government Member condemned the remarks about the Labour party being in disarray.
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: In a moment, once I have finished this.
I quoted the words of the hon. Member for Neath himself, so it is not surprising that his responsibility for leading the campaign in Wales has rapidly been taken away from him. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Newport, West who, I am sure, will wish to apologise.
Mr. Flynn: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know, I have never spoken on the "Today" programme about farming? However, I have talked about the farming crisis on many occasions. It is as well to remember that I would not withdraw a single word that I have said. The House should know that, on television yesterday, someone said that there were 10 farming suicides every week. Every suicide is a terrible tragedy for the family involved. However, that number is wrong, as there were 70 farming suicides last year—which is 70 too many. In the past four years of crisis, there have been fewer suicides than there were in each year of prosperity between 1989 and 1993.
It is disgraceful that Opposition Members and certain other people wish to turn personal tragedies into events that invite photo-opportunities. There is a crisis in the farming industry, but a sequence of misinformation has been given. I am happy to defend everything that I have said.
Mr. Evans: To remind the hon. Gentleman, his remarks were made on 22 March 2000 on "Farming Today" on Radio 4 and his comments on suicides appeared in Farmers' Weekly on 4 February 2000. I am sure that he will want to reflect on his words and perhaps apologise to the farming industry.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall make a little more progress and, I promise, give way to the hon. Gentleman a bit later.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State made no reference to another matter. Should the nightmare happen and—if everyone can bear with me for a moment—incredible as it sounds, the Labour party wins the next general election, what would happen to the position of Secretary of State for Wales? This morning, I enjoyed a little tussle on Radio Wales with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales when we discussed what would happen
56
after the election. We already know that an incoming Conservative Government will create the position of Secretary of State for Wales, and that that will not be merged with responsibilities for Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will have extra responsibility in recognition of the post-devolution position.
However, I was unable to get any guarantee whatever from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that an incoming Labour Government would ensure that the position of Secretary of State for Wales would be retained. From the silence of the Secretary of State, I take it that the Government have already written it off, he is already looking to retire if the Labour party win the election and Wales will lose its voice in the Cabinet. All that I can say is that Wales will be the poorer after the election if Labour wins, given that the Secretary of State is not prepared to say that there will be a position of Secretary of State for Wales. It sounds as if he already has inside information that that position will be merged and that Wales will lose its separate and special voice.
Mr. Paul Murphy: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was tempting me. He knows that neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales nor I determine Cabinet positions; that is a matter for the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is also aware that there are no plans to change the position of Secretary of State for Wales and that it is based firmly on the devolution settlement, which was voted on by the people of Wales. I am delighted, although rather bemused, by his conversion and U-turn to the new position, as his party has not held that view for some time. To me, the part-time position of Secretary of State that is proposed by the Conservative party is rather peculiar.
Mr. Evans: It is amazing that the Secretary of State says that the position is in the gift of the Prime Minister. I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about that position and we have now made our view clear. It is well known that the Labour party is looking seriously at merging England, Wales and Scotland together in a Ministry of the Union. Even worse is the rumour that the Minister responsible for that will be the Deputy Prime Minister—let us have one fright at a time. I am amazed that the Secretary of State for Wales has not even discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, or if he has discussed it, that the Prime Minister has not reassured him. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—
Mr. Livsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No.
Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Prime Minister the matter of a voice for Wales around the Cabinet table, with the post of Secretary of State for Wales not being merged into a general post for Scotland, Wales and England?
Mr. Murphy: Die hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a voice around the Cabinet table representing Wales—mine. That has been the case since the establishment of the role after devolution. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, in the referendum and by the devolution settlement, the people of Wales indicated that there should

57
be a voice in Westminster and in the Cabinet through the position that I hold. Do the Conservatives intend to have someone to shadow me as the Secretary of State?
Mr. Evans: It looks likely that there will be no Secretary of State for Wales if there is a Labour Government after the general election. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak up for his own job around the Cabinet table, I wonder whether he can speak up at the Cabinet table for the jobs of other people in Wales.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman is the Conservative party spokesman for Wales, can he remind us whether he is a member of the shadow Cabinet?
Mr. Evans: I enjoyed sitting around the shadow Cabinet table last Wednesday. I lock forward to sitting around the shadow Cabinet table in the future, and after the general election I look forward to sitting around the Cabinet table as Secretary of State for Wales or whichever position the leader of my party as Prime Minister asks me to take. At the next election—
Mr. Livsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: In a moment. I have given way to so many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who sit around the Cabinet table in the Lib-Lab pact that I am trying to eke out my speech.
So many people feel let down by the Government, although that is hard to believe from the speech that we heard from the Secretary of State. Students feel badly let down by the introduction of tuition fees and the disappearance of their grants. Pensioners feel let down, after the 75p increase that they w ere given last year. Motorists are now paying higher taxation on their fuel than in any other country in Europe, and petrol prices are among the highest in the world.
Stealth taxes have been imposed—on average, £670 a year for a family living in Wales. Council tax has increased well above the rate of inflation. The Government clearly do not understand the countryside or farming.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment, once I have made a little more progress.
There are so many people who feel badly let down, but in no industry more than in farming. In 1996–97, the average income in the farming industry was £23,200. In 1998–99, it was £5,800 and it has now fallen below £5,000. The Welsh Institute of Rural Studies has predicted that the average net income will be £4,100. We have just heard a statement on the minimum wage. An average farm income of £4,100 represents £1 an hour for a farmer working 60 hours a week, and we know that most farmers do much more than that.
One in five farms is trading at a loss. There is a crisis in farming. Getting new entrants into farming is incredibly difficult. The average age of farmers is 58. In Wales, agriculture is vital, yet four fifths of the farming land is
58
in less-favoured areas. As rules and regulations increase and costs, including hygiene costs, go up, there is enormous extra pressure on farmers.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way.
On competence in farming and the question of who deserves an apology, the House should contrast the way in which the current Government have acted on the dreadful disease that is now affecting British agriculture with the way in which the previous Government acted on BSE. This Government have responded promptly, effectively and efficiently, whereas the previous Government did not act promptly and shamefully exported BSE around the world. When people in farming make that contrast, they will have no doubt about who understands farming.
Mr. Evans: I suspect that not one single farmer will support what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Who is playing politics with farming now? We have given full support to the Government on the measures that they have introduced to tackle foot and mouth disease. We did not get such support from the Labour party when it was in opposition. Instead, it cruelly used the issue of BSE.
Farmers are asking not for special treatment, but for equal treatment. That is what they will get with the implementation of "A Fair Deal for Farmers", which is part of the common-sense revolution package that will be delivered by an incoming Conservative Government. We shall carefully consider the standard of meat that is imported into this country and the need to ensure that products are clearly labelled. When the label says that a package contains Welsh meat, that is exactly what it should contain. We must ensure that fair and proper rules and regulations are in place and give full support to farming. Last year, 3,800 people left farming in Wales, while 20,000 people left it nationally. That came on top of the 20,000 people who left it the year before.
There was to be a rally for the countryside on 18 March this year. Its postponement was a big decision for the organisers. That decision could not have been easy, as the number of people who were coming to march in London on that day was well above the number who participated in the march that took place a few years ago. Although the rally will not now occur, the reasons for it remain. The Prime Minister must listen to the people who live and work in the countryside. It was amazing that any time was given to the Hunting Bill in the House last week, while the foot and mouth crisis was under way. It would have been far better to suspend such a debate at a time when the agriculture industry is in such deep crisis and to consider foot and mouth disease instead. Instead, an Opposition day had to be used for a full debate on the subject.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Minister of Agriculture comes regularly to the Dispatch Box to keep us informed about foot and mouth and the measures that he is taking to provide as much assistance as possible? Assistance should be given not only to farmers; as has been mentioned, it should be given to the line of other people who are involved in farming. Those affected will not necessarily be farmers, but may none the less have paid a heavy price.

59
The Farmers Union of Wales has contacted me to express its concerns. It says:
"There is an urgent need to address the welfare implications of having in-lamb ewes and in-calf heifers away from the farm, given the current movement restrictions."
It welcomes the limited movements of livestock to abattoirs under licence, but it is
"concerned that abattoirs/dealers are passing the increased costs associated with the scheme back on to producers."
Will the Secretary of State consider that matter? I am further informed by the union that it would
"welcome clarification on why prior to the FMD outbreak, supermarkets claimed that it was cheaper to source meat imported from abroad due to the strength of the pound and since the outbreak, have been warning consumers that prices will have to go up".
Will he please consider the matter carefully and have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, so that we can get as much information as possible?
I turn now to law and order. We had a Welsh Grand Committee debate on this subject only the other day, but it is right to stress again the law and order problems in Wales. In 1994, the number of incidents involving violence against the person was 13,478, but in 1999, there were 37,922 such incidents. That is an amazing increase. In 1997, the figure for robbery was 811; today it is 909. Total violent crime has increased from 20,000 in 1997 to 40,580 today. Those statistics are worrying; they affect everyone who lives in Wales. The Government should do something about that.
Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that violence against the person has increased by 6 per cent. in Wales, compared with a combined England and Wales average of 11 per cent.? Is he aware of steps taken by, for example, the Cardiff violence reduction initiative, which demonstrates that we can succeed in reducing violence? The Home Secretary is rightly encouraging such developments throughout England and Wales.
Mr. Evans: I welcome any initiative to tackle crime in Wales. A leaked report from the Home Office states that the Department is carefully considering reducing custodial sentences of a year or less to three months. That, together, with early release of prisoners, sends the wrong signal to criminals. We must carefully examine the early release of prisoners, because several have gone on to commit further crimes.
Mr. Bercow: I do not want my hon. Friend to understate his case. Does he agree that it is especially outrageous that more than 200 people who were convicted of assaulting a police officer and were sentenced to five months' imprisonment have, under the terms of the ludicrous early-release scheme, been let out of jail after serving only six weeks? Is not that testimony to and eloquent proof of the fact that the Labour party does not believe in supporting our police?
Mr. Evans: I am not usually accused of understatement; perhaps I am guilty of it only in comparison with my hon. Friend. However, he is absolutely right. I was a victim of crime before Christmas, and I have spoken to many other victims. I am sure that,
60
like me, they feel completely let down. I feel sorry for the police, who work so hard to find the criminals. When they take them off the street, the criminals are released and soon able to reoffend. That is another slap in the face for the victims of crime. The Government should be strong on law and order, not simply on rhetoric. They claim to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but early releases and shorter sentences contradict that claim.
The national health service has been mentioned. Again, people feel badly let down. The Government are good on slogans; we shall be tough on the causes of slogans. We all remember, "24 hours to save the national health service", but the latest statistics are damning. On 31 March 1997, the total number of Welsh residents waiting for in-patient or day-case treatments was 67,609. By 31 January this year, that figure had increased to 75,415. In 1997, 6,274 patients waited more than 12 months for treatment; today, the figure is 11,002. In 1997, the figure for patients waiting more than 18 months was 1,402; today, it is 4,818. Those increases are startling.
In March 1997, the total number of Welsh residents waiting for a first out-patient appointment was 101,000; today, that figure is 179,440. When the Government came to power, 28,401 patients waited more than three months for treatment; today, the figure has increased to 93,773. In 1997, 5,956 patients waited more than six months for treatment; today that figure is 48,506.
The Government promised people so much on the health service, but little has been delivered. In Wales, more people are waiting longer for treatment. That is hardly surprising. An article in the Western Mail entitled "Heart patients 'dying needlessly- stated:
"Consultant cardiologist Dr. Tony Davies said patients needing urgent heart treatment were being turned away because their beds were taken by emergency medical admissions …
Dr. Davies and his … colleague consultant cardiologist Dr. Mike Stephens said heart patients' appointments were cancelled every day as the winter beds crisis worsened …
"People are dying because of a lack of beds,' said Dr. Davies".
People who work in the national health service, not us, are making those comments. Dr. Davies is employed by the Gwent health care NHS trust.
"People are dying on the waiting list."
Those are the words of someone who works in the national health service in Wales.
I visited the Heath hospital in Cardiff less than two weeks ago. Someone told me that £5 million was needed for a children's hospital, yet the Labour party's Administration in the Welsh Assembly is wasting between £30 million and £40 million on a new building. The Government would prefer to spend the money on pampering politicians instead of treating patients, especially vulnerable child patients. Their priorities are skewed.
Mrs. Lawrence: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on hospital beds. Not long ago, "Newsnight" carried out a survey, which showed that, during the Tory years of 1982 to 1995, the number of acute beds in British hospitals decreased from 144,000 to 109,000 as a result of the former Government's policies. Is not this an opportune time for the hon. Gentleman to apologise for that?
Mr. Evans: I fear that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, who represents Neath,

61
is correct about the hon. Lady's future. Stephen Crabb will make an excellent Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire. He will speak up for the patients of Wales and ensure that they receive proper treatment. I thought that the hon. Lady might refer to the comments of someone who works in the national health service. We hear much spin about the amount of money that is going into the NHS, but someone at the top of his profession says that people are dying through lack of attention by the Government.
Mr. Paul Murphy: If the Conservative party formed a Government, and Mr. Crabb became Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire, what would happen to the pledges of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor? He said that he intended to make cuts of £16 billion in public spending. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that that would mean a severe cut in the block grant to Wales? Whatever he says about buildings, cuts of £16 billion are bound to affect the national health service. Does not he accept that they would have an adverse effect, and does not he understand that the Government have put more money into the health service than any Government since its inception?
Mr. Evans: The amount of money that was invested in the national health service increased throughout the Conservative years. That would continue under a Conservative Government. The Secretary of State mentions the figure of £16 billion, which is completely false. No journalist accepts that it bears any resemblance to reality. We will match the money that is being spent on the national health service, education and law and order. We will cut out the wasteful expenditure of £8 billion that the Government are prepared to perpetuate, and we will increase vital public service expenditure and ensure that the money is effectively spent.
Although the Secretary of State has a diminished role post-devolution, he has twice as many special advisers in his Department as David Hunt had when he was Secretary of State and had much more to do. Money could be saved by cutting out useless administration, and better spent on front-line services. We will do that. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to say that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West and the Assembly were wrong to spend so much money on a new building for politicians and that he would have preferred it to be spent on patients. However, he did not say that. He is justifying the mis-spending of millions of pounds on a new Assembly building in Wales that could have been so much better spent on patients.
Mr. Chris Ruane rose—
Mr. Evans: I give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who has come in late. It is very good to see him.
Mr. Ruane: I apologise for coming in late. I was chairing a meeting in my constituency for three hours this morning that was organised two months ago.
The hon. Gentleman denies the existence of the £16 billion cut that the Conservative party has proposed. The genesis of the matter is to be found in a press release from Conservative central office issued on 18 July 2000,
62
which gave an itemised breakdown of each region of the United Kingdom and of how much would be given in tax cuts. That is where the figure comes from.
Mr. Evans: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was late, because he missed my informing the House that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe predicts that the hon. Gentleman will lose his seat at the next general election. The figures that the hon. Gentleman is coming up with mean absolutely nothing. The scare tactics that Labour is using—
Mr. Ruane: I received 53 per cent. of the vote at the previous general election.
Mr. Evans: Well, if that gets the hon. Gentleman to sleep at night, that is fine. However, he will have more time to sleep after the general election, if the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe is correct. The hon. Gentleman is using scare tactics. We will increase the amount of money being spent on essential services. No one now believes the £16 billion figure that the Labour party has dreamed up, because it is completely false.
Mr. Llwyd: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he said about the cost of the new Assembly building? Is he not being slightly hypocritical in saying that that money is not being well spent, when he is ensconced in a palatial office in a building that cost £250 million?
Mr. Evans: I shall come on to Plaid Cymru shortly. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, if he is being fair, that I condemned the amount of money being spent on Portcullis House. I would have preferred to see the savings that could have been made there going into front-line services. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members find consistency so unusual, but I can understand why they do.
I shall move on from the national health service to business. Two reports have been published recently. One is from the Federation of Small Businesses, entitled "Barriers to Growth and Survival"—[Interruption.] I shall mention that briefly before I move on to a more up-to-date report from the Confederation of British Industry called "Facing the Future". The Under-Secretary has just reminded me that I mentioned the former report when we last debated these issues. It is necessary for me to remind the House again of what the report said because the Government are not listening.
The report from the Federation of Small Businesses was based on Wales, and on page 25 it deals with dissatisfaction with legislation issues. Of those who responded, 81 per cent. said that they were dissatisfied with the volume of legislation; 83 per cent. were dissatisfied with the complexity of legislation; 79 per cent. were dissatisfied with the rate of change of legislation; 79 per cent. were dissatisfied with the interpretation of legislation; 59 per cent. were dissatisfied with the ability to employ staff; and 65 per cent. were dissatisfied with the cost of compliance.
The Federation of Small Businesses and small business men themselves are saying that the Government are not providing the solution to the problem—they are the problem. I wish that the Government would listen more

63
carefully to what business men are saying. They are the people who are creating the jobs. Only this week, the CBI stated that businesses are being "smothered by legislation". One of the authors of the CBI's report is Michael Plaut, managing director of the south Wales company, Northmace. He states that
"flexibility is being put at risk by increasing red tape and legislation. We are close to a situation where the straw is going to break the camel's back … We have some superb SMEs in Wales which would love to employ more people, but are deterred from doing so by stringent regulations."
The Government are now introducing the climate change levy, which will cost manufacturing jobs—some jobs are already being shed in anticipation. The Secretary of State read out the names of a number of companies in which jobs were being created, and I welcome every one of those jobs, including the 500 that were announced by Ikea in south Wales this week. However, I ask him also to consider the jobs that are being lost in Wales, such as those at Dairycrest—some new jobs were announced there, but there was a net loss of about 300—and at Corns, where about 6,000 jobs will be lost. A further 165 jobs are to be lost at Dewhirst in Lampeter.
Mr. Ruane: It will be 3,000 jobs at Corus.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that it will be 3,000 jobs. Well, that is all right, then.
Mr. Ruane rose—
Mr. Evans: I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down and listen to me for a moment. If he does not accept that the enormous impact of the loss of jobs in steel production in Llanwern, Ebbw Vale and Shotton will have knock-on effects, he is seriously mistaken.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst features of so many Government policies in Wales is that they consistently shuffle responsibility from the Government to beleaguered businesses, forcing the latter to become unpaid tax collectors and benefit distributors? Does he agree that that is a matter of particular concern, given that 99.6 per cent. of companies in this country employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate two fifths of our national output?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CBI's report calls businesses with fewer than 250 employees "small", although I do not. There are 3.75 million SMEs in the UK, and they account for 99.8 per cent. of the total UK business stock. They are vital. During the Conservative years, we looked to small businesses to create jobs, and they did so. We shall pay a heavy penalty if we do not recognise that fact and support them instead of trying to strangle them with the rules, regulations and taxation that have been the hallmark of this Government since 1997.
Mr. Ruane: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he should have better control of his brief, as he is the chief spokesperson on Wales for the Conservative party? A few
64
moments ago, he mentioned that the job losses in Wales as a result of the Cows closures would be 6,000, but that is not the case; the figure will be 2,800.
Mr. Evans: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he ought to talk to people, although I am sure that he has. I visited a pub in Shotton a couple of weeks ago, and people there fear that all the small businesses in the area will be affected. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the consequence of almost 3,000 direct job losses at Corns will be a further 3,000 job losses in other sectors in Wales that serve the steel industry?
Mr. Ruane: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that those people will be listening carefully to what he is saying as well.
The CBI believes that business confidence among Welsh manufacturers has fallen to the greatest extent since last January, according to its quarterly trends survey. The survey suggests that the fall comes as business confidence in manufacturing across the UK as a whole fell by much less. It also shows that the costs for Welsh manufacturers are likely to increase.
There have been 5,168 job losses in Welsh manufacturing since the beginning of this year. That is an enormous number of jobs. While the Secretary of State for Wales still has a position at the Cabinet table—at least, for now—will he speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter? When the 10p-on-income-tax-Chancellor—that is the equivalent of what he has put on taxes in the past four years—decides to give some of it back on Wednesday to try to bribe people to support his Government at the next general election, he should look carefully at the taxes that he has already raised and those that he is about to raise. In particular, he should consider the taxes on small to medium-sized enterprises and on manufacturing industry in Wales. He should also reconsider the climate change levy, which a future Conservative Government will abolish. We also support small to medium-sized enterprises and manufacturing industry.
I agree with one remark that the Secretary of State made concerning Plaid Cymru. Seimon Glyn has been mentioned time and again. When Plaid Cymru Members intervened earlier, I thought that they might have taken the opportunity to apologise for Seimon Glyn, the chairman of housing of Gwynedd county council and a leading member of Plaid Cymru in that area. But, no, Plaid Cymru Membes did not apologise, and I suspect that they will not apologise for him again. They did so last time, but Seimon Glyn himself withdrew that apology. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago, he attended a rally in Caernarfon and told 350 protesters that he had received hundreds of messages of support from people all over Wales and beyond and that the future looked bleak for Welsh-speaking villages on the Llyn peninsular in north Wales and in other areas.
Let us be in no doubt about this whatever: Seimon Glyn is a leading member of Plaid Cymru in Wales and he has not been ostracised by members of his own party. They have not booted him out and he still holds the position of Gwynedd county council's chairman of housing, so I can assume only that the very highest commands of Plaid

65
Cymru support his membership. No doubt he will campaign hard during the election for votes for Plaid Cymru, but it will pay a heavy price throughout Wales—[Interruption.] Oh! The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) thinks that I am wrong. He obviously thinks that Seimon Glyn has struck a chord with the people of Wales and, indeed, with many people who have come to Wales, contributed and provided so much support over many years.
Mr. Llwyd: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Our telephone canvassing shows increased support over the past month. Given that Welsh language and culture are under threat and under considerable pressure in some areas in Wales, what policies does he advocate to deal with that?
Mr. Evans: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a previous Conservative Government and Wyn Roberts who did so much to support the Welsh language. Indeed, it has been widely acknowledged on both sides of the House that the previous Conservative Government gave unprecedented support through the creation of Sianel 4 Cymru and backing for the Welsh language. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that we shall continue to support the Welsh language, but we shall not do so at the expense of people who come to Wales to add their contribution by setting up businesses, employing people and visiting Wales. It is a great shame that lie has not at least condemned the remarks of Seimon Glyn. Indeed, he has made no reference to those comments, which suggests that he endorses them.
It may have been noted that I have not mentioned the Liberal Democrats. I thought about it, then decided not to. I shall move on.
Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend does not want to mention the Liberal Democrats, but will he allow me at least to ask what he thinks of an electoral system for an Assembly that is as lacking in a democratic mandate as that in Cardiff, which allows the party that was fourth in the elections to share ministerial-type appointments with the party that was first? Is that fair or democratic? Can we expect more of that from a Government who have such ways of undermining proper representation?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend tempts me to mention the Liberal Democrats, but I am loth to do so, except to say that they will pay a heavy price at the general election because people feel badly let down. They are not part of the Opposition, but they are part of the coalition and they will pay in Brecon and Radnorshire and in Montgomeryshire.
Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman did not reply to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr. Lewis) on proper democratic representation of constituents. I do not think that he will come to that point, so will he tell the House his party's policies and his own views regarding the next Parliament? I am sure that there will not be a Conservative Government, but were there to be one, would he agree with reducing the rights, duties, responsibilities and powers of Welsh Members? Would he make us second-class MPs?
Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State has just returned from his own conference in Swansea and it was reported:
"Speakers voice strong opposition to PR system".
With so many of his own supporters attacking the Labour party at every turn, I can understand why he does not want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. On what a Conservative Government would do, he signally fails to recognise that all of us, apart from Scottish Members, have been made second-class Members. Scottish Members are able to vote on issues relating to England and Wales, but we are not allowed to vote on those same issues as they relate to Scotland.
The Secretary of State must accept that Scottish Members can vote on legislation to ban hunting with hounds as it affects England and my constituency and as it affects his constituency, but we cannot vote on it as it affects their constituencies. Even more absurd is the fact that even they cannot vote on such legislation as it affects their constituencies. We shall make absolutely certain that Scottish Members will not be able to vote on issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State knows that the power to make primary legislation for Wales rests here, so we shall make certain that only English and Welsh Members can vote on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am content with our policy and believe that it will gain a lot of support from the people of Wales as we explain it during the general election campaign.
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman says that his party's policy will get a lot of support from the people of Wales. Under it, however, there would be different types of MP, including Welsh Members, and Scottish Members would be unable to vote on certain matters. I assume that his party believes that the same should happen to Welsh Members. Should not there be a single type of Member of Parliament to represent each constituency? If not, inadequate representation would be provided by those who sit for the 40 Welsh parliamentary constituencies; or is he saying that he wants to reduce that figure as well? The Conservative party, through him, is saying to the people of Wales, "You will have second-class MPs in the House of Commons."
Mr. Evans: I am saying that, under the Labour Government, there are a number of second-class MPs, including the Welsh and the English. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a great shame that the Government did not properly think through the devolution proposals. They say that they are replacing one anomaly with another and that we should be grateful for it. However, it is wrong that Scottish Members should come down to vote on issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They ought to have no say whatever as such matters should be left to English and Welsh Members. That is what I believe and that is what I shall support at the general election.
Mr. Fabricant: Following the point made by the Secretary of State, does my hon. Friend agree that many Welsh Assembly men think that they are second-class Members under the current arrangements? Do not they

67
have far less power than Members of the Scottish Parliament? That shows the lack of symmetry in the devolution mechanism under the Labour Government.
Mr. Evans: The Government were already prepared to accept a different system because they knew that the people of Wales simply would not vote for a Parliament. Indeed, they almost did not vote for the National Assembly for Wales—the winning margin in the referendum was 0.6 per cent. We totally oppose and shall not support or vote for any measures to give the Welsh Assembly powers to raise tax and make primary legislation, which the Liberal Democrats at least believe should be foisted on Wales without a referendum.
Mr. Murphy: The House and the people of Wales would be interested to hear precisely what Conservative party policy is on devolution. As the hon. Gentleman has made his attitude to Welsh Members of the House of Commons clear and as he has just said that he does not like the idea of different types of devolution, what sort of devolution does his party favour for Wales?
Mr. Evans: We shall review the workings of the Welsh Assembly to ensure that it operates in the best interests of all the people of Wales—north, south, east and west.
Mr. Murphy: What does that mean?
Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State asks what that means, but many people in a number of areas of Wales feel badly let down by the National Assembly, so we shall work hard to make it operate in the interests of all the people of Wales, without the power to raise tax or make primary legislation.
The Secretary of State has asked me about representation and devolution. I am prepared to debate those issues with him on television during the next general election campaign. Is he prepared to accept the invitation of the television companies to participate in such debates during the election? I have said yes, and I suspect that members of the other political parties are also prepared to do so. Does the Secretary of State for Wales have more guts than his leader, who has run away from debating these issues with the leader of the Conservative party? Will he accept the invitation to hold televised debates at the general election?
Mr. Murphy: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I told the Welsh Grand Committee. It is not for the Conservative party to tell the Labour party how to run our election campaign, but I am sure that the opportunity will arise for us to have the great delight of debating all these issues with each other, so it would be useful to know his views on devolution.
Mr. Evans: I think that that was a distinct no. We may be only days away from the announcement of a general election. Labour want to run the campaign with spin and technology from Millbank. The Prime Minister is running away from the Leader of the Opposition. It is sad that the Secretary of State has not accepted my invitation.
The Government have badly let down many people, whether they be students, pensioners, farmers, workers in manufacturing industry, small and medium-sized
68
enterprises, those waiting for an operation, those in growing class sizes in secondary schools or those suffering teacher shortages. The Government say, "Please trust us with your currency. We will have a referendum to decide the future of the pound." No one will trust our currency to a referendum run by the Government, because no one trusts them any more. People are disillusioned and have seen so much given away in the past. At the next election, with the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, we will have an opportunity to give our country back to the people of Britain and Wales.
6.22 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: Like many right hon. and hon. Friends, I was shocked to hear last night of the death of Ian Spratling. During my time as Secretary of State for Wales and First Secretary, I found him to be a unique individual—tough, vigorous and a positive voice for business in west Wales. He would work with elected representatives in central and local government to do the best for business. He was London born, which I did not realise because his passion for west Wales and for making the best of objective 1 opportunities were manifest.
I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Lord Cledwyn. My uncle, Bob Roberts, who was brought up at Ty'n y Felin just outside Llanfachraeth, was a class mate of Cledwyn Hughes. They both ended up in the House of Commons—Cledwyn inside as Secretary of State, and uncle Bob outside as a policeman on St. Stephen's Entrance. It was a matter of great pride for the family that they both made it here. When I was elected in 1987, almost the first call I received was an invitation as a "bachgen o Ynys Môn" to see him in his office in the Lords. It was a great delight when, a short time later, he joined me and my wife and my mother and uncle Bob. We had the pleasure of his company and his memory of those times. He had a passion for the university of Wales; not because it is an institution, but because it offers hope and opportunity to young people, which is why it was established in the first place. He had a passion for Wales, and was a passionate supporter of devolution, but he hated the narrowness of nationalism, as did Jim Griffiths, another great Welsh and British politician and democrat.
I want to remind the House of the arguments for devolution that Lord Cledwyn and Jim Griffiths used in their time. We are now involved in a struggle between the negativism of nationalism and the positive values of partnership, which is what devolution is all about. The Leader of the Opposition spoke today of how Wales would be represented in the future: a part-time job for a non-Welsh MP. That is nonsense. The reality is that, if the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) ever became Prime Minister, he would lead a narrow, English nationalist Government.
We have seen already the value of devolution in England. Questions from Conservative Members seem to suggest that they are unaware of devolution in Spain, which is not symmetrical. There is no symmetry in devolution in England, because London has its own mayor and authority with powers, although the English regions have their own regional development agencies and chambers of commerce to give them a voice. The voluntary sector is also coming together in those regions.

69
I ask English colleagues to look at the nationalists in Wales and to be warned. Devolution has already happened in England, and it is strengthening de democracy in England.
There is no need to say more about the words of Councillor Seimon Glyn, except that he outraged most Welsh speakers, and those who have come to Wales from England, Scotland and elsewhere and want their children to learn Welsh. It is Labour party members who care for the Welsh language, as we heard in an excellent debate on Welsh language and culture at our conference on Saturday morning in Swansea. It is the Labour party that is bringing jobs to Wales and reconstructing the Welsh economy, which is the real opportunity for the Welsh language, as it is for every other aspect of Welsh culture.
We see the same narrow, conservative nationalism behind the so-called row that the Western Mail has been trying to whip up over the census and the tick box. It is irresponsible of the Western Mail or anyone else to encourage people not to respond to the census. When people had the opportunity in Ceredigion and Gwynedd to say whether they wanted changes in the census form, they did not ask for a tick box.
What does it mean to have a tick box? Scotland has a tick box. In the words of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is no longer present, Plaid Cymru believes:
"Where Scotland goes, Wales must surely follow."
I do not agree with that. I want our political debates in Wales to resolve Welsh issues, rather than imitate what happens in Scotland. I do not want Plaid Cymru's follower Wales: I want a Wales that leads.
In Scotland, if people follow the instructions correctly, only white Scots will tick the Scot box. That is ludicrous, and it is not right in this century. I do not want that in Wales. I will tick the box to show that I am British, and I will write in to say that I am Welsh. I am sure that the census system can cope with that. I am proud to be Welsh and I am proud to be British. The nationalists cannot say that. I will encourage many people in my constituency to say that they are Welsh, British and Afro-Caribbean or Asian. This intemperate, last-minute debate has confused the issues of nationality and ethnicity.
Mrs. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the word "British" comes from the Brythonic language, of which Welsh is a member? That shows how integrated Wales is, because it has given the name "British" to the British Isles.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is correct. As I said, this intemperate, last-minute debate has confused the issues of nationality and ethnicity. It is possible to deal with those points, but not by adding an extra tick box. If people want the census to ask about their national background and ethnicity in a couple of questions, rather than just one, that can be done in the next census. If so, I would want people in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to give their birth origins and their national and ethnic identity. I suspect that all of us could unite around that. [Interruption.] I am glad to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) nodding. However, that cannot be dealt with in time for the current census, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it should be.
We could use the information from the census for many serious jobs, so we need the best possible responses to it. Socio-economic measurements and crime and disorder
70
audits, which will be undertaken in the coming years, are taken against the baseline of the national census, so everyone should be encouraged to fill in the form. We could then have a debate about the questions for the next census.
Our levels of crime and disorder are still too high, on which work is to be done that only a Government will do. I thought that the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about crime were wrong, and it was disgraceful that he tried to whip up fear of crime and fly in the face of the facts. One fact is that, since 1997, overall crime has fallen in all four police areas in Wales. There has been a fall of 24 per cent. in my area in south Wales, the second largest in England and Wales: only Northumbria has experienced a larger fall. That cannot be said to be a cause for satisfaction—there is still a long way to go—but at least it is going in the right direction. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who represents a distant constituency, would have gained a little more respect had he demonstrated that he knew a little more about what is happening to crime in Wales.
Violence against the person is currently one of the big worries, but it is a small consolation that it has risen by 6 per cent. rather than by the England-and-Wales average of 11 per cent. As I said during my time as First Secretary, this is not just a matter for the police and local authorities; those employed in the health service should also try to recognise the nature of violent crime—as workers in Cardiff s accident and emergency units have—and then work with the police to reduce it. That would demonstrate that we can act as we have been proved to be able to act in regard to other problems, such as burglaries and car crime.
I am pleased to note that it now takes half the time it took previously to bring young offenders before the courts. In the third quarter of last year, south Wales achieved its target of 71 days, as opposed to the 142 days that obtained when we took office, and we want that achievement to be sustained for a long time. Police numbers in Wales have risen by some 145 since the general election.
We need a wake-up message, however, because far more needs to be done. In April 2002, the second crime and disorder strategy needs to be in place for every local authority area in England and Wales. Local police superintendents and local authority chief executives, who have personal responsibility for the strategy, should be getting the work done now. Other organisations—including, again, the health service—need to recognise that crime and disorder audits will identify problems involving young people such as drug problems and the need for rehabilitation work. They should be getting the facts together for the audit now, and anticipating the work that they and local authorities will have to do in developing the youth service.
I pay tribute to the working party that produced the report "Extending Entitlement". I think we all want local authorities and the voluntary sector to help to produce the new Welsh youth service that the Assembly has a chance to produce—a project that I am sure the Assembly's Secretary, Jane Davidson, will pursue with great vigour, to our benefit.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley's comments about the health service struck me as disingenuous. He should have known that we inherited a health service that was—

71
as we predicted at the time of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—divided and competitive. It was duplicating services at local level, and was not delivering. A great deal of work had to be done, because the Secretary of State of the day had ripped out the Welsh Office's capacity to plan and supervise the use of the money going into the youth service.
Ms Julie Morgan: Should not the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have pointed out that last week's figures for January waiting lists in the health service showed a dramatic drop? Is it not typical of the Conservative party not to recognise any improvements?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley seems to rely on out-of-date newspaper clippings—presumably sent by his former newspaper shop in Swansea in order to increase its profits—for information about Wales. It is a pity that he is so clearly out of touch.
Mr. Walter rose—
Mr. Michael: I give way to another voice from England.
Mr. Walter: But at least a Welsh voice from England.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that when Labour came to power it had to sort things out. I remember the Prime Minister saying that he would reduce waiting lists by 100,000. Since Labour came to power, the list of people waiting for their first out-patient appointment has increased by 79,000—just in Wales.
Mr. Michael: When I took over as Secretary of State for Wales, we were just discovering how disastrous was the legacy of the hon. Gentleman's party. I established a taskforce to examine the position, and also involved the Audit Commission. We discovered massive debt in every part of the health service in Wales, especially in Dyfed Powys, where the entire service was crippled by the disaster left by our predecessors. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the mismanagement of successive Secretaries of State, which may owe itself to the fact that—like the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley—they did not represent Welsh constituencies and were out of touch with what was happening in Wales.
As for the economy, we have seen stability and a rise in employment, but problems and challenges remain. Those problems and challenges need to be met by business and Government working together. Corus, for instance, has not been willing to work with either the Westminster Government or the Assembly. As well as tackling such issues through partnership, we should encourage a "can do" approach among business. I was delighted to note such an approach among business people who joined us at Labour's business breakfast at Swansea on Friday. Business must join the public sector and others to use the opportunity presented by objective 1 status, and—as I suggested earlier—end the whingeing that has held us back during the early period of that opportunity.
Let me now mention something related to my constituency. Next year, a boat called Spirit of Cardiff will set a new world record for going around the world,
72
thus illustrating the spirit of a constituency that still has higher male unemployment than any other Welsh constituency. Although we have seen improvements in the economic position of south Cardiff, we need to do more in that regard. In setting that world record, Spirit of Cardiff will put Cardiff and indeed Wales on the map. Before it does so, it will publicise its "can do" spirit and its future achievement in May with a practice run to New York. I am delighted by the response from business people in New York who have Welsh origins, and who want to be a part of the initiative.
I pay tribute to the voluntary sector in Wales, and to the manifesto that has been launched in the past few days. I am delighted that one plea could be left out—the plea for Government to pay for the criminal records checks that will be introduced in the next few months—because the Government have announced that they will pay for them. They will not constitute a burden or a ax on volunteering, as was planned by the last Conservative Home Secretary. This Government recognise the importance of encouraging voluntary work.
The manifesto also encourages partnership. It suggests that we should operate on the basis of outcomes: we should consider not just what goes in but what comes out, and the question of who does best. That is a constructive approach, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will respond to it positively.
I am glad that it has been decided not to abolish community health councils in Wales. I fought opposition to them during the passage of the 1990 Act, and I was pleased to be able to restructure them in Wales and create a pattern to give them a long-term future there. On Report, amendments were accepted in respect of the English arrangements, bringing the position much closer to what we had all hoped for. Ministers responded positively then. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will be able to assure us that the enhanced powers given to the new body—I think the name is less important than its capacity to do its job for patients and the community—will be available to the Assembly to pass on to Welsh community health councils.
The whole point of devolution is that it gives us the opportunity as Welsh Members of Parliament to celebrate not only differences, but the partnership with the Assembly, with local government, with business and with the voluntary sector in Wales. Devolution is about differences and about partnership. It is a step on the road not to separation or to victory for nationalism, but to victory for common sense.
I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the quiet, constructive and powerful way in which he has represented Wales in the Assembly. He has worked with the Assembly constructively during his period of office. It is in that sense that we should celebrate St. David's day and our opportunity to debate Welsh issues in the House today.
6.41 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I also pay tribute to the late Lord Cledwyn. He was a doughty fighter for devolution and, indeed, for Europe. During the 1975 referendum campaign, in Aberystwyth, I spoke on a platform with him when it was not popular in the Labour party to be so pro-European, but he was fearless in his beliefs and truly independent in many aspects. I admired

73
that trait in him a great deal, as did many of my countrymen. It is a sad loss to politics as a whole that he has passed away.
This is possibly my last speech in the House, because I am retiring at the general election. I do not hear many expressions of regret about that. None the less, it is a great honour to be a Welshman who has served my constituents and my country in the House.
I had an upbringing in rural Wales. I was a widowed teacher's son and went to school at the age of three. She was a peripatetic teacher and taught in schools in three different places, so my early education was in Talybont, Talgarth and Hay-on-Wye in my constituency.
I learned to think for myself as a result of those early experiences and of living through the second world war. I was very interested and involved in farming and country pursuits. It is ironic to see farming at the height of a foot and mouth outbreak now. Naturally, I ended up in a career in agriculture, working for a multinational company. Later I was a farm manager, and a lecturer in agricultural economics.
I am glad that I had that career. Most Welshmen have to travel to find work. I travelled to the north of England, to Scotland—and, indeed, as far as Aberystwyth. I could not have done what I have done without the enthusiastic and dedicated support of my wife and family. All I know is that my career before I came to the House—in the world of big business, farming and education—prepared me well for the time that I have spent here. Even two years in the Army helped a lot. In particular, I thank all those who have helped me on the way—relations, friends, teachers, lecturers and party members—for their great kindness.
The Welsh day debate is the occasion to celebrate being Welsh, to have poetry in one's heart and, for a lot of us, the spirit of music within us—whether it comes out or not. We have politics running through our life experience, often from our confrontation with social realities: lack of work, a hard environment, poor health and poverty. Welsh society tends to be more equal than society in England, but we rightly rail against the inequalities.
I am pleased that proportional representation has arrived. The Ribble Valley ranter spoke for an hour and criticised PR; that is quite a wonder, considering that eight of the Conservative Members in the National Assembly are there only because of PR. At least the Liberal Democrats had three Members elected by first past the post; the Conservatives had only one.
My liberalism stems from within my family. It stems from non-conformism, independence and awareness of the importance of co-operation, wealth creation and social justice. It is not socialism, but it is egalitarian. It empowers communities as well as individuals. Modern liberal democracy does not fear state intervention, and stands clearly to the left of new Labour.
My conversion to liberalism was secured in my teens by Clement Davies and a young Glyn Tegai Hughes, who preached home rule for Wales, economic and democratic government for Europe and successful world government through the creation of the United Nations. Most of those aims have been achieved in my lifetime. That is a long way from yesterday's description by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) of a foreign country. Fifty years ago, we were talking of much more progressive things.
74
Home rule for Wales was compatible with a European Union. State intervention and taxation were more than acceptable if they produced a world that brought about the greater good of society and the individuals in it. Hence Liberals such as Beveridge worked hard for the establishment of the national health service, to which we all enthusiastically subscribed.
Beveridge found the money to finance that; Nye Bevan brought in the Act. Liberals and Liberal Democrats in Wales have always worked at the leading edge of progressive politics. In recent times, we have not always had the credit for our radical, constructive approach, but I expect that, ultimately, our support for the National Assembly and our decisive move to enter partnership politics to provide stable government in the Assembly will stand Liberal Democrats in good stead. We remain independent, but choose co-operation.
Wales needs stability. Liberal Democrats give it that dimension. We believe that education and training empower individuals, that a good health service epitomises a caring Wales, and that no worthwhile society in Wales can be created without quality jobs, mainly created through home-grown entrepreneurs—backed in future, I hope, by our own banks.
The Westminster Parliament must soon give Wales primary legislative powers like those in Scotland, so that it can become a master in its own house. We must reform the Barnett formula and base it on the needs of Wales. Tax-varying powers must accompany those reforms. Such measures will release the energy of a new and confident Welsh people in a Welsh Parliament.
My constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is the largest, most beautiful and most rural in Wales. It has been a huge privilege to represent it. The loyalty of my constituents and their willingness to elect me as their representative here is something for which I will be eternally grateful.
My supporters have worked tirelessly for the Liberal Democrat cause. The victory that we achieved together in the great 1985 by-election was one of the highlights of my life. We demolished the second highest Conservative majority in Wales. As a result, the Conservative party chairman was sacked. I was elected at the age of 50 as the 50th Liberal Member of Parliament since the second world war.
My political career has been a roller-coaster, and I do not mind admitting it. In seven elections, I have had two lost deposits, a third place, a second place, three wins and eight recounts. That is not bad for a son of Talgarth. All that was thoroughly enjoyable. If people do not enjoy politics, they should not be in it.
I have had a very good relationship with my constituents. During our time together we have saved factories, opened new ones, seen others close and seen some work go to eastern Europe. On the plus side, thanks in some measure to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), we have fought a tremendous battle and won the argument to save our six community hospitals. We saved our NHS trust, too. That has ensured that a real grass-roots NHS for patients can be delivered efficiently and effectively in one of the remotest parts of Britain.
The Liberal Democrats will play an increasingly important role in directing the fortunes of Britain in the 21st century. I certainly expect us to be involved, in one way or another, in the government of our country.

75
Liberal Democrats have an enduring philosophy that can meet the challenge of the vast changes that will occur in British society in this century. I believe that in Wales the Assembly will have not only far greater powers but a new self-confidence emerging from the people of Wales, who will have a very significant impact on their own well-being and make a constructive contribution to a federal Britain with a positive role within the European Union.
The crisis in farming is one matter that has undoubtedly grieved me in recent years. I was brought up on a 90-acre farm, albeit only as the tenant in part of the farmhouse. Welsh family farms are the backbone of our rural society. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have presided over the demise of the family farm to the point that, certainly in my constituency, youngsters no longer want to farm. That situation has been created by the supermarkets' overbearing power in the marketplace. They have borne down on farm commodity prices until they have been able to pay prices that are lower than production costs. That should be illegal in the United Kingdom, as it is in the United States. The sooner the House legislates, the better it will be.
Another aspect is undoubtedly the Government's timidity in refusing to join the euro. Welsh farming families have lost many millions of pounds because of the failure to join the eurozone on 1 January 1999. We must join as soon as possible. Joining the euro is one of the few actions available to us to ensure fair prices for our farm products and, therefore, a return to profitability.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am sorry that I have to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's resignation speech. However, although it is true that both Labour and Tory Governments have presided over the decline of family farms, that is no more than a statement of the facts. There has not been a Liberal Government in almost a century. The hon. Gentleman has described the problem—which exists in all the other western European countries—but what do Liberal Democrat Members have in mind to solve it? What positive comments does he have to make?
Mr. Livsey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Welsh family farms cannot make a profit because of rock-bottom farm commodity prices. In prices, they have lost out by a margin of 40 per cent. because we are not in the eurozone. The situation is the same in the steel industry and in other industries. Were we in the eurozone, our Welsh family farms would be making a profit. That is why farms in Europe that are only half the size of farms in Wales can make a profit, but those farms in Wales cannot make a profit.
Mr. Jones: Family farms in France and Germany are also in decline. If it is simply a matter of the euro, why have family farms in central France almost disappeared?
Mr. Livsey: Modulation is an extremely important concept, as those resources should be concentrated on family units. We all know the statistics. The large farms receive 80 per cent. of the subsidies, whereas the small farms, which account for far more than half the farming population, receive only 20 per cent. That is the problem.
76
Wales is a country of family livestock farms, which are currently being hit very badly by foot and mouth disease. Foot and mouth disease is a tragedy that must be overcome. In 1967, I left Wales for eight or nine years and worked in Northumberland, where there was a horrendous outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It took six months to conquer that outbreak, and some farming families could not leave their fanny for three months. When the dust from this outbreak has settled, we must support family farms and help them to diversify their products for the benefit of Wales's rural communities. Suckler cow premiums, beef special premiums and sheep annual premiums must be paid early to sustain cash flows.
In Wales's urban areas, the closure of our coal mines and the destruction of jobs in the steel industry have destroyed many valley communities. I regard that as an extremely serious matter. In the 19th century, my own family worked in Cyfarthfa ironworks, but everyone was put out of work. My grandfather went down the colliery when he was 14. I understand the problems of the valleys. It is very important for the future of Wales that we understand each other's problems and tackle them in a unified manner.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has the right to talk about valley communities being destroyed. The valley communities that I represent are vibrant and have tremendous community spirit, and the people who live in them are certainly not destroyed. He comes from a rural area, and he should not talk down our valley communities. The Government have poured resources into those communities. Unemployment is coming down, and our communities are on the way up. I wish that people like him would not talk down Wales and valley communities.
Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman has totally misrepresented what I said. My mother came from Troed-y-rhiw, and he should know better. What is needed in the valleys is better quality work, higher wages and a much better local economy. The spirit there is fantastic. The people of the valleys have been oppressed for a long time and they have had to fight. I know that from within my own family. We need to unite and work for a better economy for Wales, to resurrect it as something that is really worth while. A further crash programme of job creation is vital to bringing wealth to those deprived communities. They undoubtedly already have plenty of wealth in terms of community strength.
I have had two stints as leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. The most recent one, from 1997 to 2001, has certainly been the most enjoyable and eventful. Winning the Welsh Assembly referendum was certainly the highlight and the realisation of many of the aims of my career. The elation of that victory and of what it meant for my beloved Wales will remain with me for ever. I hope that it will also inspire a new generation of young Welsh politicians.
Our new Assembly is an imperfect thing, but it will grow with our nation. Ultimately, we still have the innate talent in Wales—including the talent for robust political argument—to make more of ourselves. We must raise our eyes from the negativity that sometimes abounds in our debates. In Wales, we need vision and unity of purpose to create a better and more successful nation and society. That is the challenge of the 21st century. I am pleased to

77
have been able to play a very small part in laying a few secure foundations for the future that my country desperately needs.
6.58 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The annual debate on Welsh affairs has always provided an opportunity for what are often euphemistically described as wide-ranging speeches. Today's debate has already lived up to the great traditions of the past. I hope that my wide-ranging speech will be fairly short.
We have had various debates on Welsh affairs recently. We have had debates on the economy in the Welsh Grand Committee, debates on social deprivation on the Floor of the House, and other debates on law and order and on building better, stronger and safer communities. I think that most of us, if we consider the Welsh economy objectively, can understand the Welsh economy's strong points, its weaknesses, the improvements that have been made and the improvements that are needed.
The Welsh economy's strong points have already been mentioned in today's debate. Unemployment, for example, has decreased considerably. Indeed, it has decreased by more than most us would have thought possible when the Government were elected at the last general election. Inflation is low, as is the cost of borrowing money. Since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his announcements in the autumn, there has been a substantial increase in the sums being devoted to public services. It will take some time before the money filters through to health and education services, but that is happening and it will happen increasingly during the next few years. The minimum wage has been a great success, as we saw today in the welcome proposal to increase it by 10 per cent. Thus there have been strong points, but there is no use in denying that the Welsh economy has weak points; we all know what they are.
Incomes or gross domestic product per head are still low, although some parts of Wales now have fairly high incomes and GDP per head. Perhaps one of our future problems will be the gap between areas such as Cardiff, Newport, the south-east and parts of the north-east and other parts of Wales, but generally incomes and GDP per head are still too low and we need to try to do something to raise them. Obviously, that is not easy; it will take time.
As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) said, farming is under Tremendous pressure. It has suffered one blow after another. I entirely agree with him that the small family farm is often the backbone of rural communities, especially the Welsh-speaking communities, and we should preserve them if we can. However, his prescription was not as constructive or good as his analysis. France was mentioned in an intervention during his speech. Hardly a family farm is left in the Creuse in central France and most of them are occupied by weekend visitors from Paris. That is a real problem around the world, given the pressures on commodity prices.
Mr. Ruane: I have recently been looking at the statistics for French farms, which show a decrease from 1.5 million to 800,000. The number of farms has almost halved in France.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I should be careful, given the intervention that my hon. Friend the
78
Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made in the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, but I should like to mention the tremendous pressure that has been placed on our traditional industries, on our manufacturing industry and on the communities that were bound up with them. No other small country in the industrialised western world has had to bear the disruption and degeneration in its economic structure that Wales has borne from the late 1960s onwards.
Mr. Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend obviously wants to get his retaliation in first.
Mr. Rogers: The point that I was trying to make—I thought that I had done so—was that, although our industries were destroyed, our communities have not been. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) should read his speech tomorrow; he talked about valley communities being destroyed. The industry was destroyed, but the valley communities have not been.
Mr. Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend and hope that I can develop that theme. I suppose that, given the high dependence, first, on iron and coal and then on coal and steel, it was perhaps inevitable that the high preponderance of basic industries would not survive, as tariff barriers came down in the aftermath of the second world war and as trade opened up in the late 1960s. Sadly, not only did our communities have to try to adjust to that perhaps natural decline, but we had a tremendous pressure on prices and costs because of the global economy—to use a shorthand term—from the mid-1980s onwards. We never had a chance fully to recover from one economic blow after another, as we have seen, yet again, with the steel industry.
When politicians are faced with those economic hurricanes, we rightly tend to believe that one way to deal with the problem is to ask the Government for more money, whether in grants, public expenditure or objective 1 funding. Some people want the Barnett formula to be changed; others want there to be tax holidays or havens, or whatever, but we all ask, quite rightly, for Government money. Government money can solve many problems, and it is forthcoming, but we should recognise that economic changes and upheavals, such as those we have seen in Wales, have an effect on the cultural, social and, indeed, moral fabric of the communities that have suffered from them.
If we are to attract good economic investment, which we need to do to raise the GDP per head, we must realise that money is not sufficient in itself. We must try to rekindle confidence by fostering a culture of excellence and achievement—perhaps, rekindling some basic moral values—for which those communities were rightly proud and in which they showed great success when they had the economic growth that was lost.
I shall digress a little from this perhaps rather rambling speech and tell the House that, some time ago, a successful national eisteddfod was held in Llanelli. Aficionados of such events will know that a publication, which is quite cheap and written in Welsh, containing all the entries—the poetry, prose, literature, drama and, indeed, the film scripts, which are now part of the

79
competitions—and the adjudications on them is issued at the end of the eisteddfod. I have just finished reading the publication of the Llanelli eisteddfod. Frankly, it heartened me to read it, because there is still a culture of excellence, merit and achievement.
The publication is a great tribute to the adjudicators, who carefully consider all the entries and discuss their syntax, grammar and the imagination and language used—presumably, for little reward, because they enjoy doing so. It is also a tribute to those who have entered the competition, because they subject themselves to criticism. Perhaps this is no longer a society in which we want to subject ourselves to criticism, but they do so, and they are often sharply criticised. Of course, that is not an exercise in which "everyone's a winner, baby."
Certificates are not just handed out to everyone. In that perhaps minority area of cultural excellence, prizes are not awarded very often. People are criticised, but they are not given certificates. Perhaps we can learn something from the culture of excellence, attainment and rigour that can be seen in those adjudications and the national eisteddfod's publications. I am sure that that applies in other areas, not just to those Welsh circles.
Let us consider culture and excellence in Wales. Some social commentators maintain that a good way to assess the quality of a country's cultural attainments is to compare the quality of its broadsheet newspapers. Perhaps it is not a very good test, but some sociologists tell us that if a country can produce and sustain one or two well-written, well-analysed broadsheet newspapers, it says something about its sophistication and cultural achievements.
I have always wanted to be an adjudicator, and I shall now give my national eisteddfod-like adjudication. My French is not too good—being a Eurosceptic, perhaps I should not dare admit to knowing any French—so I shall confine myself to the countries of Britain and Ireland. The winner must be Ireland. Of course, such a test might be rather silly—I am not sure who is in the Gallery—but the winner is the Irish Times. By a short head, it is just in front of two or three of the London broadsheets that I assign to England even though they circulate throughout Britain.
I have given my first and second prizes and I would give my third prize to the Scots, who share it between The Scotsman and The Herald. In this eisteddfod, there is no fourth prize, so I am afraid that Wales does not get one. However, if there were a fourth prize, I would not tell the House to whom I would give it.
Mr. Rogers: The Rhondda Leader.
Mr. Davies: Why not? The Rhondda Leader gets fourth prize.
The Irish Times predates the Irish economic recovery that exercises all our minds and on which Plaid Cymru is trying to base most of its policies. I read recently in the Irish Times that Ireland is now crawling with economists who are trying to find out the reasons for Ireland's economic resurgence and success. They have not found them yet, but there are many reasons and I doubt whether most of them can be applied to Wales with the different structure of its economy in which the industrial revolution, among other things, played its part.
80
One reason why Ireland has done quite well may be the cultural sophistication, especially in terms of the English language, that it has shown in an age of communication. One of my Irish friends told me that he thought that the main reason for that goes back to the 1960s and to the education reforms of the Irish Prime Minister at that time, Sean Lemass. I am not an expert on British education and I am certainly not an expert on Irish education, so I do not understand the reasons for Ireland's success. However, I am old fashioned enough to believe that education—especially at secondary level—might be the answer to rebuilding the economic base of those of our communities that have suffered.
Secondary education in Wales is like secondary education in much of Britain: it is good in parts, bad in parts and the rest is middling. I have considered the league tables that The Times and other newspapers have published—no doubt, they are not always accurate—but I am delighted to see one or two Welsh schools in the first 50 on the lists. Let us be brutal: we do not see many Welsh schools in the first 50, but it is good to see them when they are there My impression is that certain areas of education in Wales do not match the best in England, Scotland or Ireland, and the education in those countries does not always equal the best in some continental countries such as those in Scandinavia, including Finland. A small country such as Wales could learn a lot from what happens in education there.
Recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister published a Green Paper. Like all Green Papers, parts of it were criticised and others were welcomed, but I believe that it contained many good ideas. A good case was made for some form of specialisation and for some specialised schools and units, even though much work needs to be done to flesh out the policy and to work out the practicalities.
However, I was disappointed when I read on Ceefax that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the Assembly in Cardiff has apparently rejected out of hand the proposals in the Green Paper. Perhaps second thoughts have prevailed and things are different now, so perhaps I am being unfair to her. If I am, I apologise. None the less, I got the impression from the report that the Green Paper's proposals had been rejected almost out of hand.
Just as it was silly before devolution for Wales to follow slavishly what went on in England, it is also absurd after devolution to reject out of hand any proposals that might apply to England. We must try as far as we can—none of us is wholly objective—to assess as rationally as possible ideas when they are proposed. We might reject some because they are not applicable, but we should accept those ideas that we think we can apply.
For certain subjects, we must consider the notion of creating centres of excellence or special units so that we can lift the qualify of education in those subjects. Sciences and mathematics are a case in point. A recent report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology said that science and mathematics education in Britain was woeful and did not offer industry the type of graduates that it wanted.
It has been suggested that we cannot have special schools and units in Wales because we have a large rural hinterland and rural children could not travel to the special units. However, it is perfectly possible to provide sleeping

81
arrangements and to use the latest e-mail and internet technology to teach science over long distances with no problem whatever.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I do not disagree with many of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks but does he agree that, in rural areas, we should take the opportunity to create a stronger and much more practical link between sixth forms and the colleges of education that already provide distance learning and high-quality courses, especially in west Wales? Colleges and schools must work much more closely together in the way that he advocates.
Mr. Davies: Indeed, that can be done. Agenda, a television production company in my constituency, not only produces television programmes but has internet technology that is as good as anything that can be found in Seattle. The company can do such work. Let us not put up barriers. It is possible to create centres of excellence—using either technology or clusters of institutions—where people can be educated.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I agree with the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about excellence in Welsh schools. However, does he not agree that it is rather sad that, over a 20-year period, we have come full circle? After the destruction of so many good state schools and grammar schools in Wales, we now recognise the need to reinvent specialist schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I both went to the same state grammar school in Swansea that my father went to in the 1920s. That school went downhill after its grammar school status was removed and now it is closing. Is that not rather sad?
Mr. Davies: I am a product of West Wales grammar school, but I do not take a romantic view of our school days. There were some good grammar schools and some very bad ones. The 11-plus was not a very successful mechanism; it left many children behind. Rather than looking romantically to the past, we must realise that in a modern world, in which there are global pressures on prices and costs, we must be up there with the highest global standards in education. If we are not, we shall not attract investment. We need some kind of specialisation—certainly in science and mathematics—to enable us to do that. I would argue for that, and I do not think that we should reject ideas out of hand simply because they appear in a Green Paper that technically applies only to England.
The story is not entirely gloomy. There is considerable growth in many areas. For instance, Cardiff is a successful city. I hope that people there realise that much of its wealth comes from the massive public expenditure on its economy. As a result, there are public servants, who get paid reasonably well, and professional firms of solicitors, accountants and management consultants who feed off it. I do not know how much actual wealth creation has occurred, and that is what is important if we are to lift the economy.
Mr. Michael: My right hon. Friend makes some fair points. Cardiff's productivity decreased considerably when the steel works closed and it experienced the problems that many other constituencies are experiencing now. However, there is another side to the argument.
82
A capital city often gives people their first impression of a country. We have a mutual interest in the success of Cardiff and Llanelli.
Mr. Davies: I was not arguing a different case. However, the gap is even wider in Ireland, where there is a fear that, within the next 20 years, half the population of southern Ireland will live in Dublin or its suburbs. There is a problem. Obviously, we cannot denude Cardiff to help somewhere else, but we must recognise that it has received massive public expenditure.
We need public money, but the economic hurricane that has hit Wales in the past 20 or 30 years has caused tremendous social and cultural problems. We must try to return to the virtues of cultural excellence and the attainment of intellectual rigour, without which we will not rebuild those communities.
7.21 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I warmly associate myself with the tributes to the late Lord Cledwyn, who was one of the greatest Welshmen of his generation. As we have heard, he was an extremely able and honest politician. In my early years, I also knew him as an able lawyer. He will be a great loss to Wales and to Parliament. I also associate myself with what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said about Mr. Ian Spratling. Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee met him recently and found him to be a doughty fighter for the underprivileged. He will be greatly missed.
As for the skirmishes between the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the Secretary of State about the mythical television punch-up that might appear from the ether, if it takes the hon. Member for Ribble Valley an hour to say what he did, a series of debates will be needed.
On miners' compensation claims, I welcome wholeheartedly the Government' s recent announcement. The change in direction will mean that there will be no deduction when compensation is paid to widows. Indeed, I called for that measure in a debate on 6 February, to which the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe responded. However, three or four issues are outstanding. I hope that my comments will be constructive.
We need more medical staff. I know that there may be a paucity of them in some areas, but it is my honest opinion that they should be drafted in and, if necessary, taken off elective work so that the claims can be processed quickly. The Department of Trade and Industry's predictions have never been met, but matters are improving.
Mr. Rogers: I appreciate the constructive way in which the hon. Gentleman is approaching the problem, but the issue has been considered. I have sat on the monitoring group since its inception and we identified that as a weakness early on. Unfortunately, the medical profession and the requirements of the hon. Gentleman's profession with regard to the legal aspects of the medical assessment mean that we cannot accelerate the process. He talks about drafting people in, but from where?
Mr. Llwyd: They could come from other parts of the United Kingdom and work solely on the claims for the next few months.
Mr. Rogers: Those areas have the same recruitment problem.
Mr. Llwyd: We must beg to differ. I know that people are touchy about such uncomfortable issues, but I am trying to be constructive.
Before last week's announcement, which will involve about £40 million, the Department of Trade and Industry challenged the rights of widows to receive those payments in full. I welcome the Government's decision to reconsider that, but they should also examine the clawback. Many Labour Members agree with me. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is not present—I am sure that he is on parliamentary work—has worked hard on that issue. We should all follow his example. It is ridiculous that in one case recovered money was initially calculated at £21,707, but was reduced to £6.38 on the third appeal. That decision cost thousands of pounds in processing costs and caused great worry for the person involved. The situation is abominable and I hope that the Government will realise that.
However, there is another side to the coin. I believe that it is wrong to claw back compensation, which is sometimes substantial, because the miner who is in receipt of it will never be back in full-time work. Indeed, many miners will not live long enough to consider such work.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and he is right to mention the clawback. The assessment, which was based on the last five or six years of payment, is now made on the original five or six years. As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman knows that the compensation took account of sick pay that was provided in the initial years.
Mr. Llwyd: This is where we might fall out. The clawback was introduced in September 1997, when the House was in recess. [Interruption.] I am certain of my facts. If the compensation clawback had not been introduced by statutory instrument in September 1997, it would not exist. Incidentally, it was introduced within a fortnight of the High Court issuing a preliminary judgment that it would find for the miners. We would have had to fall back on the 1989 Tory provision to exempt the miners. I question the Government's timing. However, I want them to consider their timing now and quickly scrap the recovery of compensation. It is immoral to recover large sums and a waste of time to recover smaller sums.
I am very unhappy with what the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), told me when I argued that the miners were a special case. He said that they were not because he had constituents who were suffering from asbestos as a result of working for British Rail. I told him that I was not there to discuss them and that if he wanted to be a constituency MP, he should plead their case—but I was not interested to hear about them. He then gave a worse example and compared miners with nurses. I do not want nurses to put their backs out, but it is unlikely to kill them and they should be able to return to work. His attitude was strange. However, I am encouraged that progress is being made. It has coincided with the appointment of the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and I hope that more quickly follows.
84
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) rightly said that the Welsh economy is good in parts, but we know that there are problems in some manufacturing sectors. No fewer than 18,000 manufacturing jobs in Wales have disappeared, and we know that the country is undergoing a structural change. We cannot look back and cling to the good old days when we had a coal industry and other heavy industry—those days are gone and we must look to the future. However, I am concerned that many of those jobs need not have disappeared.
I am sure that all hon. Members feel the same about Corns. The answers given by the company's chairman to the Welsh Affairs Committee on Thursday were unacceptable. I could use stronger words, and I have no doubt that stronger Words will be used at some point. The chairman said that there was overproduction so the company could not justify keeping the plant open. Having said that the plant was one of the most efficient in the UK, he said in the next breath that the economic situation in the UK did not help the company. He then bleated on about the euro and one thing and another. He was clutching at straws and his points were at variance with each other. One has to question the gentleman's veracity, and I have no doubt that he will be put to a strict test the next time he comes before the Committee.
Mr. Ruane: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of Sir Brian Moffat's view that investment in productivity in the steel industry did not matter?
Mr. Llwyd: That is absolutely appalling. To my knowledge, Corus is actively investing elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Australia.
Mr. Llwyd: Yes Although the chairman denied it, I have an article from the Sydney Morning Herald that says the opposite. Such remarks are offensive to us all, no matter to which party we belong. One would have thought that such attitudes were a thing of the past and that people could not treat workers in that way. However, it seems that that is not the case.
Mr. Rogers: We have been through all this before. I remember that in the early 1980s, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and I were Members of the European Parliament, a company called Johnson and Johnson, which makes baby products, had a brand new factory in Pontllanfraith, built with money from the Welsh Development Agency and supplied with superb equipment. The company suddenly closed it and transferred the operation to Kuijk in Holland. The then right hon. Member for lslwyn, Neil Kinnock, and I met the company chairman at Heathrow and he said that Pontllanfraith was far more efficient than the factory in Holland, but it would take him a year to sack people in Holland, whereas people in Wales could be sacked in two minutes. The heart of the problem is labour laws in Europe. We must achieve the right equation with those laws or get out of Europe and promote our own values.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes another robust contribution. No doubt that will be much quoted during the election campaign, but I am sure that he will worry

85
little about that. I accept his point about the difference in treatment of workers in Holland and workers here. That gap must be closed, using European law or another means.
Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the complaint made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) could have been resolved at the Nice summit? For some reason, the Government did not resolve the problem of employment laws, which would have assisted steel workers because they could not have been sacked so summarily.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is one step ahead of me. I was not aware that the problem could have been dealt with at the Nice summit, but I hope and pray that it will be dealt with shortly so that, at the very least, if we are presented with a fait accompli there is no repetition of the disgraceful behaviour by Corus or a similar outfit.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli pointed out that we are behind in knowledge-based industries. We know that whatever we say about increasing our manufacturing base, it will never be as strong as it was 30 or 40 years ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has to be a better partnership between schools, colleges and universities and business, manufacturing and industry. The Irish have done that very well. The Select Committee visited Ireland last year and we saw how universities are playing a proactive role in assisting industry not only in Ireland, but throughout the world. Students are bringing back PhDs from various parts of the world and bringing in investment, often from high-tech firms.
We can learn from that positive stance. Of course, there are many facets to it. Ireland has been careful to ensure that it implements all European directives and that it has good representation in the Commission and in all its key positions. It has been careful not to forget to ask for European money when it is available. In addition, the Irish people are very persuasive. I say good luck to them.
I will not get into the GDP argument except to say that there has been a 0.3 per cent. increase in Wales's GDP in the past couple of months. However that follows a 3 per cent. fall since 1997, when the Government took office, so it has not taken us far. Objective I will not be a panacea for all ills, but it gives us hope that we can improve our position.
Mr. John Smith: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman is referring to a fall in GDP relative to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. He is not saying that the GDP of Wales has declined—it has not.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I should have phrased my remark better.
We face other problems. Parts of the UK are doing very well and other parts are doing very badly. One thinks of the north-east, the north-west and Wales. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently made a telling speech about the difference between the south-east and other more prosperous parts of the UK, and the way in which Wales is still lagging behind. He said:
"Lack of investment, poor skills and education qualifications, these are some of the underlying causes we need to tackle. In the modern economy we cannot build a strong economy, a strong nation, if we have a tail of under performing regions."
86
Those are not necessarily the words that I would use. He continued:
"We need all our regions firing on all cylinders."
I fully agree with that.
The new earnings survey recently showed that the average income for Great Britain as a whole is £21,842, while the average income in Wales is £19,134. There is a gap and we must continue to strive to close it. We could consider having more regional economic policies. For example, there is nothing to prevent the introduction of a corporation tax cut in an objective 1 area. There is nothing to prevent us from giving rent or tax holidays or introducing cuts in employers national insurance liability. Those are valid options that could be used if the political will existed.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman referred to a corporation tax cut in an objective 1 area. I do not know what definitions would be used, or how one would compute profits, but he is saying that any company just outside that area, such as a company in Newport vis-à-vis a company in Swansea, would pay a higher rate of tax on its profits.
Mr. Llwyd: No, that is not what I am saying. I said that there was a perfectly valid case for introducing such a tax cut in an objective 1 area.
The much-quoted chairman of Corus said that none of that was possible until he was questioned, when he said that it was possible. There is nothing to stop central Government considering other deprived areas such as those in England and Wales that are outwith the objective 1 areas.
If the Government really want to operate a regional economic policy, they can do it. It is all very well the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry simply describing the problems—an accusation levelled at the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey)—as he has done in several keynote speeches, but he has not to my knowledge responded to the clamour to adopt some form of regional policy whereby regional solutions are introduced to perk up a specific region, whether that be Wales, the north-east or north-west of England, or anywhere else.
Mr. Davies: No one is against so-called regional policy. I question how one could have regional differentials in corporation tax on profits. They do not have such a system in Ireland; the rate of corporation tax in the south of Ireland is the same as applies throughout the country. I find it difficult to imagine how one could operate a policy of differentials within Wales.
Mr. Llwyd: The whole of Ireland is an objective 1 area.
Mr. Davies: It was.
Mr. Llwyd: It still is, for the time being. In addition, part of the Irish success arises from the fact that the Government have pegged corporation tax at a very low rate until 2010, which is bound to be attractive to any inward investor. I wish that we could do something similar to attract inward investment.

87
On the question of regional competitiveness, in a recent publication Robert Higgins of the centre for advanced studies in Cardiff makes it clear that the south-eastern regions of England are driving economic growth and that there is a great difference between their situation and that of Wales, the north-east and Yorkshire. I acknowledge that there are problems, and I have mentioned some possible answers which I believe should be given consideration. Currently, there appears to be no political will to do anything other than describe what is happening and say, "Dear, dear—there's another few manufacturing jobs gone."
The 75p increase offered to pensioners in the 2000 Budget will go down in history as one of the biggest political gaffes. The recent pre-Budget statement contained an increase of £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a pensioner couple, and I know about the television licences and the £200 winter fuel allowance, but, backed by the Age Concern manifesto recently received by all hon. Members, pensioners are telling me that they want a proper, decent pension that they can decide how to spend.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llwyd: No, because other hon. Members want to speak and it would be unfair if I did not try to finish my remarks fairly soon.
Pensioners say that they want a proper pension and that they will decide how to spend it—that message comes from every pensioners' group. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will heed it and address the issue. There is no doubt that pensioners are being pushed to the fringes of society. Far too many depend on state handouts and benefits: despite having worked throughout their lives and giving their all to build a better country for our generation, they are now told to stand back and accept the odd handout now and then. It really is not good enough.
On student tuition fees, I declare an interest as one who currently has two children at university. Even though the expense is ruinous, I am not entering a special plea on my own behalf, because by investing in their education I am doing the sensible thing—at least, that is what I tell myself almost every night. None the less, I have to say that tuition fees are having the adverse effect that people predicted when they were introduced. There was a 4.2 per cent. fall in overall applications between 1996 and 1999, and a 14.3 per cent. decrease in applications from mature students. A recent study by the National Union of Students of working-class pupils in Hull shows that more than 50 per cent. were less likely to apply for university because of fees and loans. At the same time, applications in Scotland have increased by 19.2 per cent. since tuition fees were abolished. That is conclusive evidence.
Having recently met students at University college, Bangor and in Aberystwyth, I believe that that issue will have to be revisited soon. Students leave university, often without a job that they can go straight into, with debts of up to £12,000 hanging around their necks. That cannot be right. I know that, in their hearts, Labour Members feel as I do. We must ensure that we have education for all. In passing, I should like to point out that my father was a retired policeman and that had it not been for the fact that
88
I received a full grant, I should never have become a lawyer. We dare not prevent talented young people from developing their talent; otherwise, we shall for ever be saying that Wales is uncompetitive.
7.45 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: We all have the current farming crisis on our mind. We welcome the Government's decisive action to end the crisis and their decision to apply for the agrimonetary compensation that, in the past, Governments have not been swift to claim. I hope that it will help farmers to get through this difficult period and that, in future, we have a Government who care for the countryside and want to develop positive policies for it.
I was extremely disappointed by the speech made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He spent almost an hour quoting press reports and historic bits and pieces, press cuttings and radio excerpts, many of which did not set out the facts, but reflected the gloss that commentators had put on what had been said. Given his frequent references to a forth coming general election—it has not yet been announced, but he seems sure that there will be one and that it will result in a Conservative Government—I was surprised that he did not compare the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power with the four years in which the Labour party has been in power. The comparisons are most instructive.
Let us consider unemployment. When the Conservatives left office after 18 years, their legacy in Wales was an unemployment rate of 6.5 per cent., or 80,000 people. By their standards, that was incredibly good, especially compared with the figures for some of the preceding years: at times, more than twice as many people had been unemployed during the wonderful Tory years. Yet after only four years, the Labour Government have managed to cut unemployment in Wales by about 20 per cent. There are now slightly fewer than 60,000 people unemployed in Wales. We have made significant inroads into the terrible Conservative unemployment record.
Let us examine other economic measures, such as interest rates. During the four years of the Labour Government, interest rates have been on average 4 per cent. lower than they, were during the Tory years. Under the Tories, we had double-digit interest rates for four years. At one point they were as high as 15 per cent.—more than twice the rates seen under the Labour Government—and industry suffered, home owners suffered negative equity and other problems abounded. Yet in four years, the Labour Government have turned that record round: we now have the lowest mortgage rates, the lowest long-term interest rates and the healthiest prospects for economic growth that have been seen since the second world war—or even in this century. Although I am no expert in these matters, I should not be surprised to learn that the latter is true.
I shall not overstate to my case, because the comparison between Labour's four-year record and the Conservatives' 18-year record makes it clear. Under the Tories, growth was 2 per cent., whereas we have managed 2.7 per cent., which is reflected in the way in which we have been able to tackle unemployment. There are about 40,000 more jobs in Wales now than there were when the Tories left office.
We have been able to turn the record round, and not by means of the boom-and-bust economics of Tory Governments. They would introduce financial cuts and

89
then increase public expenditure, first, we drew our breath and kept a firm hand on public expenditure over the first couple of years. Once we had the economy right, we expanded public expenditure. It is instructive to compare what happened in the last few years of the Tory Government with what has happened under the Labour Government. In the last three years of the Tory Government, public expenditure as expressed in the public service functions held by the Welsh Office increased by 2.2 per cent. and 2 per cent., and, when we came to power, the Tories were planning an increase of 0.4 per cent. for 1997–98.
We had to take some difficult decisions about not suddenly expanding public expenditure, in order to get the economy right first. After 1997–98, public expenditure under the Labour Government increased by 2.7 per cent. In 1999–2000, it increased by 8.2 per cent. It then increased by 6.5 per cent., and there are planned expenditure increases of 10 per cent., 8.2 per cent. and 7.1 per cent. These figures show clearly how the Government have grasped the economy and are now able to put additional expenditure into public services. All that has been done with an expanding economy.
Let us consider the prosperity index. There have been many arguments about gross domestic product, but in the Tory years the relative position of Wales in the GDP league of the United Kingdom declined. The Labour Government have begun to address these problems, and improvements are being made in Wales. Perhaps more important in many ways, average earnings are increasing.
In 1999–2000, average earnings in Wales increased by 4.1 per cent. That increase was greatly helped by the introduction of the national minimum wage, which the official Opposition opposed. They are now saying grudgingly that they will not oppose the increase announced today, to £4.10 an hour, because firms are beginning to get their computerised systems ready for next October. We know that most Conservative Members would like to get rid of the minimum wage, which has been so helpful in improving incomes, and especially those of women in Wales.
The working families tax credit has helped about 67,000 families in Wales. On average, it is worth about £30 more than the old family credit Child benefit has been increased significantly—there was the greatest ever increase of 25 per cent. this year. Given all the changes that have been made to taxation and social security, families with children are about £850 a year better off than they were in 1997.
The new deal has helped to put more people back to work. We know that 28,000 jobless people have been helped. It is a new deal that the Conservative party would want to get rid of entirely. About 18,000 people have been helped back into work and about 10,000 have been helped back into education or further training.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about pensions. We all know that the 75p increase was a mistake, but many pensioners say that they are glad that the Government are providing a winter fuel allowance of £200. They are glad also that the over-75s do not pay £104 for their television licences. They are glad as well that in April a single pensioner will receive a £5 a week increase, and that married couples will have an £8 a week increase, with promises of above-inflation increases in years to come.
90
Pensioners have seen the Government getting the economy right. We are now ensuring that pensioners are receiving an above-inflation share and an above-average-earnings share of public expenditure. Pensioners do not want to lose the winter fuel allowance. It is tax free and does not cause reductions in social security money if it is received as well.
The Government's record is extremely good after a difficult two years. I shall be more than proud to campaign, whenever the general election comes, on the four years of this Labour Government set against any of the 18 Tory years, safe in the knowledge that no other party could form a Government to look after the interests of Wales.
7.55 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I begin my contribution to this annual debate with the annual plea for a bank holiday in Wales on St. David's day. The Minister will have heard the plea many times; indeed, it is sometimes made by Labour Back Benchers. I shall introduce a little more information this evening. Some interesting research was conducted last summer by ICM, which claimed that we suffer from a bank holiday deficit in the United Kingdom. The findings of the research put us at the bottom of the European Union league table for bank holidays. It is well known that Wales has fewer bank holidays than even Northern Ireland, for example.
Another fact that emerged from the research was that the area of the United Kingdom that most wanted a bank holiday on its patron saint's day was Wales. It appears that 86 per cent. of Welsh people want a bank holiday first and foremost on St. David's day. If the Government were to introduce such a bank holiday, it would be popular.
I can make a claim for St. David on behalf of Ceredigion. His mother, Non, was born in Ceredigion at Llannon, and his most famous synod was held at Llanddewibrefi in Cerdigion, where the ground rose beneath him and he took on and defeated the Pelagion heresy. I will not explain that to the House, but I understand that it is the achievement of salvation through good deeds, with which we on these Benches agree.
Unfortunately, in doing so, St. David took on the Celtic Church, and romanised it. At one level, he could be viewed as a rather poor patron saint for Celtic Wales as it then was, but history is written by the victors. I think that we can ultimately see St. David as a good patron saint for Wales. He took Wales into Europe, which is the policy of my party.
St. David is accredited with saying—it was one of his last words—
"Gwnewch y pethau bychain."
That means, do the little things. I ask Members on the Government Front Bench to take that approach and to make St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales and to include a question about Welsh identity in the census form. Those little things would make the new Labour party much more popular in Wales than even it claims to be.
To move on to slightly more serious matters, it can be seen that Wales is starting to feel that new Labour has turned its back on some of the core values of the Welsh people. That is shown by the acknowledgment of the

91
Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe that apathy will rule the general election. How is it that a new Labour Government cannot encourage their core supporters to vote for the Labour party? We shall see whether apathy delivers any seats to the Conservative party. It does not deserve any seats, but perhaps apathy will deliver one or two seats to it. I think that campaigning, not apathy, will offer one or two seats to my party.
Views in Wales started on the periphery, with the Government's attitude to rural issues and to the difficulties with post offices and fuel taxes. They began with the crisis in farming, which has been exacerbated in the past few days. Those issues have underpinned problems in Wales for some time. The attitudes have reached the valleys, the core areas of Wales. They are reflected in the problems in the steel industry with Corus and in the difficulties that the Government have had with miners' compensation. We are seeing clearly that Wales is taken for granted by the Labour party, and that new Labour's sights, in terms of tactics and policy, are focused on the south and middle of England.
Whenever the general election is held, the Government will have to show how they are responding to issues that concern the people of Wales. Given the current foot and mouth crisis in Wales, I hope that the Government and the Prime Minister will not call an election when we cannot campaign in rural areas. The Minister has rural areas in his constituency, and I am sure that he has attended many marts during election campaigns. If we cannot go around rural areas attending marts, visiting farms and our constituents and encouraging them to vote, that will be seen as a poor show and shoddy behaviour by the Prime Minister in calling an election.
If the disease is under control, things may be difficult. In that context, coming to Westminster today and driving to the train station this morning was a very sad business indeed. As I passed through my constituency and that of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), all that I could see was empty and deserted farms. All that I saw was straw at every farm entrance; all that I smelt was the strong, penetrating smell of disinfectant at every farm entrance. With this latest blow, the countryside is in terrible shape. I know that we cannot blame that blow on the Government, but it has made the situation far worse.
I am grateful that the Prime Minister has now acknowledged, late in the day, that this Government and previous Governments have pursued policies that have exacerbated the current foot and mouth crisis. One of those policies is the encouragement of the closure of small abattoirs, leading to the transportation of stock over huge distances. When we saw the first map showing foot and mouth outbreaks and traced the disease throughout the United Kingdom, we immediately realised how the closure of small rural abattoirs had affected farming in this country.
I urge the Minister to take back three messages to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. Although the response from the Government so far has been good and welcome, some things still need to be addressed. The first is the welfare-related movements of animals. A lot of ewes are still waiting to be lambed, and some calves
92
are at a distance from farms; they cannot be brought back without breaking the present restriction orders. That creates welfare problems for animals and great difficulties for farmers. I hope that the Government will look at that issue extremely quickly.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that, from today, the Government are allowing some movement of animals to abattoirs for slaughter. Within that, however, we need to look at allowing some movement for welfare needs, if a flock is disease free. As for the movement to abattoirs, I hope that the Government will ensure that the remaining small abattoirs will be included in the scheme and the licensing for slaughter. A local butcher in Aberystwyth, Rob Rattray, has always had his animals slaughtered at Tregaron, which is a small abattoir. He knows that the animal that he gets from the farm is slaughtered locally and that the carcase that he gets is that same animal. He has an excellent reputation for telling his customers from which farm a certain animal comes. Credibility and faith are being restored to much of the meat industry in west Wales both by intimate knowledge of where the product comes from and the higher standards that are being followed. Mr. Rattray is rightly concerned that, if he has to use a faraway abattoir, whether in Merthyr Tydfil, the west country or wherever, he will have difficulty in giving his customers that assurance.
The third element that the Government need to look at is compensation. Of course, agrimonetary compensation is to be welcomed, but the compensation that is now being drawn down represents 54 per cent. of what farm incomes are suspected to be next year. That is how bad farming has become in Wales; £900 will be as much as 54 per cent. of a farm's income in the next year. However, that is a separate issue. I hope that the Government will not put any spin on agrimonetary compensation and say that it is something to do with foot and mouth. It is not; it is to do with the strength of the pound and the difficulties of receiving support payments as the result of the strength of the pound against the euro.
Agrimonetary compensation is welcome in helping farms' cashflow, but it has nothing to do with compensation for foot and mouth, which must be looked at. Of course, fallen stock compensation is available for stock that is destroyed, but account must be taken of consequential losses. We must be careful how far those losses can, or should, go, but account must be taken of the impact of losing so much business on a farming industry already on its knees. No doubt, the Minister already knows that the lamb market had just come back to life this spring aid was ready for Welsh farmers to start rebuilding their lamb industry and consumer confidence at a decent farmgate price, when foot and mouth broke out. Ministers and the Government are not to blame for that, but they can do something to help the industry reach the position it had almost reached.
We have lost 73 farming jobs a week in Wales; we have lost 3,800 jobs in agriculture in the past year alone. There has been a 10 per cent. decline in the number of people employed in agriculture. More than 6,000 jobs are to be added to the 18,000 jobs lost in manufacturing. That drives many of us to feel that the days of the traditional family farm in Wales, which has been so important in supporting the Welsh language and culture, may be under serious threat. A recent survey, "New entrance to land

93
markets", found that 39 per cent. of farms were being bought by non-farmers. Stock in Wales is down by about 5 per cent. Farmgate prices, which were at a high in 1995, have undergone a 90 per cent. Drop
No industry can survive such blows without restructuring and alteration; we all understand that. The question is how to preserve the best qualities of the Welsh family farm and its huge environmental and cultural contribution and ensure that they continue in future. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who, unfortunately, is not in his place, made an interesting speech and praised the contribution of the Llanelli national eisteddfod. If he looked at the individuals who contributed to that eisteddfod, he would see that an unusually high proportion of contributions were made by Welsh farming families to Welsh language and culture.
I recently saw that for myself in the young farmers' clubs annual performance night, which was of an incredibly high standard. The contributors used all sorts of media to present their ideas to an audience. When we witness that in the Welsh language, we know what we are in danger of losing, unless we do everything that we can to protect an industry, a way of life and an environment. All three things are bound up together.
In that context, the Prime Minister's acceptance that supermarkets have farmers in an armlock is to be welcomed. We did not have that acceptance last September or October, when the report on the supermarket industry was presented, but it is welcome now.
A debate on the future of farming is starting to be held in Welsh and United Kingdom public life. What are we farming for? We are no longer farming for a post-war world, and are no longer farming for all of our needs. We import much more than we farm ourselves. What is farming for? What are the unique features of British and Welsh farming that we want to preserve and encourage?
Mr. Edwards: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Given what he has just said about the Prime Minister's reference to supermarkets, will he acknowledge that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, in its inquiry into the livestock industry in Wales, recommended that the role of supermarkets should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading? That led to the recommendation of the Competition Commission that there should be a code of practice. Our Select Committee made the original recommendation.
Mr. Thomas: I certainly acknowledge that the Select Committee played an important role in that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the matter did not quite get to where the Select Committee cloud have liked it to get. However, in the context of the current crisis, there may be an opportunity to use legislation to get the code of practice that he mentioned on to the statute book, so that we have a much firmer idea of how relationships between farm producers, consumers and supermarkets should work.
Mr. Ruane: I agree entirely that there needs to be a watchdog for supermarkets. May I recommend the name "Oftrolley"?
Mr. Thomas: I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman is often off his trolley.
Mr. Llwyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend will say so.
Mr. Llwyd: We have obviously hit on an eminent Government Member who would make a very good chief executive.
Mr. Thomas: I will not go any further down that avenue, except to note that most trolleys end up in the river.
On a serious note, may I move on to what this debate engenders concerning the future of farming? Broadly, there are three ways forward for farming in Wales. First, we must improve and support the traditional family farm; there must still be a role for it. A second way is to encourage and make greater use of organic farming in Wales, support for which must be increased. A third way is non-food farming. Energy crops are a clear way forward.
The traditional family farm would still need to be supported as part of such a strategy. We must have a young entrants scheme in Wales. The National Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has considered the matter, but unfortunately the Lib-Lab Government there have not yet seen fit to introduce such a scheme. In Ireland, the scheme has brought down the average age of farmers from 57 to 50, which is quite a success, and has allowed young farmers to enter farming. Funding is available from the European Union. As many hon. Members know, the plan hinges on an early retirement scheme, which encourages young farmers to go into farming. That needs to be introduced in Wales.
We need an identity logo for Welsh produce. The case must be argued at a European level. We will not restore faith and confidence in our produce until we can demonstrate that a cut of meat was packaged somewhere in Wales and that it is genuine Welsh produce, produced by Welsh farmers to the highest welfare standards and to the best standards for the food that we want to eat in Wales. Through the National Farmers Union British farm standard, there must be a way of working with the industry and the supermarkets to introduce a Welsh produce logo that means something.
Finally, the Food Standards Agency, which has made an encouraging start on some of these matters, must take firmer action against poor quality meat imports, as we have discovered over the past few weeks and days. It is a sad fact that the two farming unions in Wales have been saying for months that poor quality meat imported from other parts of the continent, sometimes through Irish channels directly into Wales, has been undermining our meat industry in the UK. It seems that that may have been one source of foot and mouth.
We know that meat from Germany has been found to be contaminated with spinal residue, which is not allowed under the BSE regulations. We know, therefore, that there is a big job to be done by the Food Standards Agency to give further reassurance to consumers and, more important, support to our hard-pressed farmers.
I mentioned biomass and energy crops, but as I have previously spoken about that I shall not pursue the subject now. I will, however, say a little more about organic food

95
and farming. I am sponsoring a private Member's Bill to give greater support to organic farming. There is an opportunity now for the Government to take that jump and put into practice their warm words about organic farming.
The second report recently from the Select Committee on Agriculture on organic farming presented a positive attitude on the way forward. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has set not a target, but an outcome, as it is called, of about 5 per cent. of land in England to become organic, under the rural White Paper for England. In Wales, the National Assembly has a 10 per cent. target for organic conversion.
My Bill calls for a 30 per cent. target for organic conversion in the next 10 years. We need to achieve that. We are underplaying our opportunities. We import 70 per cent. of our organic cereals and 90 per cent. of our organic apples. We should surely be able to produce apples in the UK. We even import organic meat. In view of the condition of the meat industry in Wales and the rest of the UK, that surely should not continue. The Select Committee report acknowledged that in countries such as Sweden and Austria, setting targets had made a huge contribution to the move from a very low proportion of organic farming to 10 or 11 per cent. within four or five years.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to open a debate on farming and to examine the virtues of organic farming, to see how we can implement them in Wales to give Welsh agriculture a vibrant future. The Government have been able to draw down agrimonetary compensation and, on occasion, to apply sticking plaster to parts of Welsh agriculture, but there are more fundamental problems to deal with.
If we do not want Welsh agriculture, like the steel and the coal industries, to be denuded of infrastructure and to become an occupation at which people play part-time as hobby farmers, if we want real farms to produce real food that people want to eat and if we want to keep alive our countryside, heritage, traditions and language, there must be a sea change in attitude towards agriculture, not only among the Government, but throughout public policy, including much of the media.
Against the background of wider rural decline, which has seen the closure of post offices in rural areas, I shall mention a further constituency interest—the future of magistrates courts in Ceredigion. When I raised the matter in the Welsh Grand Committee, the Minister showed a flicker of interest, which was encouraging. I must tell him that matters have worsened since then. There is now a firm proposal to close all three magistrates courts in Ceredigion at Aberystwyth, Cardigan and Lampeter, and a vague proposal to build a new one at Aberaeron.
I have my constituency office at Aberaeron, on the grounds that it is equally inconvenient to all, but justice should not be equally inconvenient to all. It is vital that people can access magistrates courts in a rural area such as Ceredigion, and that victims can reach the courts to hear their cases. The Home Secretary said last week how important victims would be in the Government's latest initiative on crime reduction. Victims of crime in my constituency do not want to travel two hours a day to get to a court where their case may or may not be heard and where they may or may not see justice done.
96
The proposal to close magistrates courts in Ceredigion is reflected throughout Dyfed Powys. Cases from Aberystwyth may be transferred to Aberaeron. That also means that cases from Machynlleth will be transferred to Aberaeron. Cases from Cardigan will be transferred to Haverfordwest, and cases from Lampeter down to Carmarthen. I can tell the Minister that people in west Wales will fight the proposals tooth and nail.
I understand that the Government may not be happy about the possible impact of some of the changes, but the Lord Chancellor's Department is setting such stringent financial targets and such stringent targets for the process of justice that the difficulties in rural areas are not being taken into account.
Eighteen per cent. of people in Ceredigion walk to court in order to attend their cases. Closing the courts in towns such as Cardigan and Aberystwyth and forcing people to travel some distance will have a huge and detrimental effect, and will not make the Government popular. They may not have hopes of winning Ceredigion, but they may hope to win other parts of Dyfed Powys. Despite the Government's attempts to blame the magistrates court committee, the proposals are seen as part of their plans.
I close by reiterating some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about the difficulties that we are experiencing with higher education in Wales. Unfortunately, the National Assembly, under the Lib-Lab Government, has not yet seen fit to make a specific funding allocation for the higher education sector in Wales. That is the context for the useful comments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. There has been significant movement in higher education in England, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, such things are not always replicated in Wales. That is partly because the education budget in Wales has been raided to provide match funding for objective 1. That is the truth, whatever Ministers may say.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, there has been a 14 per cent. fall in the number of mature students. I have two universities, Lampeter and Aberystwyth, in my constituency. Lampeter was a niche market for mature students—a quiet market town to which they could bring their families. The fall in numbers has had a huge effect on Lampeter, and it has been exacerbated by the closure of Dewhirst, the clothing manufacturer, with the loss of 170 mainly female jobs.
Seventy-three per cent. of students are in debt. The average graduate debt is £7,584, but that is expected to rise significantly. It is calculated that the average graduate debt after a three-year course will soon be £9,000 or £10,000. We have nor yet seen the full effect. Universities are expelling thousands of students every year because, according to The Independent on Sunday of 28 January, they cannot pay their bills for rent or tuition. It has been proposed that there should be top-up fees for the most prestigious universities, but fortunately that has been rejected by the Government. Figures produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales reveal that teenagers in the valleys of south Wales are three times less likely to go to university. The imposition of tuition fees and of student loans cannot help that situation. The Government must consider urgently what has been done in Scotland and support the proposals that the National Assembly for Wales is investigating. If we do not secure

97
funding for students and investment for the future of Wales, we will be in danger of squandering the opportunities that may be provided by objective 1 status and of losing the high-tech developments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred.
I turn now to my final comments—[Interruption.] I have spoken for less than half the time taken on behalf of the Tories, who do not even have a Member of Parliament who represents a Welsh constituency.
We hear often in debates on Wales about the wonders of job creation by Labour. Exploration of that argument from the point of view of Ceredigion will perhaps shatter the myth. Since 1997, the Government's policies, or at least the general atmosphere, has created 100 new jobs in Ceredigion. That is the total increase since 1997. Of course, I am grateful for 100 extra jobs in Ceredigion, but that increase is unfortunately not matched by the other side of the equation—the slack in the work force. The slack consists of people who could do jobs but do not appear on the official statistics, for various reasons. Unfortunately, their number has increased by 200.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My figures for Ceredigion, which were produced by the Department for Education and Employment, show that 1,581 people were unemployed in May 1997. In May 2000, however, that figure had fallen to 1,158, which shows that there had been a drop of 400 people.
Mr. Thomas: My figures, which come from the unemployment unit, are obviously different from those of the Under-Secretary. Clearly, we will have to exchange statistics.
I was about to conclude by saying that the slack in the work force in Ceredigion has increased by 200 people since the Government took office in 1997. I think that that might be correct even according to the Under-Secretary's figures. As I said, the slack consists of people who could take up jobs and want to do so, but are not yet employed.
The Government still have a great deal of work to do in west Wales and in Wales as a whole. They are likely to be returned to power after the election—not in Wales, but in the United Kingdom. They have a huge job to do and I hope that they will do it with a little more enthusiasm, rather than with the reluctance of their first three years in office.
8.22 pm
Ann Clwyd: Having represented Ceredigion, Brecon and Radnor, Llanelli, Swansea and Carmarthen in the European Parliament for five years, I am well aware of some of the problems that have been mentioned. Before I speak about those problems, I commend to hon. Members some of the practices of the European Parliament. First, Members can obtain refreshment in the debating chamber during debates. I suspect that that would have been welcomed by the hon. Members who are now present, many of whom will now be thoroughly dehydrated. Secondly, we knew in which order we were to speak in respect of our parties, and how long we could speak for. If a Member spoke for longer than the allotted time, the excess was taken from his or her party, which affected the subsequent speakers. That
98
was a good way of organising business. Perhaps we should consider such procedures, as well as electronic voting, when we discuss change in this place. I could speak for quite a long time about virtues of the European Parliament that could be transferred to this place.
I should like to join the hon. Members who have spoken about Cledwyn Hughes, who was a man of great generosity. When I first stood for Parliament in 1970, in a constituency that was held by the Tories with a majority of 25,000, not many people even from my own party were prepared to help a struggling candidate, but Cledwyn Hughes was one of those who were. For candidates who were standing for the first time, Cledwyn was a great help and inspiration, and I shall sorely miss him.
As the community that I represented was based half on farming and half on steel, I am well aware of the residual problems of the farmers of Wales. One of my brothers-in-law is a small farmer on Anglesey and is currently extremely worried. My other brother-in-law was a vet in Ceredigion and has recently retired. I spoke to him last night, and I am glad to say that he has never seen a case of foot and mouth disease.
Those of us who have seen against the night sky the funeral pyres of the cattle, sheep and pigs that have been burnt throughout the country during the past few days have been horrified. Many of us have asked whether such measures are necessary, and whether there is an alternative. I am told that outbreaks of foot and mouth disease occurred almost annually in the 19th century and the early 20th century, without anybody batting an eyelid. Of course people do not die of foot and mouth disease, and most animals recover from it. We are told, however, that it is an economic disease.
Modern farming is so intensive and dependent on the drive for higher productivity and lower costs, and most modern farms are run on such tight budgets, that they will not allow an animal with the equivalent of a bad cold to recover, and they cannot delay the date when it is sent for slaughter. It appears that modern farming cannot tolerate the inconvenience caused by temporarily sick animals that produce less milk and meat. I suggest that that is an appalling reflection on what we expect of our farmers.
The last time I heard the figures, there were 70 cases of foot and mouth in the country as a whole, although fortunately only three have so far occurred in Wales. Whatever the source of the current outbreak, the mass transporting of animals across Britain and over national borders from farms to centralised abattoirs has spread the disease further and faster. In the past few years, Britain's network of small local abattoirs, which some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, has almost been closed down. As a result, animals are being carried far greater distances to slaughter than ever before. That means that infectious animal diseases are much more likely to be spread throughout the country. Long journeys to slaughter make it almost impossible to confine the disease to the area from which it came, which contrasts with the days when animals were sent to a nearby abattoir.
Animal welfare groups have long argued that the practice of sending animals on long-distance journeys should be ended, as well as the live animal export trade. The UK exports about a million sheep and lambs a year to continental abattoirs. Many of them go as far as Italy and Greece. Such long journeys not only inflict huge

99
suffering on animals, but could spread disease throughout Europe. The trade has been halted during the crisis, and it should never be resumed.
Last year, I introduced a private Member's Bill on the welfare of broiler chickens. It failed. It was talked out and the Government did not support it, which was a mistake. I am ashamed that I knew so little about broiler chickens until I gained a place in the ballot, but 800 million broiler chickens are reared for meat in the United Kingdom each year, and most are kept in massive windowless sheds that are so overcrowded that the floors cannot be seen.
The packed conditions mean that it is impossible to inspect the birds properly. Consequently, millions are diseased or injured, and die without receiving treatment. Growth-promoting antibiotics and rich diets are used to ensure that chickens reach their slaughter weight in only 41 days—twice as fast as 30 years ago. Chickens' hearts and lungs cannot keep pace with such growth, and each year several million die of heart disease before they are six weeks old.
Broilers used for breeding are put on severely restricted feeding regimes. That means that they are starved, because farmers do not want them to reach the weight of the other broilers and thereby suffer the same health problems and early death associated with reaching such weights so quickly. However, they still suffer the same health problems and early death.
Poor conditions also pose serious risks to human health. A couple of years ago, a report revealed that one in three broilers was infected with salmonella, and that 44 per cent. were contaminated with a similar disease. An article published by The Observer suggested that the potentially deadly strain of salmonella may have been released into the food chain by the poultry industry. Much more research has been conducted on the same subject.
Farming does not need another food scare. In the wake of BSE and genetically modified foods, consumers have shown that they are sophisticated and will not buy what they regard as unsafe food. The then deputy president of the NFU said:
"as fast as we deal with one food safety problem, another crops up".
Mr. Fabricant: I am listening to the hon. Lady's speech with great interest. She talked about the sophistication of the consumer, but does she agree that sometimes people are worried by scare stories and consumers can be a little too sophisticated, thus damaging farming, and in some instances are not protecting their families because the dangers do not exist?
Ann Clwyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard that a few weeks ago, Which? considered chickens for sale in supermarkets and found that a high proportion were infected with salmonella. Most people would like to know that their purchases are safe and that they will not be infected with salmonella. The sort of production that I described is not conducive to that. The arguments for more natural methods of food production have been reopened, unfortunately through an outbreak of foot and mouth. As hon. Members have said, the Prime Minister has promised to work out a basis for sustainable agriculture for the long term.
100
One farmer wrote in The Independent on Sunday yesterday:
"My nearest abattoir is just over 30 miles away on a good road … it closed for six months last year but has since been rescued by a local concern. This means that my cattle have less stress and the butcher I sell to can hang, them for three weeks—the supermarkets rarely hang for more than a few days."
The farmer's next comment was referred to earlier. He said:
"My local butcher includes a provenance note with his meat, explaining the rearing and treatment, food and medication the animal received.
The more you can help to reduce the intensive farming that the supermarkets encourage the better."
No one disagrees with that. However, most of Britain's pigs and poultry are I armed intensively.
Compassion in World Farming claims that such systems impose great stress on animals. That leads to their immune systems becoming vulnerable to disease. Foot and mouth disease is the second infectious outbreak to hit Britain's farming industry in months, following the outbreak of swine fever last year. That must call farming methods and husbandry into question again. In crowded conditions, animals cannot live naturally. They are therefore highly stressed and more vulnerable to disease.
We need to move to systems that are safer and more humane. Yes, customers might have to pay a little more for their food, but we could have a better farming system so long as the supermarkets played the game too. The EU spends £25 billion a year on the common agricultural policy. Part of that money should be used to help farmers move from industrialised systems to a more humane and responsible policy that also conserves and manages the countryside.
There have been arguments about the drastic policy of slaughter and about vaccination. The professor of microbiology at Cardiff university, Professor Julian Wimpenny, said in a letter to The Guardian:
"Total elimination of a disease without the cover of vaccination is a desperately high risk approach, especially when the disease has appeared in many other countries in recent years and is highly contagious. Humans and animals are equipped with a marvellous device known as the immune system which, if stimulated appropriately as Louis Pasteur showed more than a century ago, can prevent infection … The unedifying spectacle of thousands of perfectly healthy pigs slaughtered and burned could easily have been avoided if a strategy of vaccination had been pursued, especially as it seems that the Government has millions of doses of vaccine available."
I know that there have been arguments about vaccination, but Julian Wimpenny is, after all, professor of microbiology at Cardiff university. He ends by saying:
"I suppose that vaccination of animals is just too expensive for our cost-conscious society to cope with."
Finally, we are all to blame. Not many people have much idea of how our food is produced, unless a disease such as BSE or E. coli presses our panic buttons. As long as we get our ready-to-eat chickens for £2.50, or our bargain-basement beef for £3, in a hermetically sealed pack, we do not pay much attention to how it gets to us. We tolerate the fact that the animals that we eat can be fed on ground animal remains, stuffed full of antibiotics and made to live in inhumane conditions. Unhealthy animals mean unhealthy food and unhealthy human beings. Surely no one in their right mind would choose to continue to support that situation.

101
I shall finish with a quote front the NFU, which arrived today:
"Although the scale and long-term implications of this outbreak of foot and mouth disease cannot yet be assessed, it has potential implications for every citizen in terms of the security and cost of the nation's food supply, the economy, and the management of the environment and the countryside"—
and, I would add, humanity towards animals.
8.38 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and I was interested to hear what she had to say about compassion in Welsh farming, as well as world farming.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), I was not born in Swansea, although my mother was born in Aberavon, which is not too far from there, and I have spent a considerable amount of time in Wales. My mother was a fluent Welsh speaker. I have always been keen on learning foreign languages, if I can call Welsh a foreign language in this debate.
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is not a foreign language in Wales.
Mr. Fabricant: I suspect that "foreign" is the wrong word to use in this debate, although it is a sad fact that technically, according to the rules of the House, Welsh is a foreign language in that we are not allowed to use it other than in short, illustrative instances. It is a great regret to me that my mother did not speak Welsh to me, so that I could have been as fluent in Welsh as I am in French and German.
Mr. Flynn: Os yw'n bosib i mi siarad yn Gymraeg, rydw i eisiau dweud wrth y Tŷ bod y Gwr anrhydeddus yn ynfytyn.
Mr. Fabricant: Were my mother here, she would give the hon. Gentleman the riposte that he deserves. Were I to give him the riposte that he deserves in that language, I would be out of order. It is out of order to intervene or make lengthy contributions in Welsh, which is unfortunate—but I can understand why. Outside the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman may tell me precisely what he said. I can assume only that it was highly complimentary, because outside the Chamber he is an hon. Friend indeed.
A few hours ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a national minimum wage of £4.10 an hour. As I said then, I have never objected in principle to a minimum working wage provided that it is set at a sensible rate. Sadly, in Wales, both in agriculture and in tourism, many people will not enjoy that minimum working wage. Three weeks ago, I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), staying at the guest house of Mrs. Pugh, which is called Dolfanog Fach, in Talyllyn, Gwynedd. I spent two healthy days there, perhaps, preparing for the general election, and climbed Cader Idris in almost record time. I then went on a 17-mile walk, which would not be possible now because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
102
I simply make the point that, like many people who work for themselves in the tourist industry, Mrs. Pugh and her son, who work at Dolfanog Fach, do not earn the minimum working wage. We should never forget that although a minimum working wage is set for those who are employed, the self-employed often cannot enjoy that luxury. That is certainly the case for many of the 31,700 farmers who work in Wales.
Let us remind ourselves of the position of Welsh farming. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) described in some detail the plight in which Welsh farmers find themselves: 3,800 people—73 every week—left the Welsh agriculture industry in 2000. They did so not because they voluntarily gave up fanning, but because they simply could not make a living. A National Farmers Union audit showed that 62 per cent. of farmers were working more than 61 hours a week. The Government have set a minimum working wage and they are trying to set maximum working hours, but those are hard to deliver in practice.
I remind the House that, as I have been reminded by the National Farmers Union of Wales, at the farm gate Welsh dairy farmers receive 3p a pint less for their milk than it costs to produce. The union denounced the drastic fall in incomes and in February, before the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, called that a "disaster for the industry". The statistics on total income from farming released by the National Assembly reveal that incomes for those working in the agriculture industry in Wales fell by a staggering £60 million in 2000, to stand at minus £2.6 million.
As recently as 12 February, Hugh Richards, president of NFU Cymru, said:
"What this starkly demonstrates is that the total value of agricultural output in Wales was actually less than the total cost of producing that output."
Other industries in farming, not just the dairy industry, have been affected. He continues:
"Our politicians talk about the tender green shoots of recovery"—
I have heard that somewhere before—
"but these figures are the clearest evidence yet that the Government's fiscal policy is decimating our industry."
The Welsh Assembly has claimed that the main reason for the fall in income was a fall in output, and in the subsidies for produce, which were £58 million lower. There is real concern about the future of farming in Wales. A 1998 survey by the National Farmers Union in England found that the children of two thirds of its members did not want to take over the farms because they could not see a future for the industry. As I said, people are already leaving the farming industry in Wales. That is desperately sad.
As we all know, the entire industry is under threat from foot and mouth disease. Wales has so far been hit by three confirmed cases, although I fear that there may be more cases by now. They are at an abattoir at Gaerwen on Anglesey, and farms at Painscastle near Hay-on-Wye and Felindre near Newtown. Others are under investigation.
The position of farming in Wales is grave. It is grave in the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is particularly difficult in Wales, which has a varied and difficult landscape in which to farm, especially for hill farmers. It is all very well for the Government to announce provisions such as the minimum working wage, but

103
people in farming are earning a negative income. Initiatives from Westminster often mean nothing to those people, whether in Swansea, Betws y Coed or Ceredigion.
8.47 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I am sorry that I was provoked by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who is a friend, but this is the only Parliament that Wales has—we have an Assembly—and we are not allowed to use one of the beautiful languages of Wales, as it has the status of a foreign language in this place. He should not have rubbed that in.
I have a good news story to tell. We are overwhelmed with the trauma of bad news. We feel that we need counselling after listening to the speeches from Opposition Members and the tidal wave of negativity and misery. A remarkable change is taking place in the Celtic nations of Europe. It has passed almost unnoticed, but it is a positive and important change. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred to the Brythonic group of nations. The two groups of Celtic nations—the Gadhelic nations including the Manx, the Scottish and the Irish, and the Brythonic nations of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany—are separated by thousands of miles, but are coming together for the first time in 2,000 years. That has never happened before.
The Celtic languages and identity have, in the past, been a source of pain, poverty, division and anger against our neighbours—in Britain, it was England; and for the Bretons it was the French nation. That is now changing. In the past, the Celtic language and culture were seen as second rate. On St. David's day, a lady in my constituency, who is my age, 66, told me that when she was at school people were taught and conditioned to believe that Welsh, being Welsh and thinking about Welsh and Welsh literature were second class. We have our slave names: Jones, William and Thomas. The Cornish hung on to their names, such as Pemberthy and Trethown. The reason that the most common name in Wales is Jones, which uses a letter that is not used in the Welsh language, is because the English could not pronounce the Welsh names and called everyone John, William and Thomas. Our young people are now rightly throwing away those names and using their two first names. They take pride in having a Celtic name.
It is marvellous that the two most promising politicians in Wales at the moment are women, Delyth Evans and Eluned Morgan, who are fluent in Welsh and other languages. They are products not of the Welsh Gaeltacht in north Wales or of Gwynedd, but of Splott and of Ely in Cardiff, which are entirely English-speaking areas.
What is happening in Brittany? When I was there in the early 1970s, I spoke to an elderly man who told me that, in his lifetime, the sabot, which is like the Welsh not, was hung around people's necks, and if they spoke a word in Breton they had to take it off and pass it on to the next person. He said, "We were the petits délateurs: we were the little sneaks. That is what they made of us, the young Bretons." The language was on the point of extinction; only the elderly spoke it.
In one village, just one child was learning Breton. Nowadays it is a different story. Five thousand young Bretons are receiving their education entirely in the
104
Breton language. There is a brand-new radio station—probably set up by the hon. Member for Lichfield, who has set up radio stations in many parts of the world. It broadcasts entirely in Breton, and is run by young people specialising in bagpipe and flute music.
Moreover, a television station has been set up for hard-headed business reasons, not to function as a cultural ghetto. Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch have put their money into it. It broadcasts six hours of Breton every day, and is putting all the Celtic programmes together, including programmes from Wales. It is broadcasting "Braveheart" in Breton. The whole thing is aimed not just at the 3 million people living in the Breton area, but at the 8 million people throughout France who feel that they have a Breton identity.
Links are being forged between Scotland and Ireland. The magnificent, beautiful building of St. Columbia on the Isle of Skye was designed to reconnect the two branches of Gadhelic in those two countries—what a way to bring together the two communities in Northern Ireland. It is part of the tradition and heritage of those two communities, Scottish Gaelic—pronounced "Gallic"—and Irish Gaelic.
In Ireland itself, we see economic growth and a growth in self-confidence. It was De Valera who sent scholars to the Isle of Man in the 1950s to re-teach them their own inheritance. In Cornwall, there is more recognition of the Cornish identity than ever before. We should remember what was happening there in the 14th and 15th centuries—Cornwall had its own Parliament for 300 years; 10 per cent. of Cornish people voted for Mebyon Kernyw in the European elections.
We note what is happening with pride. Yesterday someone said, "Give us back our country." Some of us say that we want our country back. We want our own Parliament, ac i siarad yn ein iaith ein hunain, and not to be mocked.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the language of this House is English.
Mr. Flynn: I thought of making a speech in Chaucerian English, although I shall not do so on this occasion. Such a speech would be understood by no one, but presumably it would be in order. It is an outrage that tonight we shall again refuse to pass a motion allowing Welsh to be spoken in the House. It is a continuing insult to our heritage. I should be very surprised to learn that there is a Hansard reporter present who can understand the simple words of Welsh that are used here, and that is another disgrace that should be put right My earlier remarks will no doubt appear as "Interruption" in Hansard. That is a great shame, but I certainly will not translate that, or anything I say in other languages, for Hansard reporters.
A great community in the Celtic areas of Britain is under threat. It was under threat for years, and the threat is now returning. We have a real problem with people who do not speak the language. Many people arrive full of good will, with a sense of the importance of our culture and of learning the language, and for the first time the tide is turning. There has been a continuing story of decline, but we are now cherishing these languages, and the links between the countries concerned are strong.
I hope that Brittany does not go the same way as Corsica and Ireland and descend into violence. There have been signs that that will happen. Brittany has a political

105
party—there is a wonderful serendipity about this—called Partie d'une Organisation pour une Bretagne Libre, or POBL. "Pobl" is the Welsh, Breton and Irish word for "people". All through this, we see those links—An Gof in Cornish is also the word for 'smithy" in Welsh, in Breton and in Irish Gaelic.
The strands that kept us together—there was one community 3,000 years ago—are being rediscovered. Those links are building. We shall see the positive development of the Celtic nations forming a council of the islands, a Celtic council, for identity. It will be rich and will mean that our children will regain our nations. The Irish used to talk about Sinn Fein—ourselves alone. Now we as Celtic nations can talk about Sinn el Célle—ourselves together.
8.55 pm
Mr. Chris Ruane: May I begin by talking about the crisis in agriculture? Although there are no foot and mouth cases in my constituency at the moment, 280 farms in my constituency are badly affected, as are the abattoir and market at St. Asaph. My heart goes out to my farmers, as does my hand. I will work with them closely to do what I can as a constituency Member to help them in their plight.
I am pleased that agrimoney has been provided by the Government and that they reacted rapidly. As soon as the crisis was announced, they took steps to stop the movement of animals throughout the country. As a result, the number of cases of foot and mouth remains at 70 and not 700. I am pleased, too, that the farming unions and, dare I say it, the Opposition halve co-operated. They have not been oppositional during the crisis but quite constructive, which makes a change.
What have the Government achieved for young people in my constituency in the past three and a half or four years? For the first time ever, we have a college in the constituency: Rhyl college. That offers a ladder of opportunity—the ladder of education—to young people. I am pleased that the college will be expanded from 1,800 part-time places to 5,500 part-time places over the next five years. Indeed, there are to be outposts in Prestatyn and Denbigh. That has occurred under a Labour Government.
Young people in my constituency have had the new deal. Under the previous Government young people were alienated, hounded and marginalised. Under Labour, they have been included and are at the centre of our policies. I am proud that we have introduced a windfall tax on the utilities to pay for the new deal to get young people back to the centre of society.
I ask my hon. Friends to consider what would happen to those colleges and to the new deal in my constituency if the Conservative Opposition were to get in. Where would the £24 million worth of cuts fall in my constituency? Would they fall on the college and on the new deal?
In 1985, 5,000 pensioners froze to death at home, not from coughs, colds or pneumonia, but from hypothermia. The advice to pensioners from the Minister at the time, Edwina Currie, was to buy some extra woollen clothes at second-hand shops and sit in the dark at home to avoid getting cold. Let us compare and contrast that with what we have done on the issue of cold weather. We have given pensioners £200 a year, bang in the middle of winter,
106
so that they have security and peace of mind, knowing that they can turn their gas and electric fires on and keep warm. The winter fuel allowance benefits 16,000 pensioners in my constituency.
Six thousand pensioners in my constituency are benefiting from free television licences. There are also free bus passes. Next year, there will be a free bus service in the constituency. The Conservatives propose dental and eye test charges. We have abolished those. The Conservatives introduced VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. and wanted to raise it to 17.5 per cent. We stopped them and the Labour Government have reduced VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.—the lowest in the whole of Europe.
One matter that has not been emphasised in our debate so far—I have been in the Chamber for almost four hours today—is how much the poorest pensioners will benefit from our changes. In 1997, they were on £68 per week, whereas, in April 2001, they will be on £92 per week. The minimum income guarantee is excellent news for the 3,000 pensioners in my constituency who will benefit from it.
Conservative Members' tax-cutting policies would make necessary £24 million of cuts in my constituency. Where would those cuts fall? Would the winter fuel allowance be safe? Would the minimum income guarantee be safe? Would free bus services be safe? Or would Conservative Members increase value added tax, as they have proposed? My constituents would like answers to those questions.
When he was the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) tried to demonise young lone parents. He reminded us in his conference speech that he had a little list. We should compare and contrast his attitude to young lone mothers—which was the attitude of the previous Government—with ours.
We have a new deal for young lone mothers which has also been financed by the windfall tax. Conservative Members were prepared to let young mothers rot on the dole, but our working families tax credit has made work pay for those young women. Not only are they no longer on the dole—which costs each one of us—but they are back in work and paying taxes. We are therefore benefiting doubly from the tax credit. That makes sense to me, to other Labour Members and to the public. We have also increased maternity pay for young mothers.
Let us compare and contrast our action on child benefit with that of the previous, Conservative Government. They froze child benefit. We have not only unfrozen it, but increased it from £10.50 to £15 per week. Will that increase be safe if Conservative Members are returned to power? Will the children's tax credit be safe if the Conservatives are returned to office?
Child poverty increased threefold under the previous Government. In the past four years, Labour has taken 1.2 million children out of poverty, and we are well on track to achieve our goal of ending child poverty within 20 years. I think that we should do that within five years. If the Chancellor would like my advice on what he should announce on Wednesday, which I doubt, that would be it.
Let us also compare and contrast the previous, Conservative Government's action in my area with that of our Labour Government. In 1993, the Conservatives ended my area's assisted area status and the limited European help that we were receiving. In contrast, Labour

107
has delivered objective 1. My county now will receive a slice of the £3 billion worth of European and United Kingdom aid going to 15 counties in Wales.
The St. Asaph business park in my constituency was built by the Conservatives, at a cost of £11.5 million. It was supposed to create 2,000 jobs, but it was empty for seven years and created only 100 jobs. Since Labour has been in power, the number of jobs at the park has increased to 1,100. We are delivering.
In 1993, unemployment in my constituency was between 4,000 and 5,000; it is now 1,200. Under the Conservatives, we had job losses at Shotton steelworks and at the Point of Ayr colliery. Under Labour, we have had job gains at BAE Systems, WTS (Holdings) Ltd. and the TRB car plant. In the Vale of Clwyd, we have had a 20 per cent. increase in our small and medium-sized enterprise base. I believe that all that would be threatened if the Conservatives ever got back into power.
9.4 pm
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I want to use the few minutes available to me in this debate to be a spokesperson for the farming industry in my constituency. In an intervention on the Minister, I mentioned a short Welsh phrase, which I hope the Hansard reporters will include in the Official Report, and I shall translate it for them. It is, "Heb waith, dim iaith", which basically means, "Without work, there is no language." In my area of Wales, the rural economy and fanning are vital to work and to the language of west Wales.
I spent two hours with the National Farmers Union in my constituency on Friday night. Farmers clearly say that they are grateful, on several counts, for what the Government have done for them. They are grateful to the Government for the agrimonetary compensation that they are providing. We hear much rhetoric from Conservative Members about agrimonetary compensation, but we must not forget—the farmers have not—that, when in government and when such money was available for our farmers in 1996 and 1997, they did not claim it. Farmers have no reason to believe that they would do so now.
Farmers are particularly grateful to the Government because they know that £129 million of the £157 million that they will receive in the latest round of agrimonetary compensation will come from the British taxpayer, because of the way in which those now on the Opposition Benches negotiated the Maastricht treaty. They are grateful to the Government for the swift action that they have taken, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, to halt movements in the countryside to try to stem the spread of foot and mouth—an awful disease.
Farmers are also grateful to the Government for introducing the scheme for licensed animal movements today. I congratulate Pembrokeshire county council on its work. I know from a conversation with the council's environmental health department that it issued its first licence within two hours of those arrangements being implemented. They are also grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for telling them that they can go ahead and graze cattle on set-aside land and for the fact that MAFF will fight their corner if any questions are asked about that in Europe.
108
I want to raise one or two small but specific points that are pertinent to my constituents. I hope that, if the Under-Secretary cannot deal with them now, he will at least discuss them with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The first point relates to ports. Already during this outbreak, foot and mouth has been identified at several sites on the United Kingdom mainland and in Northern Ireland. Farmers have considerable concerns about vehicles moving from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Vehicles leaving ports such as Rosslare are currently disinfected by the Irish Ministry of Agriculture and Food, at its expense. However, port operators have discretion over whether to disinfect vehicles that enter the United Kingdom from Ireland. Tim Johns—a member of Pembroke NFU—told me that he went to Fishguard yesterday, and 10 lorries came in direct from Irish abattoirs. Farmers are anxious that MAFF should take on bond that important matter, perhaps making the disinfection of vehicles mandatory, rather than discretionary, at the expense of the port authorities.
Secondly, the over-30-months scheme was mentioned in last week's debate I want to make a special plea for Pembrokeshire's farmers, who take a responsible attitude to maturing their cattle. They mature them on grass; they keep them for as long as they can and as near as possible to the 30-month limit. So many farmers are concerned that those cattle will go over the 30-month limit because of the restrictions on movement, and they will receive only the 30-month compensation, not the full market price.
We have heard today about direct costs and consequential losses. Farmers who have animals with the disease or that are considered to be dangerous contacts are compensated at full market value, but there is no compensation for consequential loss. I want to make the case that such losses are not consequential; they constitute different types of direct loss brought about, yet again, by the Conservative party's mismanagement of the BSE crisis. Those farmers stand to make a direct loss, just as though those animals had caught the disease. I ask the Minister to consider the issue in those terms.
Another problem is involved in the crisis. Farmers have already told us that prices have dropped, by 10p a kilo for beef and 20p for lamb, under the licence scheme. That is perhaps understandable for lamb, given the proportion of Welsh lamb that is exported, and exports have stopped, but there is no excuse for a drop in the price of beef, especially as we read in the newspapers that beef and other meat prices are set to double in the supermarkets. If we are not careful, someone will profit at the expense of our farmers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider what the Government can do about that.
Journey times are another problem. Farmers have expressed concern because they understand—it has not been confirmed—than under the new licence arrangements the maximum journey times for getting animals to slaughter is four and a half hours. The journeys must include a detour around any infected area, which is creating massive problems in Pembrokeshire and in Cornwall and other areas of the west country. Will my hon. Friend clarify the arrangements for journey times, so that our farmers know what the position is?
Stray animals and escaping sheep are a major problem. I spoke to Pembrokeshire county council this morning and it expressed its concern. Several incidents have occurred

109
and it costs the council £300 or £400 each time. The stray animals may be perfectly healthy, but if they cannot be identified, they have to be destroyed. That is a real problem, and I wonder whether there is anything that we can do to assist our local authorities.
Tack animals have already been mentioned. One farmer in my constituency has 150 cattle that are due to calve. They are currently on land where there are no milking facilities, which creates tremendous animal welfare problems. In another case, 400 sheep are on 8 acres that are separated from the main holding. Again, there will be major animal welfare problems if the issue is not addressed. As we progress, is there any possibility of allowing limited movements within a certain radius or within counties in unaffected areas?
Future policy on animal movements is another issue that has been raised. The National Farmers Union suggested that it would be sensible to set a 28-day limit during which animals could not be moved after they have been brought on to a farm. They would be kept there without being moved again, and any disease would manifest itself in that period. At the meeting, one farmer pointed out that he had bought sheep that had been on 11 different holdings in the previous two months. He did not know that until he had got them back to his farm.
There is an urgent need for MAFF to get the available payments to farmers as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has assured us that he will try to do that, but we have had that assurance before. Can we make absolutely certain that there will be no delay in getting the payments to our farmers? That is vital for them. They appreciate what the Government are doing, but I want an assurance, on behalf of Pembrokeshire farmers, that the payments will be made and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—in conjunction with the Assembly and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—will do everything possible to help west Wales farmers in this difficult time.
9.12 pm
Mr. John Smith: I intend to keep my remarks brief to allow hon. Friends to speak. It is a pity that I have to do so, because many of us look forward to this debate so that we can speak about important matters that relate to our constituents.
I wish to pay several tributes. I would like to be associated with the remarks that have been made about Lord Cledwyn. Many of us, especially the newer Members, are indebted to him for the help that he gave us when we came to the House.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for his speech and for all that he has done in the past year to improve the quality of life for the people of Wales and my constituents.
I also pay a special tribute to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for his unique contribution to the re-election of many Labour Members. I have never heard such an appalling speech in all my life. It showed us that the Tories have not a hope in hell of winning the next election and that he is unlikely to be the Secretary of State for Wales—at least not in my lifetime.
I was appalled not so much by the hon. Gentleman's snide remarks, although they were bad, or his half-baked facts relating to steel jobs and crime, but by the sheer
110
irrelevance to the everyday lives of the people of Wales of 95 per cent. of what he said. He prattled on about English nationalism, the devolution settlement, the euro and all the rest of it, whereas the majority of people in our country are concerned about the issues that matter to them on a day-to-day basis.
Our Government's track record has been good; a great deal has been achieved. As the hon. Gentleman is not here, may I pass a message on to him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker? I can tell him, "It's the economy, stupid." In the past couple of years in my constituency and throughout Wales, we have achieved the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years, the lowest inflation rate in 30 years and the lowest long-term business rates in 35 years. We have one of the most stable economic environments since the second world war. As a result of our economic policies, our capacity to create wealth is growing dramatically. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the substantial growth in incomes, which has—rightly—exceeded growth in other areas. We have achieved much, which has had an effect on my constituents.
Let me give a quick anecdote. Yesterday, on one of my Sunday morning walks through my constituency, I bumped into a constituent in Gibbonstown in north-east Barry whom I had not seen for 18 months. When I last called on him, he was at home, struggling, did not have a job and was trying to cope with bringing up a family. Yesterday, he said, "Mr. Smith, I've got a job. It doesn't pay fantastic, but its reasonable. I've managed to save enough and I'm going to be able to move on and buy my house. My family, at last, are looking forward to some security."
We have made a difference to people in the real world. The Vale of Glamorgan housing needs survey showed that, prior to the 1997 election, the average gross income per household, including all non-housing benefits, was what many hon. Members would pay for one meal. My constituents had to support a family on that. The minimum wage has had a dramatic impact.
We have made huge strides, but there is still much to do. Although we are slowly but surely narrowing the gap between wealth creation in Wales and elsewhere, especially London and the south-east, it still exists. An essential condition for closing that gap is to have an internationally renowned airport in Wales to serve our business community. I am not alone in that view. South Wales businesses were recently asked for their opinion on the most important business infrastructure project. They wanted a dual carriageway to the airport so that they could get to their business destinations and help the Welsh economy grow. Any economy in Europe, north America or south-east Asia could not be successfully regenerated without a viable international airport. Our airport is good. It is modern and has a large capacity, but it will not be the airport that we want if we do not deliver that road.
There is an additional reason to deliver on that. My right hon. Friend might have seen the Welsh Development Agency's statement in which it announced that it was conducting a feasibility study with the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, which is based at RAF St. Athan, on the location of 2,000 highly skilled jobs at Cardiff international airport. I was furious about that because there are 3,000 jobs at the agency. However, I am delighted to say that the chairman of the WDA, Sir David Rowe-Beddoe, has assured me that most of the jobs will

111
move to Cardiff. Some will remain at RAF St. Athan, but not a single person will be made redundant as a result of the move. I have been seeking that assurance for months.
As a result of the feasibility study, 3,000 aero engineers might be located at Cardiff airport, in addition to the airport business and the British Airways maintenance centre. It might be necessary to change the way in which RAF St. Athan workers get back and forth to work and goods and services are transported to the airport. My point is simple: at the moment, they have to use the A4050, which is wholly inadequate because some parts of it provide only single-lane access to the airport. I plead, as I have done before, for my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that issue. The consultation period on aviation policy in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is almost over. I know that the Welsh Assembly has considered the matter. We must get our act together if we are serious about regenerating the Welsh economy to the extent that it can catch up with the rest of the country.
9.19 pm
Ms Julie Morgan: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this late hour. I share the frustrations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I wish that we had some of the practices of the European Parliament, so that we knew when we were to be called and had more opportunity to make our points.
I am glad that we are having this St. David's day debate, which is a good opportunity to express our views about Wales on behalf of our constituents. This week, we also celebrate international women's day, and in the short time that I have I want to concentrate on the issues that especially affect the lives of women in Wales and bring them to the attention of the House.
This week marks the end of the consultation on the Department of Trade and Industry Green Paper on parents and work, which considers options for making it easier to combine work and parenthood. One of the Government's key aims is to deal with the dilemma faced by families in which both parents need to work and by lone parents who need to work but who have no one to look after their children.
I had a consultation meeting at Llanishen in my constituency at which I tried to find out what people, particularly women, felt about the issue. One of the Government's hallmarks is that we are going out of our way to consider the issues that affect many people's daily lives. The mothers, grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers at the school gates in Whitchurch, Llanishen and Llandaff North were very pleased that they were being asked what they thought. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that some seats would not continue to be held by Labour Members, but the people to whom I spoke gave a tremendously warm response to my questions. The key point is that the Government are tackling difficult issues and trying to help parents cope. They are trying to achieve a better balance between improved provision for maternity, paternity and parental leave and the demands on employers.
It is interesting that the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales reported that employers in Wales were much more sympathetic to such provision than their
112
counterparts in England. The commission received a good response from employers about issues that have often been regarded as burdens on them.
The clear message from my meeting in Cardiff, North was that maternity leave should be extended beyond 18 weeks and that the flat rate of maternity benefit should rise and be extended. It was generally felt that unpaid maternity leave is only for the well-off middle classes and that most women could not take it. All surveys show that most women return to work before they want to. Another clear message was that periods of leave should be combined with the need for breast feeding and that employers should make every effort to accommodate breast-feeding mothers if they have to return to work before that time is up. We have, of course, failed to address that issue in the House, although I hope that we will do so soon.
My constituents' views have been echoed by the Women's National Commission, the Fawcett Society and many other bodies. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in this week's Budget to extend maternity leave and increase maternity pay. I hope that some of the rumours that I have heard turn out to be right because they certainly reflect my constituents' feelings.
My constituents also want paid parental leave. The Government are considering that in their consultation document, but they think that it may be too great a financial burden. If parental leave is not paid, it will not be taken up, especially not by men. It is important that men have an opportunity to be closely involved with their children at an early age. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement about paternity leave, but all the European examples show that men in particular do not take up parental leave unless it is paid.
Parents in Wales generally share the views held throughout Britain on the need for reform, but my constituents also believe that such help should be extended to all carers—for example, those who care for elderly people. I think that more women look after elderly people than care for children. My constituents also think that more help is needed for parents of disabled children. I warmly welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the commissioner will take on board the needs of disabled children in Wales and try to get them a fairer deal.
Last week, a group of mothers from my constituency came to see me; all have disabled children, most of whom suffer from autism. They were full of praise for the school that their children amend—the Hollies school—but told me about the problems arising from the long, six-week holiday, when they have to cope with children who need a great deal of attention, whom they love dearly, but who are difficult to cope with for long periods. The women are fund raising to run a play scheme in the special school that their children attend so that they have somewhere to go in the summer holidays.
The women face all the problems of trying to cope with children who have special difficulties, but have to fund raise to set up a play scheme themselves. Their children do not fit in with the local authority schemes, because their special needs make integration extremely difficult. Their mothers, who are struggling to raise funds, told me about the day-to-day problems of looking after the

113
children whom they love so much and for whom they do so much. It strikes me that we have to have the sort of society in Wales that offers help to the struggling parents of children who have such needs; we must be there for them. Such people should not have to struggle against the system.
Since I became a Member of Parliament four years ago, parents have brought many children to my surgeries. The children have special needs and their parents always seem to be engaged in a fight against the system, trying to get their child into one school or another, or to get a statement. Everything seems to be a fight. My test of the new Wales that we want to create is that, when people have a problem, we help; they do not have to fight, because we try to make things easy for them and try to make things better.
I have spoken about the needs and aspirations of some of my constituents in respect of maternity and paternity provision, parental leave and children with special needs. I think that we are making great progress in some of those areas. The previous Government never recognised the need to combine work and parenthood nor examined the important issues that face people every day of their lives, whereas the current Government are concerned about community and supporting each other. It is vital that we recognise that issues that are sometimes not regarded as major political issues none the less have a huge effect on people every day and make their lives bearable or otherwise.
Constituents who bring those issues to my attention do so against a backdrop of a huge reduction in unemployment in Cardiff, North. There was never high unemployment in my constituency, but it has decreased by 40 per cent. and youth unemployment has decreased by 70 per cent. We have gained many jobs: Cardiff Gate business park is now one of the most flourishing business parks in Wales. We have suffered the loss of manufacturing jobs—we lost Aeroquip and Alloyed Wheels last year—but more jobs are coming in than are going out. Given the relative prosperity in my constituency, it is important now to try to get to grips with everyday issues that make a fundamental difference to people's lives. The Labour Government have made huge strides, but we have a long way to go.
9.30 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: It has been a welcome debate, even if it is a couple of days late for St. David's day. I have witnessed what I expected, which was a rehearsal of spin by Labour Members. At times, it verged on fantasy when set against reality. That is understandable when we consider that a general election is probably a month or so away. Many Labour Members will be losing their seats, so they may wish to make their valedictories today.
I picked up on the fantasy that it is almost as though we have had a Conservative Government for the past four years. There are some in old Labour who think that we have a Conservative Government, but in reality we have had a Labour Government for nearly four years. It is reality also that it is the Government of Labour Members who have been responsible for the deterioration of the national health service in Wales. It is their Labour Government who are failing to deliver on education in Wales. It is their Labour Government who have been presiding over the greatest fall
114
in Welsh farming incomes in living memory. It is their Labour Government who have sat powerless as thousands of jobs have been lost in Wales in recent months. It is their Labour Government who insulted pensioners with a measly 75p increase in pensions last year. It is their Labour Government who increased the tax bill for the average family by £640 a year.
I shall deal with some of the contributions of Labour Members, but they cannot escape the clear fact that Labour runs Wales. I remind them that it is Labour that is in power in the National Assembly for Wales, propped up by its Liberal Democrat toadies. Labour is dominant in local government in Wales, and it is in power at Westminster.
Let us consider some of the speeches by Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—the spirit of Cardiff—had a good warning for the nationalists. However, before he claims too much pride in country, let us remind ourselves that he is the only member of the National Assembly to have resigned his seat to return to Westminster.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) delivered a moving speech—I think he admitted that it was his valediction. We wish him well in his retirement. I suspect that his departure will be marked by the demise of the Liberal Democrats in mid-Wales. We look forward to welcoming Felix Aubel as the new Conservative Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, following in the footsteps in recent years of the late Tom Hooson and Jonathan Evans as Tory Members for that seat.
Where is the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)? I use "colleague" advisedly because he is seen increasingly as a Government supporter. I know that Labour has—
Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is in his constituency. I believe that there has been an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Church Stoke. I had to be absent from the Chamber on Thursday because I had two outbreaks of the disease in Painscastle and Velindre. It is a serious matter.
Mr. Walter: That is certainly a serious matter. There was a suspected outbreak on the borders of my constituency over the weekend. However, I stayed away from farms in my constituency and dealt with the outbreak on the telephone, which I thought was the safest way of doing so. I have had telephone conversations with the National Farmers Union every day during the outbreak, and we have also conversed by e-mail and other means that do not lead to the spread of this ghastly disease.
Getting back to the performance of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, it is noticeable that the Labour party has not selected a candidate for that seat—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] Well, that is most interesting news. I have raised that matter on several occasions, most recently in the Welsh Grand Committee. Neither the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire nor his Labour colleagues mentioned that a candidate had been selected. Perhaps Labour Members can name their candidate.
Mr. Ruane: Does the hon. Gentleman know the name of the Conservative candidate in my constituency, without being told by his hon. Friends?
Mr. Walter: Of course I know who the Conservative candidate is. I have a piece of paper with his name on, but I do not need to refer to it as I know that his name is Brendan Murphy. I shall come to him in a minute.
I am intrigued, because if the Labour party has selected a candidate, he has not made much noise, has not made himself known and does not appear on the Welsh Labour party website. For most people in Montgomeryshire, he does not exist; they were led to believe that the current hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would be the Labour candidate and they would be denied a Liberal Democrat candidate.
Enough of that; I shall deal with other contributions. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a good plea for the greater need for wealth creation in Wales, while dealing with other problems in his constituency and elsewhere in the country. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) dealt at length with a matter that he has raised in the House on several occasions—the miners' compensation scheme, which, he feels, should be dealt with quickly. He dealt at length with Corus but went on, I am afraid, to areas of fantasy, suggesting that there should be different corporation tax rates in different parts of Wales. That is probably an accountant's dream, but it is a Treasury nightmare.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) claimed that everything was perfect in Wales under this Government and that any problems must have been caused by the previous Government. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made his regular plea for a bank holiday on St. David's day. We all support his views and have sympathy with the farming community in his constituency and other constituencies, which are suffering as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) delivered a worthy speech on animal welfare, but I am not quite sure where it fitted into a debate on the Government's record in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) talked about the Welsh language and the minimum wage. Let me make it clear that we regard the Welsh language and the English language as having equal merit in Wales. Unlike some members of Plaid Cymru, we do not regard English as a foreign language. We shall make that case on many occasions.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) delivered a cultural tour de force, if he will forgive that foreign language phrase. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) spent 10 minutes on a fantasy trip in his constituency under a new Conservative Government, speculating on what would happen. Not only did he get it hopelessly wrong, but he forgot to say that life would be much brighter when Brendan Murphy, whom I mentioned earlier, was the new Member for Vale of Clwyd.
The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) made an impassioned plea for her farmers, particularly as a result of the problems of foot and mouth. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) gave us some political knockabout, which tempted me to remind him that the 12.5 per cent. Swing
116
recorded last Thursday in a local government by-election in Cowbridge would be sufficient to place Susie Inkin in the House of Commons. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) for a worthy speech, as always, on equal opportunities, but as usual I suspect that her desires will not be shared by the Government.
I shall deal with some of the issues on which the Labour Government will be judged at the general election. The latest figures show the employment rate for the three months to November 2000 at 69.2 per cent., down from 69.6 per cent. over the same period in 1999. The unemployment rate was 6.5 per cent., compared with 7.4 per cent. a year earlier. Unemployment has been falling in Wales for almost a decade, but the rate of job creation and the rate at which unemployment is falling have both slowed under Labour. Unemployment in Wales is still higher than the UK average.
The recent job losses announced by Corns at Llanwern, Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Bryngwyn; by Dairy Crest at Lampeter, Marshfield and Carmarthen; and by Valeo in Gorseinon, all point to a structural problem to which the Government have not yet faced up.
The Government were elected on the slogan, "Education, education, education." The first of their five early pledges in the 1997 manifesto was to
"cut class sizes for five, six and seven year olds to 30 or under, by phasing out the assisted places scheme."
The success of the Government's policy has proved, at best, patchy across Wales.
The percentage of under-fives receiving full-time nursery school education has remained at 1.1 per cent. since 1997. The percentage in part-time nursery classes has increased, but only from 25.8 per cent. to 27.7 per cent.—hardly a realisation of the Government's vision for nursery education.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walter: I am conscious of the time, so I am afraid that I will not give way.
The average class size in maintained primary schools has decreased from 26.4 to 25.2 pupils, and pupil-teacher ratios have fallen slightly in primary schools, by 1.1 per cent. However, the effects of cutting class sizes in primary schools can be seen in the statistics for secondary schools, where class sizes have risen in Wales from 20.6 in 1997–98 to 21 in 1999–2000. The pupil-teacher ratio has also risen by 0.2 per cent. That was one of Labour's key pledges before the last election. The Government have failed to deliver on that pledge.
Labour's greatest failure in Wales is its waiting list pledge. It pledged in its manifesto to
"cut waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by £100 million saved from NHS red tape."
The latest figures, dated 28 February, for NHS waiting lists in Wales show that the number of Welsh residents waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment has gone up from just over 67,000 in 1997 to 75,000 on 31 January. That represents an 11.5 per cent. increase. The number of patients waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment has gone up from 1,402 to 4,818. That is an increase of 243 per cent. However, the worst figure of all

117
is the number of patients waiting more than six months for their first out-patient appointment—that has risen from 5,956 to 48,506, an increase of more than 700 per cent.
The Conservatives have a series of policies to make Wales prosper. We will review the workings of the National Assembly to ensure that it starts to deliver for the people of Wales, and ensure that Wales continues to have a strong voice at the Cabinet table. We will oppose the plans for a new building for the National Assembly and support agriculture by getting rid of unnecessary regulation. We will cut red tape and bureaucracy in the national health service and set our schools free. The next Conservative Government will deliver for the people of Wales.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had a positive debate, to which 13 contributions have been made by a range of right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) have all contributed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West said, this St. David's day debate has provided an opportunity to celebrate the Celtic culture and Wales. I wish only that the hon. Member for Lichfield, who said in an intervention that he had visited Wales recently, had told us more about that visit. I am sure that as well as celebrating St. David's day, we would then have celebrated the advent of a Tory Member of Parliament in Wales, so a description of the visit would have made an interesting contribution.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning Cledwyn Hughes. I know that his death was felt strongly by Labour Members, but I appreciate the comments made by hon. Members from all parties in support of Cledwyn, his achievements and his family. Furthermore, I echo the tributes paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to Ian Spratling, who died at the weekend. I was with Ian last Wednesday at the Phoenix centre in Townhill, Swansea. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the centre on Friday. I understand that that was the day of Ian's death, which occurred shortly after the presentation. I met Ian only once, but I was impressed with his work and I echo the comments that have been made.
I welcomed the speech by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who said that he was retiring at the general election. I hate to disappoint him, but I remind him that that could be as far as 15 months away. I hope that we will have the opportunity for further Wales day
118
debates in due course, but in case we do not have such an opportunity, I pay tribute to him now for his work in the House. In addition, I pay tribute to any other right hon. or hon. Members who are retiring. I refer especially to Labour Members, several of whom are retiring at the general election.
Mr. Fabricant: Voluntarily?
Mr. Hanson: They are doing so voluntarily.
I remind the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that as recently as Thursday last week, an opinion poll conducted in Wales showed that Labour had 52 per cent. of support. The Tories had 22 per cent., the nationalists 14 per cent. and the Liberals 10 per cent. I hate to inform the hon. Gentleman that that means that at least 34 Labour Members will be elected at the next general election. I was disappointed by his contribution, which contained no vision and no apology, but merely disappointment. There was nothing about another term for a Conservative Government. All that he said was that many Labour Members and Welsh Members in general would be second class Members of Parliament. Of course, he does not represent a Welsh constituency, and there would be only second class Members of Parliament under a Conservative Government.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Do the percentages to which my hon. Friend referred mean that there will yet again be no Tory Members of Parliament representing Wales?
Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend is correct; there will be no Tory Members in Wales. However, I suspect that that will have nothing to do with opinion polls, but with, for example, the 2000 spending review and the outstanding settlement for Wales. My hon. Friends have mentioned that, and it is important that I refer to it in a review of the year. An increase in expenditure in Wales from £7 billion to £10 billion by 2003–04 represents a real increase for public services. Many hon. Friends have mentioned that important investment in, for example, health and education.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley have complained about waiting lists, education spending and a range of other issues. It is important to ask them where Conservative Members would make cuts if they formed a Government in future. It is no use saying that there are great difficulties without committing expenditure, as the Government are doing, to resolving them. There will be a genuine choice in the election, whenever it happens, between public investment in our public services and reductions in such investment.
Several other key issues were mentioned. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend, for Vale of Glamorgan and for Vale of Clwyd referred to unemployment, which has decreased in the 40 constituencies in Wales, thanks to the manufacturing base, the new deal, low inflation and stability.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, recorded crime in Wales decreased by more than 10 per cent. in the 12 months ending in September 2000. In that period, it fell by nearly 5 per cent. in Dyfed-Powys, 7.2 per cent. in Gwent, and

119
16.9 per cent. in south Wales. Crime has risen slightly in north Wales, but between May 1997 and September 2000 there were an extra 146 officers on the beat in Wales. That is a genuine investment.
Plaid Cymru Members mentioned Corus, among other matters. I appreciate that they, like Labour Members, have strong feelings about that, and many points have been made about manufacturing. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on many occasions, a range of difficulties exist, but I ask hon. Members and people outside: who do we trust to handle those problems in future? Would we trust a Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley or that of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor? There is still time for Corus to reconsider its decision. I hope that, in due course, and after pressure from my right hon. Friend, it will do that.
Let us consider the minimum wage. Labour Members welcome today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of an increase to £4.10. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the minimum wage. Let us be clear in our St. David's day debate about the reason for the increase to £4.10. My hon. Friends and I voted for it whereas the majority of other hon. Members did not.
As my hon. Friends have mentioned, more than 60,000 people in Wales benefit from the working families tax credit. Pensioners are benefiting from the winter fuel allowance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, and we are helping the poorest pensioners in our community.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy welcomed the actions of the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on miners' compensation. A total of £29 million has been paid—we are aware of the issues that affect compensation recovery, which my hon. Friend and other colleagues are considering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire and others made important points about foot and mouth disease. The hon. Member for Ceredigion again made a thoughtful contribution about farming and rural affairs. Foot and mouth disease has led to a devastating series of incidents, but I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd, for Cynon Valley and for Preseli Pembrokeshire and the hon. Member for Ceredigion will welcome the strong action that the Government have taken to stop livestock movements until at least 16 March to help to contain and eradicate the disease. I hope that hon. Members will also welcome the new scheme to license the movement of animals to abattoirs or to holding centres, and the Government's commitment to provide the full resources of the state veterinary service—some 1,300 strong—to support farmers during this crisis.
I shall certainly look into the point raised by hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. As she mentioned, more than £150 million worth of agrimonetary compensation has been made available to the beef, sheep and dairy sectors, in addition to the £18 million worth of
120
compulsory agrimonetary compensation that has been made available to support the industry at this difficult time.
Hon. Members will welcome the fact that, to date, some 12 approved red meat abattoirs in Wales have been granted approval to slaughter under the Foot and Mouth Disease (Declaratory Control) (England and Wales) Order of this week, and they are now available to help with animals that need to be slaughtered under licensed control. They range from operations in north Wales—in Corwen, Amlwch, Llanrwst, Machynlleth, Caernarfon and Wrexham—through Powys in mid-Wales to Swansea, Llanelli, Lampeter, and Tregaron, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion.
Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister inform us as soon as he knows when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will come forward with a solution to the problems of moving in-lamb ewes and calving cows to safety? That is a huge problem at the moment in rural Wales.
Mr. Hanson: I shall certainly look into that. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that the Government are taking strong initiatives that are occasionally difficult, and that our purpose is to ensure that we control the spread of foot and mouth disease and give financial support to those who are most affected.
The Government have taken a number of farming initiatives, such as the rural development plan, in conjunction with the National Assembly, the "Farming for the Future" consultation document that the National Assembly has produced, and—to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion—the agrifood partnership that the Assembly has undertaken that will look at action plans for the lamb, beef, dairy and organic sectors. In addition, there is the hill livestock compensatory allowance reform consultation exercise. The Government are, therefore, providing a tremendous amount of support.
We have been at great pains to point out on a number of occasions that the provisions that the Government have introduced, such as the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, child benefit and the children's tax credit are all available to support people in rural areas. That includes rural areas such as Montgomeryshire, where Paul Davies will fight the forthcoming election as the Labour candidate, and my own area, in which we have a proud record on which to work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned the success of this Government. By the time we hold the next Welsh day debate, whether that is before or after the election, Wales will have faced a choice. That choice is between a Government committed to further investment in people and services and a Conservative party led by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks that is committed to £16 billion worth of cuts. That is £24 million worth of cuts in each constituency, from Vale of Clwyd to Vale of Glamorgan: cuts in public services, policing, education and the health service.
Wales will also have faced a choice between a positive role in Europe and five years of isolation, and a choice between hon. Members who have a full role to play in this House and part-time Members who would not be full Members of the House under a Conservative Government.

121
The choice is between extending the new deal in a caring society with social justice, or scrapping it. Those are choices for Wales. There is also a choice between the Government's policies and the isolationism and lack of British Government investment that a nationalist party would bring to Wales. I say to this country and to Wales that the Government have a proud record, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have a strong, record to defend. They will defend it, and when they do, last Thursday's opinion polls will be proved correct.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
'( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Hon. Members: Object.

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

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

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Resolved,
That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Ian Pearson be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Kerry Pollard be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. John McFall be discharged from the Public Administration Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Abandoned Vehicles
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
10 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the problems caused by abandoned vehicles, which are becoming particularly acute in Reading and in many other places. I have initiated the debate because those problems and the number of abandoned vehicles are on the increase in Reading and Woodley. More than 2,000 suspected abandoned cars have been reported to the council in the past nine months alone—up 60 per cent. on the previous year.
A sign of the magnitude of the problem is this week's launch of the "Enough is enough" campaign by my local weekly newspaper, the Reading Chronicle. In an excellent article on the problem, which I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister, it said:
"The familiar sight of burnt out or smashed cars is ruining Reading's image as an aspiring city. They make our roads dangerous and are a magnet for vandals and thieves."
There is also a serious problem with untaxed cars. Between 1 October and 31 December last year, Reading magistrates, who cover a different area from the borough council, heard 245 cases of using a vehicle without an excise licence. The problems of abandoned and untaxed cars should be treated no differently from any other waste problems: if vehicles are not where they should be, they are rubbish and should be removed.
We know the cause of the epidemic. The decline in the scrap value of cars means that it costs people to have a vehicle taken away. That has resulted in cars being left on the street or being taken somewhere quiet to be dumped. Some abandoned cars are the consequence of joyriding and are torched to remove the evidence of who was involved in the theft.
I have personal experience of the problem of abandoned vehicles, as there has been a van outside my constituency office for more than six weeks. It has had a "police aware" sticker on it for most of that time and pieces of it are being removed every day. It has also become a magnet for children who attack it, smash its windows and cover it in graffiti. The bulk of the damage was done in school half-term week and the dangers to children presented by such activity should be obvious to all.
There is evidence that an unscrupulous garage owner is dumping vehicles on the streets of the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I believe that there is a public meeting in the area tonight, which was called by a constituent of mine who is a councillor there. Councillor Askar Sheibani has done sterling work against the scourge of abandoned vehicles in Southcote. However, it is an uphill struggle.
A case in Whitley, which is in my constituency of Reading, East, concerns Mr. Clifford of 113, Blagdon road. This man, who is believed to be secretary of the local Hell's Angels chapter, has made his neighbours' lives a misery for almost 20 years. He has kept tens of cars on the street as part of a vehicle breaking business that he runs. In 1998, a neighbour of his complained to me of the 30 or more vehicles that had been outside Mr. Clifford's house and on the highway for eight years.
124
Contractors in the Reading area have all been threatened by Mr. Clifford and refuse to take the abandoned vehicles away. No one would call that a lawless area.
The late Councillor Maureen Lockey worked hard to get something done about the problem, but to no avail. I know that Councillors Wilf Wild and Chris Goodall have worked hard, and still are doing so, to get action taken to end this nuisance for local, law-abiding residents.
I had further discussions with residents about the problem in Blagdon road on the day of last year's by-election, which saw the election of Councillor Christine Grieve. Since her election, she has also been working hard to try to tackle the problem, but has come up against the same brick wall. This morning, I received a copy of a letter to a resident in Blagdon road from Councillor Grieve, and was delighted to read:
"I have now received a reply"—
from the chief executive of Reading borough council—
"in which it is suggested that the residents near to number 113 need only be patient for a little longer, as negotiations between the different agencies are well advanced."
I am pleased that Mr. Clifford has been successfully prosecuted by the council's planning enforcement officers for running a business from a residential property. Like local residents, I look forward to the day when negotiations between the different agencies are complete and action is taken to remove the rubbish from his garden and the untaxed vehicles in various states of destruction from the public highway in Blagdon road.
Those are extreme examples of the problems caused by abandoned and untaxed vehicles, but such problems are everywhere. Putting those extreme examples aside, what is the nature of the problem, what remedies are there and what can be done to improve the process of removal of abandoned vehicles? Reading borough council expects to have received 2,800 reports of abandoned vehicles in the year to 31 March 2001, which is a 60 per cent. increase on the previous year. This year, £9,309 has been spent removing abandoned vehicles against a budget of £3,000. It is expected that the full-year cost will have doubled since last year. Those figures take no account of the cost of the housing officers and environmental maintenance inspectors who spot, report and attach notices to the vehicles. Two full-time posts are devoted to abandoned vehicles, and the administrative overheads amount to £36,000.
The problem is also increasing in the Woodley and Earley parts of the Wokingham district that I represent, although the scale of the problem in Wokingham district is not as large as it is in Reading. From 1 April, Reading borough council will introduce a carrot and stick approach. For the cost of its removal, a vehicle will be taken away and disposed of. On council-owned land, the council will use its power as a landowner to remove abandoned vehicles, with a seven-day wreckers' notice speeding up the removal of the vehicles. The council will also charge the last registered owner for the removal, and it now has a link to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency computer to speed up the identification of the last registered owner.
One problem experienced when trying to deal with abandoned cars is that people do not pass on registration documents at the point of sale. The details of up to 80 per cent. of abandoned vehicles have not been passed on to the DVLA. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member

125
for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for that information. I welcome the measures in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill that will make it an offence, punishable by fine, not to pass on a registration document, so it will be easier to track the registered owner of a vehicle.
The problem with untaxed vehicles remains. The manager of the Reading office of the DVLA has no field staff, and has the smallest enforcement team in the whole southern region. The enforcement team is entirely office based. Thames Valley police, together with the DVLA, have begun a clampdown on untaxed vehicles in Reading. They had an advertising blitz telling people to license their vehicles, and aim to step up enforcement shortly.
This morning, I was holding my regular surgery at the Whitley advice shop near to Blagdon road. I was pleased to receive a copy of the Surveyor of 22 February from Celia, who works in the advice shop and had read about this debate in the local papers. The article in Surveyor outlines a scheme in Lewisham whereby the council has the powers of the DVLA to remove untaxed vehicles as if they were abandoned. People must then pay to get their vehicles back.
The magazine goes on to say:
"The new measures will send a clear message to an anti-social minority of motorists that the public highway cannot be regarded as a convenient dumping-ground for their scrap metal.
And with parking spaces in short supply, it will free up capacity for the law-abiding majority who understand that using a car is a privilege that must be paid for."
I entirely agree with those sentiments.
Reading borough council has now taken on parking enforcement. It is starting to make a real difference, with people being caught and fined for parking illegally. It is the first time in a long while that that has happened. I am pleased that the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement in Reading is proving to be such a success, but it would be even better if Reading could also be allowed to pilot the Lewisham scheme, freeing more space for people to park legitimately and allowing the rubbish of abandoned vehicles to be removed from our streets even more quickly.
There is also the problem of removing abandoned and untaxed cars from private land. Reading borough council is working towards a concordat with private landowners in the area, allowing the removal of such abandoned and untaxed vehicles.
What can be done for the future? As I said earlier, I do not see why cars should be any different from anything else: if they are not where they should be, they are rubbish and should be removed. In the short term, the agencies involved could work together even more closely. I have already asked for a scheme like the one in Lewisham to be introduced in Reading; there is another pilot scheme in Kent, where untaxed vehicles are clamped and, if not taxed within a day, are removed and disposed of.
The figures in the Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 are weighted in favour of vehicle owners. The penalties that a local authority can impose on the owner of an abandoned vehicle should be increased to cover at least the cost of removal and destruction. After all, why should the community pay through its taxes for the anti-social behaviour of a few?] favour an increase providing for penalisation of people who dump vehicles.
In the longer term, dealing with abandoned or untaxed vehicles should become the province of one authority, with power to remove abandoned vehicles swiftly,
126
to charge for removal and to impose a penalty. An opportunity to introduce such a proposal is provided by the European Union end-of-life vehicle directive, which states that manufacturers of vehicles must meet all or a significant part of the costs involved in establishing and operating a vehicle disposal system under which last owners may dispose of their vehicles free of charge. I hope that the introduction of such a scheme will lead to a reduction in the number of abandoned vehicles; however, I believe that any scheme introduced under the EU directive must still allow for people abandoning vehicles, and for people not taxing their vehicles.
As the DVLA in Reading has not the enforcement capability on the streets to deal with the problem in Reading, I would like the councils that cover Reading and Woodley to be given powers to remove untaxed and abandoned vehicles. I also believe that the last owner of a vehicle should be made to pay the cost of such a service: I do not see why council tax payers should deal with other people's anti-social behaviour.
I end by returning to where I began. Enough is enough. The anti-social minority abandoning vehicles, or not taxing vehicles, is on the rise in Reading and Woodley; Reading borough council and Wokingham district council are starting to do something about the problem, but there are things that could be done to speed up and clarify the process for removing this rubbish from our streets. I hope the Minister will give serious thought to the ideas that I have suggested in relation to the disposal of vehicles regulations, allowing Reading borough council to trial a pilot similar to those in Kent and Lewisham, and the implementation of regulations implementing the EU end-of-life directive.
I am grateful for the chance to raise an issue that is so important to my constituents. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing the debate and on choosing this topic, which is of concern in many parts of the country. As she says, abandoned vehicles are a major headache for Reading borough council. I understand that since April last year it has had more than 2,000 cases, and is now proposing action.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that while I was preparing for the debate it came to my attention that other hon. Friends are equally concerned and are taking action. Indeed, only last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) called a summit in the city of Nottingham to try to make the action proposed there more effective.
Abandoned vehicles are a problem for many local authorities in England. All too often, vehicles are abandoned in residential streets, become an eyesore and attract the attention of vandals. That is a serious problem. The police also have to get involved where abandoned vehicles are dangerous to members of the public, as they often will be if they are left for a long time. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities often have difficulty in tracing the last known keeper of a vehicle. The problems are being accentuated by the falling price of scrap metal.
May I tell my hon. Friend what powers are available? Local authorities have a duty under section 3(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 to remove any

127
vehicle that has been abandoned on any land in the open air, or on any other land forming part of a highway in their area. The maximum penalty for abandoning a vehicle is a fine of £2,500, three months' imprisonment or both. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have additional powers under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to effect the removal of abandoned vehicles and to recover the costs from those responsible. In addition to that duty, local authorities have to deal with vehicles abandoned on private land.
In all instances, before it can remove a vehicle, the local authority must ensure that it has made every effort to trace the owner and can demonstrate that it has done so. That is done by fixing a warning notice to the vehicle for a specified number of days. The period of notification will depend on whether the vehicle has been abandoned on the highway or on private land. After that statutory notification period has elapsed and any representations have been considered, the local authority can remove the vehicle.
There are certain circumstances in which the police, under the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986, can remove a vehicle. Those are: where a vehicle is left in breach of local traffic regulation orders, is causing an obstruction, or is likely to cause danger and is broken down or abandoned without lawful authority. If a vehicle to which a warning notice has been attached deteriorates to such an extent that it becomes a danger to the public, the council can ask the police to remove the vehicle immediately.
I am aware that there are a number of difficulties for local authorities when dealing with abandoned vehicles. I have already mentioned the difficulty of tracking down the last known keeper of the vehicle. Suggestions have been made, including by my hon. Friend, that the person shown on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's database as the current keeper should be held responsible for the removal and storage costs when the vehicle is abandoned. Others have suggested that the various notice periods need to be shorter, so that the vehicles are not left on the road for so long. We are actively considering those suggestions as part of a review of legislation covering abandoned vehicles, and will consider what action needs to be taken, which might include primary legislation.
The DVLA is responsible for unlicensed vehicles but not for abandoned vehicles. The agency operates a nationwide scheme to wheelclamp and to impound unlicensed vehicles to tackle the problem of vehicle excise duty evasion. To date, about 53,000 vehicles have been clamped or impounded and about half have been disposed of, mainly by crushing.
The scheme is very successful and has already encouraged more than 333,000 extra motorists to relicense voluntarily, bringing in more than £39 million in additional revenue. The police are supportive, as they recognise that such evaders are frequently also committing other road traffic offences. I raise that issue because, as my hon. Friend herself has recognised, there is a strong link between unlicensed and abandoned vehicles.
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister follow up the request from the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and say whether she is
128
prepared to extend to local authorities the DVLA's powers to remove untaxed vehicles, so that untaxed vehicles—which are often abandoned—can be removed without delay? In my constituency of Kingston and Surbiton, my constituents are being adversely affected by the problem of untaxed and abandoned vehicles. I think that strengthening the law as the hon. Member for Reading, East suggests would go some way towards enabling the local authority to tackle the problem without delay.
Ms Hughes: As I said, we are considering various suggestions to deal specifically with abandoned vehicles, and the DVLA scheme to deal with unlicensed vehicles is very successful. Moreover, local authorities already have powers to remove abandoned vehicles after going through the current process. I accept that that process can sometimes take an unacceptably long time for local residents, but I am not convinced that simply giving the powers currently held by the DVLA to local authorities will address that issue effectively. Various considerations have to be balanced. I think that vehicle owners have the right to expect an attempt to be made to find a solution. The question is how long we should allow that process to continue. There are some difficulties, but, as I said, we are examining them.
A number of pilot schemes are being run, demonstrating the agency's willingness to operate in a joined-up manner with other agencies to counteract the problem of unlicensed and abandoned vehicles. The first of the schemes began in Kent on 22 January, and involves the agency joining forces with Kent police, Kent county council, Medway borough council and Kent fire service. The agency's wheelclamping contractor will for the first time target abandoned vehicles under the 1978 Act, as well as wheelclamping unlicensed vehicles. That is perhaps another way of addressing the issue that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised.
We shall examine the results of that pilot, which will run for two months in the Medway towns and be jointly funded. If it is successful, we hope to establish a permanent operation to cover the whole of Kent. Results to date have been very encouraging, with large numbers of vehicles removed A full analysis will be completed shortly.
The second initiative involves two London boroughs—Lewisham and Newham—which will use their own contractors to target unlicensed vehicles under the agency's wheelclamping regulations. They understand that wheelclamping for tax evasion is unlikely to be self-funding, but recognise that the operation could bring with it economies of scale. They will be able to retain the release fees and storage fees. The Newham pilot will start on 2 April, with Lewisham following shortly afterwards. Both will run for 12 months. Both councils will utilise their existing compounds, which are currently used for abandoned vehicles, to store the unlicensed vehicles during the pilot.
Those three pilot projects comprise the first action that we are considering and taking. Additionally, the Local Government Association has established a working group—in which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the DVLA and the Association of Chief Police Officers are included—to examine the problem. Apart from data gathering, the group's main aims are to suggest improvements to the current

129
arrangements and to disseminate examples of good practice. Last year, the LGA conducted a survey on the scale of the problem, how it was being managed locally and the operating costs involved. The work of that group will feed into my Department's current deliberations.
Furthermore, the Institute of Wastes Management has established a working group on abandoned and end-of-life vehicles, to examine the problems caused by abandoned vehicles in the local environment and some of the technical issues of best practice in disposal.
Abandoned vehicles are often associated with so-called joyriders. We appreciate the problems that joyriders cause and, as my hon. Friend said, we are introducing measures to help to combat them under the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. Under the Bill, the time limit for prosecuting person for taking a car without authority will be extended from six months to three years, although to ensure that proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed, a prosecution must be brought within six months of evidence becoming available. The impact will be to allow the police to make greater use of DNA and new technology and bring more people who commit that offence to justice.
As my hon. Friend knows, measures will be introduced under the Bill to regulate the motor salvage industry and to require businesses to keep records of transactions. Nothing in the Bill will make it an offence for a motor salvage operator to sell a vehicle to someone who is under 18, but it is, of course, already an offence for a person who is under 17 to drive a car. Under the new provisions, the police will be able to trace the driver more easily, as the records kept by salvage operators will give details of the person who bought the vehicle.
In addition, it will be compulsory under the Bill for any previously written-off vehicles to have an identity check before they are allowed back on the road. That is primarily intended to ensure that the vehicle is the one that it is purported it to be, not a disguised stolen car. However, owners will be made aware that their vehicles have been previously written off and will be encouraged to check that they are roadworthy.
Clearly, the European directive ort end-of-life vehicles, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, may contribute to a reduction in the number of abandoned vehicles in the United Kingdom, and we are now focusing on how it can be implemented to achieve that aim The directive is due to be implemented in the United Kingdom by spring next year, and requires member states to introduce legislation to allow last owners to deliver their vehicles to an authorised treatment facility free of charge. That requirement must be introduced by July 2002 for vehicles
130
put on the market from that date, and by January 2007 for all vehicles on the road. However, we have the option to introduce free take-back for all vehicles from 2002, and we are carefully considering whether we could do so, because it would clearly help to reduce the number of abandoned vehicles substantially. In addition, the directive requires systems to be set up for the collection of all end-of-life vehicles, with adequate availability of such facilities across the United Kingdom.
A system of so-called bounty payments to the last holders of end-of-life vehicles—another possible option—could be funded by a charge on new car purchases or by an increased annual excise duty. That could also reduce the number of abandoned vehicles. Some EU member states already operate such systems, which obviously provide a direct financial incentive for end-of-life vehicles to be handed in. That would also ensure that all vehicles were sent for reuse, recovery and recycling, thus contributing to the targets set out in the directive.
Mr. Davey: The Minister is talking about the resources that might become available to deal with the problem. I am sure that she is aware that local authorities—whether in Reading or in Kingston—want to tackle the problem, and they need resources to ensure that they have the necessary full-time officials to track down the abandoned vehicles, to liaise with the DVLA and to ensure that those vehicles are taken off the streets. Will she consider that matter as part of the resource analysis that the Department is undertaking?
Ms Hughes: I am certainly not going to put on my other hat and be drawn into a discussion of the local government settlement. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the very significant increases that all local authorities have received from the Government during the previous three years, and will receive in the forthcoming three years as a result of the spending review. Although I recognise that such problems involve spending pressures, all local authorities have pressures of one kind or another, and they must decide how to spend their money. The best help that we can give them is to facilitate the process as much as we can by changing the legislation or the procedures so that they are not so lengthy and time-consuming. I accept the main point that the hon. Gentleman makes—that for local authorities to undertake extensive searches for owners while the vehicles are still on the streets certainly not only takes a long time, but involves local authority resources, which are all too precious.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150623]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Hull, North constituency and on the city of Kingston upon Hull have been placed in the Library.

  Cheshire and Halton LEAs
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specific funds have been allocated to (i) Cheshire local education authority and (ii) Halton local education authority since May 1997 for(a) pre-school, (b) primary school, (c) secondary school, (d) special school and (e) post-16 education. [148848]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The funds allocated to Cheshire local education authority for each category since 1997–98 are shown in the table. Figures for Halton are available only from 1998–99, when it became a unitary authority. The figures include each authority's Standard Spending Assessment, Nursery Education Grant, Standards Fund, Schools Standards Grant, and Budget Support Grant. For some specific funds that are not distributed on the basis of these categories, we have estimated the amounts for each category. From 1998–99 Nursery Education Grant has been used to fund free places in the private, voluntary and independent sectors and new free places in the maintained sector. New places in the maintained sector are funded only for one year via Nursery Education Grant, and after that are normally funded through Standard Spending Assessment.

  In 1997–98, Cheshire County Council included Halton and Warrington. Since 1998–99, Halton and Warrington have been separate unitary authorities.

  Funds allocated to Cheshire and Halton local education authorities

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cheshire1

  Nursery

  20.5

  —

  —

  —

  Primary

  151.2

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary

  158.6

  —

  —

  —

  Post-16

  24.7

  —

  —

  —

  2W

  Funds allocated to Cheshire and Halton local education authorities

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cheshire2

  Nursery

  n/a

  16.7

  16.9

  17.7

  Primary

  n/a

  103.8

  114.5

  125.2

  Secondary

  n/a

  109.9

  116.8

  127.3

  Post-16

  n/a

  18.9

  19.0

  19.7

  Halton

  Nursery

  n/a

  3.9

  4.6

  4.7

  Primary

  n/a

  25.0

  26.7

  29.3

  Secondary

  n/a

  24.9

  26.4

  29.1

  Post-16

  n/a

  2.4

  2.6

  3.2

  1 Including Halton and Warrington

  2 Excluding Halton and Warrington

  In addition Cheshire has been allocated £60.6 million and Halton £9.5 million for capital expenditure since 1997–98. Capital funding cannot be broken down into the categories requested.

  Under this Government funding nationally per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02.

  FE Colleges
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information he has collated about the academic achievements and funding per student at(a) Farnham College and (b) Godalming College in the last year for which figures are available; and what the corresponding average figures are for (i) Surrey, (ii) England and (iii) the UK. [150301]

  Mr. Wicks
  The achievement rates for further education colleges in England are contained in the table:

  Achievement rate 1998–99 (percentage)

  Farnham College

  93

  Godalming College

  93

  All sixth form colleges in England1

  86

  All colleges in Surrey

  66

  All colleges in England

  76

  1 Farnham and Godalming Colleges are both sixth form colleges, therefore this achievement figure offers a more valid comparison

  The level of funding of students by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) is determined by a tariff system which provides a number of "units" of funding for various aspects of the course and student. Most "units" are for the length and type of course; others cover achievement, entry and additional support, for example.

  The average level of funding (or ALF) per unit varies between colleges, mostly for historical reasons but is converging by deliberate council policy. The ALF (1998–99) for Godalming College is £16.91 and for Farnham College is £17.75. This methodology will continue for the first year following the inception of the LSC. Following that, a revised system will be introduced which will simplify the FEFC system but maintain separate elements for course length and type and for achievement.
  3W
  Under the current methodology, funding per full time equivalent (FTE) student will depend on type of courses, level of achievement, mode of attendance and other

  Student numbers (1998–99)

  Funding (1998–99)

  Council funded

  Non-council funded

  Council funded full time equivalents (FTE)1

  Total FEFC funding (£ million)

  Funding per FTE (£)

  Farnham College

  921

  —

  575

  1.8

  3,200

  Godalming College

  1,962

  77

  1,695

  3.9

  2,323

  All FE institutions in Surrey (excluding HEI)

  44,224

  8,055

  18,561

  55.3

  2,979

  All FE institutions in England (excluding HEI)

  3,318,100

  765,500

  957,102

  2,932.5

  3,064

  1 Full time equivalents (FTEs)—for the purpose of this exercise, a full time student is defined as one who studies at the college for 655 hours. College FTEs are calculated by dividing total student hours by 655.

  This allows for a more standardised comparison in terms of funding per FTE student.

  Shakespeare
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the teaching of Shakespeare in secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [150539]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: The requirement for secondary schools to teach Shakespeare, as well as other major literary figures, was identified clearly in our review of the National Curriculum, which was completed last year. We maintained a consistent position, despite some proposals to the contrary, that pupils between the ages of 11 and 16 should be required to study the works of a range of major writers and poets, including two plays by William Shakespeare. The range also includes plays, novels, short stories and poetry from the English literary heritage. Major classical authors are represented, including Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, John Milton and William Wordsworth.

  These proposals were the subject of wide consultation, which produced strong public support. We have no plans to change the requirement for the teaching of Shakespeare in secondary school.

  Learning Support and Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the target ratio is of(a) learning support units and (b) pupil referral units to secondary schools; [150712]

  (2) how many additional pupil referral units he estimates are needed September 2002 in order to meet the Government's commitment to provide a place for all young people who have been excluded from school. [150795]

  Jacqui Smith
  The ratio of Learning Support Units to secondary schools varies from LEA to LEA. Some, such as City of Nottingham, have chosen to set up LSUs in all their secondary schools; others have targeted those schools with greatest need in terms of rates of exclusion,
  4W
  factors. The following figures on funding per FTE are affected by the factors as well as average level of funding per unit.

  attendance and severity of behavioural problems. However, in Excellence in Cities areas there is an average of one LSU for every two secondary schools. There are now over 1,000 LSUs in England.

  We are providing education authorities with the resources to ensure that all excluded pupils receive a full-time education by 2002. Such education will take place in a range of settings including PRUs, the voluntary sector, further education and work experience. From April, funding to tackle truancy and exclusion increases to £174 million and already there are over 1,000 more places and nearly 600 more teachers, instructors and education support assistants at PRUs compared to 1997. Education authorities are assessing locally their requirements for increasing provision taking account of the number of exclusions and the successful re-integration of excluded pupils into mainstream school. In 2000 one third of PRUs reported offering full-time provision to pupils and two thirds offered 13 or more hours tuition each week. Planned LEA funding for PRUs increased by 13 per cent. this year compared to last, and we expect to see a 10 per cent. rise in the number of PRUs in 2001 compared to 2000. LEA plans indicate that in 2001 nearly two thirds of authorities will move to the full timetable for excluded secondary pupils. The recent Ofsted Annual Report noted the improving performance of PRUs and in particular highlighted improvements in teaching, pupil progress and re-integration into mainstream school of key stage 2 and 3 pupils.

  Golden Hellos
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have been given golden hellos broken down by(a) gender, (b) number of UCAS points and (c) age. [151003]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: Golden hellos are awarded irrespective of gender, number of UCAS points and age. The information requested is therefore not collected centrally.

  Compared to 1998–99, before the introduction of golden hellos for maths and science, graduate recruitment is up 23 per cent. for maths and 8 per cent. for science. In September 2000, golden hellos were extended to modern languages and technology. Graduate recruitment for 2000–01 is up by 13 per cent. and 23 per cent. respectively compared to last year.

  Admission and Application Figures
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the admission figures were for the last three academic years, and for academic year 2001–02, what the latest application figures are, for higher education institutions, broken down into(a) UK based students, (b) EU and EEA students and (c) other overseas students, indicating in each case the figures for (i) full-time and (ii) part-time students. [151161]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data on the home domicile of students, covering students applying for full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), are shown in tables 1 and 2. UCAS does not cover applicants or accepted applicants to part-time courses. The available data, collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, on entrants to part-time undergraduate courses are shown in table 3. Information on the numbers of part-time entrants for 2000–01 will be available in April 2001.

  Table 1: Accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via UCAS institutions in the UK

  Thousand

  Academic year of entry

  Domicile

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  UK

  298.2

  303.1

  308.7

  EU

  15.9

  15.5

  14.0

  Other overseas

  15.7

  16.0

  17.0

  Total

  329.8

  334.6

  339.7

  Table 2: Applicants1 to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via UCAS institutions in the UK

  Thousand

  Academic year of entry

  Domicile

  2000–01

  2001–02

  UK

  292.4

  296.4

  EU

  13.6

  11.4

  Other overseas

  14.4

  14.8

  Total

  320.5

  322.6

  1 As at 15 December

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and accepted applicants to Oxford and Cambridge universities by previous educational establishment

  Oxford Year of entry

  Cambridge Year of entry

  1999

  2000

  1999

  2000

  Nos.

  %1

  Nos.

  %1

  Nos.

  %1

  Nos.

  %1

  Applicants

  Independent

  3,401

  42

  3,202

  40

  3,509

  36

  3,526

  36

  Maintained2

  3,177

  39

  3,176.

  40

  4,410

  45

  4,412

  45

  Other3

  1,222

  15

  1,304

  16

  1,495

  15

  1,474

  15

  Not known

  287

  4

  281

  4

  411

  4

  413

  4

  Total

  8,087

  100

  7,963

  100

  9,825

  100

  9,825

  100

  Accepted applicants

  Independent

  1,421

  48

  1,343

  46

  1,301

  44

  1,306

  44

  Maintained2

  1,106

  37

  1,130

  39

  1,258

  42

  1,232

  41

  Other3

  364

  12

  392

  13

  340

  11

  368

  12

  Not known

  73

  2

  63

  2

  86

  3

  93

  3

  Total

  2,964

  100

  2,928

  100

  2,985

  100

  2,999

  100

  1 Constituent parts may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  2 Includes comprehensives, grammar, former grant maintained schools, sixth form centres, special schools and other secondary schools.

  3 Includes FE and HE institutions, Sixth Form Colleges. Adult Colleges and City Technology Colleges.

  6W

  Table 3: Entrants to part-time undergraduate course in the UK1

  Thousand

  Academic year of entry

  Domicile

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  UK

  266.3

  272.8

  EU

  3.3

  2.7

  Other overseas

  3.4

  3.7

  Total

  273.0

  279.3

  1 Including all undergraduate courses in HE institutions, FE institutions and the Open University

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was in(a) specialist secondary schools and (b) other secondary schools in England for the most recent period for which figures are available. [151165]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information from the Department's 2000 Annual Schools Census shows that the proportion of pupils "known to be eligible for free school meals" was 16 per cent. in mainstream specialist secondary schools currently operational, and 18 per cent. in other mainstream maintained secondary schools. For those mainstream specialist schools designated in 1996 or earlier, the proportion of pupils "known to be eligible for free school meals" was 14 per cent.: for those mainstream specialist schools designated after that date the proportion was 17 per cent.

  Oxbridge Applicants
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each constituent college of(a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge universities the proportion of (i) applicants and (ii) accepted applicants from (a) state schools and (b) independent schools for the academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [151179]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The available data for Oxford and Cambridge universities are given in the table.

  Figures for each constituent college are not available centrally.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish training and financial support structures for existing voluntary organisations. [151180]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: My Department has no specific mandate to set up training and financial support structures for voluntary organisations. It is the Home Office Advice Communities Unit that has overall responsibility within Government for the voluntary sector. However, the voluntary sector is essential to the achievement of our objectives and we have put in place a number of arrangements for improvement the way we work with voluntary organisations and to help them improve the quality of their work.

  We already provide support and technical assistance to providers working on particular initiatives such as Surestart, Millennium Volunteers and the New Deal Innovation Fund. We have established a short-term Voluntary Sector Support Unit within the Department to enhance the relationship with the sector, and we are introducing a national Funding Formula through the Employment Service and the Learning and Skills Council with effect from April this year.

  1993–94

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Belmont Primary

  Remedial works after flooding

  43,598

  Re-roofing work

  7,000

  Chellaston Secondary

  New technology extension and internal refurbishment

  550,569

  Merrill College

  Repairs to pipework

  924

  Heating system repairs

  10,129

  Heating system repairs

  6,221

  Health and Safety work and fire prevention measures

  84,205

  John Port

  Heating repairs

  71,904

  Roof repairs and Health and Safety work

  31,286

  Noel-Baker

  Roof repairs

  102,875

  Roof repairs

  44,633

  The Pingle

  Security measures

  63,585

  1994–95

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Belmont Primary

  Boiler repairs

  4,824

  Replacement classrooms

  256,559

  Linton Primary

  New hall and changing rooms

  210,830

  Chellaston Secondary

  New sixth form

  1,139,747

  Replacement of outfall drains

  12,163

  Merrill College

  Repairs to electrical services following water leak

  8,534

  Repair to gas pipes following gas leak

  14,688

  Re-roofing works

  5,498

  Sewer repairs

  5,698

  Essential roof repairs and securing of windows

  120,792

  John Port

  Re-roofing works

  77,079

  Foul drainage works

  34,251

  Four new science labs accommodation and prep rooms

  510,034

  Noel-Baker

  Re-roofing works

  78,317

  Upgrade fabric of block

  129,787

  The Pingle

  Extension and roof repairs to technology block

  295,093

  8W
  With the establishment of Learning and Skills Council, we are introducing a Common Inspection Framework, a system of approved providers, longer-term contracts and "joined-up" purchasing arrangements.

  We have recently commenced work on developing a new framework for our relationships with providers which will harmonise best practice around the Department and its associated bodies. A consultation exercise on the basis for this framework will be carried out in the spring.

  Schools (South Derbyshire)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 46W, on schools (South Derbyshire), if he will list the project-specific allocations to individual schools in each of the financial years listed in the table. [151250]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 12 February 2001, c. 46W]: The project-specific allocations to individual schools in the South Derbyshire constituency in each financial year from 1993–94 are shown in the tables.
  9W

  1995–96

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Belmont Primary

  New Classroom Block and toilets

  36,000

  Linton Primary

  Boiler replacement

  8,440

  Shelton Junior

  Developing independent learning through IT

  30,000

  Chellaston Junior

  ICT

  117,500

  Merrill College

  Boiler replacement

  6,417

  IT equipment

  117,500

  Repairs to drains

  4,345

  John Port

  Disabled access

  954

  Repair/replace water installation

  26,675

  Replacement of obsolete thermostatic mixing valves

  2,500

  Re-roofing works

  63,447

  1996–97

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Chellaston Junior

  Six classroom extension

  536,618

  Shelton Junior

  Asbestos removal

  82,002

  Pennine Way Junior

  Detached three classroom block with covered way

  196,496

  Merrill College

  Health and safety work

  64,208

  Mechanical extract ventilation and refurbishment

  142,000

  Demolition and reprovision of toilets

  54,000

  Replacement of failed boiler

  9,038

  John Port

  New technology provision

  450,769

  Health and safety work

  49,845

  Boiler replacement in Ashbourne block

  76,059

  Ventilation and electrical works

  359,372

  Replacement of hot water cylinder

  8,540

  Repairs to Ashbourne block

  39,996

  Noel-Baker

  Replacement of heating system

  138,240

  Refurbishment of toilets and drainage repairs

  42,587

  The Pingle

  Provision of additional places

  265,888

  Repairs to external fabric

  125,304

  Provision of additional places

  165,304

  1997–98

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Repton Primary

  Provision of nursery places

  50,000

  Chellaston Secondary

  Sports Hall

  178,953

  Merrill College

  Rewire gym and replace lower school water tank

  78,137

  Repairs to science block heating and refurbishment of two labratories

  43,355

  Reglaze and repair windows and extraction canopy in kitchen

  39,630

  Repair defective cabling and control equipment

  2,796

  John Port

  Re-roof home economics classrooms

  88,900

  Fire compartmentation of Edale Block

  45,126

  Noel-Baker

  Re-roofing of the science block

  114,191

  The Pingle

  Roof repairs

  50,456

  Provide ramp and handrails

  43,938

  Work to masonry, cladding, windows and doors to main block

  129,417

  10W

  11W

  1998–99

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Repton Primary

  Modifications to doors, toilets and access to the school

  1,000

  Re-roofing works

  4,623

  Chellaston Junior

  Ramp provision

  3,765

  Glazing—addition of safety film to windows

  5,700

  Linton Primary

  Replacement of two mobile classrooms

  100,178

  Shelton Junior

  Introduction of Successmaker into the curriculum

  36,272

  Pennine Way Junior

  Install ICT suite, extend and refurbish library

  20,000

  Merrill College

  Completely rewire original building

  96,798

  Gas distribution, ventilation and electrical work

  38,386

  Rationalisation of school sites

  119,875

  Emergency Health and Safety work

  6,071

  John Port

  Complete replacement of failing concrete panels

  297,515

  New sixth form (preliminary work)

  47,619

  Refurbishment to elevation curtain wall

  46,530

  Glazing

  11,633

  New sixth form

  1,858,795

  Re-roofing works

  38,480

  Noel-Baker

  Repairs to gas pipes

  9,521

  Re-roofing works

  47,818

  The Pingle

  Sports hall and changing rooms

  200,000

  Roof, cladding, windows and lights

  40,853

  Provision of a lift

  40,788

  1999–2000

  School name

  Project description

  Allocation (£)

  Linton Primary

  Emergency replacement of collapsed drain

  14,868

  Shelton Junior

  Emergency replacement of water heater

  11,490

  Chellaston Secondary

  Increase accommodation and refurbish science facilities

  200,000

  Merrill College

  Emergency roofing repair works

  25,979

  Emergency drainage repairs

  6,004

  Noel-Baker

  Relocation of specialist facilities

  804,925

  The Pingle

  Two general teaching rooms and conversion of two laboratories

  144,760

  In addition, Derbyshire local education authority was allocated central Government support for capital investment in schools between 1996–97 and 2000–01 as shown in the following table. Information before 1996–97 is not readily available.

  Central Government support for Capital Investment in schools in Derbyshire local education authority

  £000

  1996–97

  5,088

  1997–98

  4,037

  1998–99

  12,708

  1999–2000

  13,008

  2000–2001

  27,128

  Total

  61,969

  Fast Track Learning Programme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) where, and in what form, academic
  12W
  requirements for the Fast Track Learning programme were published prior to its launch; and what changes have been made to the requirements subsequently; [151609]

  (2) how many applications have been (a) received for the Fast Track Learning programme, (b) accepted on application, (c) accepted on appeal, (d) rejected on application and (e) rejected on appeal. [151610]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The academic requirements for the Fast Track Teaching programme reflect the demands it will make on those who will participate. The key requirements were published on the Fast Track Recruitment website at the time of the launch in October 2000. They have not been changed since that date. 1,574 applications were received by the closing date of 31 January. In common with accelerated progression schemes for other professions, applicants will undergo a rigorous staged assessment process. We expect that process to continue into April. To date over 400 applicants have proceeded to the second stage. Of those who did not, 21 have asked for their applications to be reviewed. In one case the review has resulted in the applicant progressing to the second stage.

  School Transport
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the annual cost of providing private taxi hire for the purposes of school transport in(a) Devon and (b) the United Kingdom. [151881]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, Devon local education authority spent £11.9 million on home to school transport. The figure for England for the same year was £444 million. These figures are for all forms of transport: we do not have any means of estimating the amount spent on taxis.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department spent on school bus transport in the last financial year; and if he will break down the sums allocated to each LEA. [152009]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department does not allocate money to local education authorities specifically for school transport. Money for this purpose is included in LEAs' standard spending assessments, but it is up to individual authorities how they spend it. In 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, LEAs in England spent a total of £444 million on all forms of school transport; we do not have a breakdown of how much of this was on buses.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish a response to the report of the Disability Rights Task Force, "From Exclusion to Inclusion." [152415]

  Ms Hodge
  I am delighted to announce that the Government's response to the Task Force, entitled "Towards Inclusion—civil rights for disabled people", is published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  We are already taking forward the Task Force's recommendations on civil rights in education in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, which received its Third reading in the House of Lords on 1 March. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), announced on 7 December that he would be consulting separately on the Task Force's civil rights recommendations on transport. The Disability Rights Commission, on which the Task Force made previous recommendations, has been open to the public since 25 April 2000.

  "Towards Inclusion" describes our proposals for amending the Disability Discrimination Act's provisions on the definition of disability, employment and access to goods, services, facilities and premises. These proposals will have a major impact on promoting equality for, and safeguarding the rights of, disabled people. They include: covering more people with HIV and cancer; ending the DDA's small employer exemption by 2004; bringing within scope of the DDA occupations and employment such as the police, fire-fighters, prison officers, barristers and partners in business partnerships. By making these changes, we will bring over 600,000 disabled people, in a range of jobs and occupations, into its scope. We will also improve the process for making tribunal complaints; extend the scope of the DDA to cover most functions of public
  14W
  bodies—not just services to the public as now; and introduce a new duty for public bodies to promote equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. We are seeking views on our proposals by 8 June. In addition, we have asked the DRC, as part of its role to monitor and review the DDA, to consider further some other Task Force issues.

  "Towards Inclusion" also describes how we have taken forward the Task Force's non-legislative recommendations and outlines the wide range of positive Government action for disabled people over the last four years, in all areas of life.

  Our 1997 manifesto made a major commitment to disabled people. We promised to support their comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. With the help of the Disability Rights Task Force, the steps we have taken over the last four years—and what we now propose in "Towards Inclusion"—meet this commitment. We are on the way towards creating a truly inclusive society for disabled people.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Guinea
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the number of refugees in Guinea. [151684]

  Clare Short
  There are currently around 310,000 Sierra Leonean refugees, and around 122,000 Liberian refugees, in Guinea. Many have been there for a number of years. There are also significant numbers of internally displaced Guineans in the south of the country, in the area adjoining the Liberian and Sierra Leone borders.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the composition, terms of reference and scheduled date of reporting of the planned commission on intellectual property rights. [152141]

  Clare Short
  The process of selecting the commission is under way, but not yet completed. A selection panel will sit at the end of March and propose recommendations for its membership to me thereafter. The terms of reference are as set out in the White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor". We expect the commission to report by the end of this year.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has contributed to research to identify a microbicide to prevent HIV transmission in the last four years; and which research organisations received funding. [151631]

  Clare Short
  My Department is a major source of international support for reproductive health commodities including male and female condoms. An effective microbicide would be an important addition to the list of reproductive health commodities and would also offer people more choice and control in protecting themselves from infection.
  15W
  In the last four financial years, we have made the following contributions to organisations in support of research and development, and advocacy for microbicide development:

  Medical Research Council: £900,000

  Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine: £334,766

  Population Council: £136,707

DEFENCE

  Departmental IT Policies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151473]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: A number of new Defence IT-related projects are planned to commence during the coming financial year. It is impracticable to list all new initiatives, but the most important is the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII), which will enter its initial assessment phase during 2001–02. This is planned to provide a computing infrastructure across the whole of Defence, and is an important step forward, since it represents a change from stand-alone IT projects to the development of a single Defence-wide computing infrastructure on which both office and business applications will be mounted. The DII is based on, and is planned to subsume, a number of related IT projects. Other business application projects being considered include DRUMM (material management capability), DSMS (Defence Supply Management System), P2P (Purchase to Payment, a component of the Defence e-Commerce programme) and SGIS (Surgeon General's system). All of these are in their formative stages, with completion expected over the next three years. Since contracts for these projects have yet to be awarded and are subject to commercial confidence, I am withholding the information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151503]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Information Technology is a key component of many Ministry of Defence (MOD) projects, both large and small. Consequently the MOD has a large number of information-related systems in service, under development or planned. Many projects are relatively small and are undertaken within the delegations given to budget-holders and Defence agencies. Comprehensive records of these projects are not held centrally. As part of the MOD response to the McCartney report on improving Government IT projects, records are being compiled for medium to large-scale projects. Since these records include commercial in confidence details of projects, I am withholding the information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Some 45 projects are currently listed and work continues to complete the list and ensure that all useful data have been captured.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme; and if he will make a statement. [151814]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme has been in existence since October 1993 and at the end of February of this year 3,105 veterans had been seen. A paper on the findings from the first 1,000 veterans was published in the British Medical Journal in January 1999. A paper on the second 1,000 veterans will shortly be published in the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps and a paper on the third 1,000 veterans, and the 3,000 in total, is almost ready for submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A presentation based on this last paper was made by the head of the GVMAP at a recent conference on Gulf illnesses in the United States.

  Psychiatric illneses are predominant among the illnesses seen at the GVMAP, of which Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, with or without co-morbidity, is the most common. The GVMAP physicians have found a few other Gulf related illnesses, predominantly of a respiratory or dermatological nature. They have not found any evidence of a unique syndrome among Gulf veterans or any unusual pattern of disease among veterans who attended the programme. They have not seen any evidence of increased immunological, neurological or renal diseases, or the appearance of any unusual cancers. The symptoms presented by veterans who have attended the GVMAP are similar to those reported by members of the general population attending their GPs' surgeries.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what repots the Department has received or produced relating to neurological damage sustained by service personnel in the Gulf War; and if he will publish them. [152154]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has not received any reports relating to neurological damage in Gulf veterans which have not been published in scientific journals or are otherwise publicly available. Nor has the Ministry of Defence produced any such reports.

  The MOD is currently sponsoring research at King's College Medical School which is investigating neuromuscular problems in Gulf veterans. The results of this research will be published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in due course.

  Force Reaction Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and for what reasons he decided to acknowledge the existence of the Force Reaction Unit; what the limits are on disclosure of information regarding the activities of this unit; and what instructions he has issued regarding the co-operation of former members of the FRU with the Stevens Inquiry. [150583]

  Mr. Spellar
  I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the Force Research Unit (FRU).

  In July 2000 the Ministry of Defence provided a national newspaper with information relating to a court order obtained against a former soldier, known as "R".

  17W
  The order was obtained in order to protect lives and national security. These papers confirmed that "R" was a former member of the FRU.

  Further information regarding the activities of this unit is withheld under exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  It would be inappropriate for the MOD to issue instructions to any former soldier who is to be questioned by the police on any issue. Nevertheless, the MOD is fully supportive of the Stevens Inquiry and will continue to provide it with whatever assistance it can.

  Troop Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel in total have served with the armed forces in Northern Ireland since troops were deployed there in 1969; how many have been killed and injured in the course of their duties; how many are receiving war pensions as a result of injuries sustained in Northern Ireland; and how many widows are receiving pensions where bereavement is attributable to tours of duty in Northern Ireland. [150584]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since August 1969, the total number of soldiers who have served at least one day in Northern Ireland is 310,831, while the total number of officers who have served at least one day in Northern Ireland is 28,2821. In the case of the Royal Air Force 2,233 officers and 24,236 airmen/airwomen are recorded as having received pay while serving in Northern Ireland and will, therefore, have served at least one month in Province. Comparable information for the Royal Navy is not available.

  The number of service personnel who have lost their lives since August 1969 in connection with their military duties and responsibilities in Northern Ireland is detailed in the table.

  Number

  Army2

  651

  RN3

  11

  RAF3

  4

  Date

  Duties

  30 April 2000

  A Company-Exercise Red Stripe in Jamaica

  7–26 May 2000

  Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone

  31 July-4 August 2000

  Arms plot move to Dover

  2–20 September 2000

  A Company-Operation Barras Sierra Leone

  October-December 2000

  Northern Ireland Training

  December 2000

  Rural Roulement Bn (Northern Ireland)-two Companies are in Northern Ireland

  They are engaged on a variety of Infantry Training duties.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much depleted uranium was used by each country in the allied forces during the Gulf war. [147377]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as we are aware, only UK and US forces used ammunition containing depleted uranium 18W
  The number of British service personnel injured in Northern Ireland since August 1969 is detailed in the table.

  Number

  Army4

  6,146

  RN5

  165

  RAF5

  154

  1 These figures include regular soldiers, full and part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. They also include members of the TA, who do not play any part in security operations in Northern Ireland, but it is not possible to extract these figures from the overall totals.

  2 Figures are from August 1969–19 February 2001 and relate to terrorist activity. 434 deaths occurred while the individual was on duty.

  3 Figures are from 1 January 1974–19 February 2001 and include injuries/deaths from all causes.

  4 Figures are from August 1969–19 February 2001 and relate primarily to injuries which were incurred while on duty; however, the manner in which data have historically been compiled means some injuries incurred while off duty may also be included.

  5 Figures are from 1 January 1976–19 February 2001 and relate primarily to injuries which were incurred while on duty; however, the manner in which data have historically been compiled means some injuries incurred while off duty may also be included.

  Information about the number of widows receiving pensions where bereavement is attributable to tours of duty in Northern Ireland is not readily available. Neither my Department nor the War Pensions Agency categorises these pensions according to the geographical area in which bereavement took place. This information could be obtained only by a manual search of all pension files, which could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Paratrooper Shootings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further action has been taken against the three paratroopers alleged to have shot Fahri Bici and Avni Dudi in Kosovo; and what duties have been undertaken since April 2000 by(a) the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment and (b) the three paratroopers against whom allegations have been made. [150632]

  Mr. Spellar
  This issue is currently being considered by the Attorney-General, and any potential further action will be dependant on the outcome of his deliberations. The 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment has undertaken the following duties since 1 April 2000.

  (DU) during the Gulf conflict. The Ministry of Defence's assessment is that UK tanks used fewer than one hundred 120mm rounds against Iraq's military forces during hostilities (this equates to less than one metric tonne of DU). Additional rounds were fired by UK forces during earlier work-up training to establish the round's Mean Point of Impact. In a paper published in December 2000, the US Government reported that US forces in the Gulf had fired ammunition rounds containing some 290 metric tonnes of DU.

  National Missile Defence
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between(a) Government officials and (b) Ministers and British companies about the latter's participation in National Missile Defence projects. [151608]

  Mr. Hoon
  No discussions have taken place between either Ministers or officials of my Department and British companies about participation by the latter in US National Missile Defence projects.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the number of Typhoons which will be(a) purchased and (b) brought into service by the UK; and what the in-service date for the Typhoon in the United Kingdom is. [151792]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: Typhoon is the name given by industry to the export version of Eurofighter; it is not the name for RAF aircraft.

  The UK currently intends to acquire 232 Eurofighter aircraft, and we plan to bring all of these aircraft into service, except for two Instrumented Production Aircraft and one to be used for the Major Aircraft Fatigue Test.

  Production contracts for the first 55 RAF aircraft were signed in September 1998. Contracts for the remaining aircraft are planned for 2003 and 2007. The in-service date of Eurofighter, which is defined as delivery of the first aircraft, is June 2002.

  "Brits"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and for what reason the former serviceman described as Geoff in the BBC television documentary "Brits" was discharged from the Army. [152088]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not normal practice to disclose such details of any individual's military service. Such information is confidential between employer and employee and is withheld under Exemptions 8a and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new staff have been taken on in the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit to deal with issues relating to Porton Down volunteers since 21 November 2000; and in what grades each of these new staff were. [152083]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 21 November 2000, the following members of staff have joined the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit (GVIU), specifically to deal with issues relating to the Porton Down Volunteer Programme:

  1 x Principal (Grade B2).

  2 x Senior Executive Officers (Grade C1).

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2000,Official Report, columns 101–02W, on what dates officials from his Department and the Chemical Defence
  20W
  Establishment, Porton Down, held meetings with the Medical Research Council regarding advice on an independent epidetmiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [152080]

  Dr. Moonie
  My staff met representatives from the Medical Research Council (MRC) at Porton Down on 5 March 2001.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 223W, regarding nerve agent studies, if the research to establish the definitive numbers of Porton Down volunteers who have taken part in nerve agent studies will include an assessment of the safety and ethical procedures which were in force at Porton Down during these studies [152054]

  Dr. Moonie>
  Yes

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 659W, regarding Oripavine, if he will place in the Library a list of the technical papers which discuss the different aspects of Porton' s research on TL2636, specifying the title, number and date of each paper. [152050]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has identified several internal technical reports which relate to research involving Oripavine TL2636. These are as follows:Porton Technical Paper 0835: Oripavine derivative (TL2636) as a potential incapacitating agent. 1963
  Porton Technical Paper 0951: Prediction of biological activity. 1966
  Nancekuke Internal Note 9: Some applications of potentiometric titrations in non-aqueous media. 1965
  Nancekuke Internal Note 16: Analysis of tertiary alcohols of the 6:14 endetheno tetrahydro Oripavine series. 1966
  Nancekuke Report 78: Preparation of tertiary alcohols of the 6:14 endetheno tetrahydro Oripavine series. 1966
  Porton Down Technical Paper 939: N-dealkylation of Oripavine derivatives and its significance in their pharmacological activity. Date unknown.
  Technical Paper 008: Neuropharmacological comparison in the cat of the catalepsy producing drugs morphine and bulbocapnine. 1969
  Technical Paper 068: Effects of small doses of an Oripavine derivative on human subjects under both laboratory and field conditions. 1972.

  The following three reports have some reference to Oripavine TL2636:
  Annual Summary Report 1965–1966. 1966
  CW Applications Discussion Group: 17th Quadripartite CBR Conference. 1964
  Applied Biology Committee Chemical Defence Establishment: Effects of small doses of TL2636 on human subjects at rest and exercising in the laboratory and the field. 1968.

  The majority of these reports are over 30 years old and are part of the Porton Down archive holding of records which have been progressively transferred to the main MOD repository at Hayes. Since 1998, the majority of the above technical reports and other material have been forwarded to MOD archives for review, in accordance with normal procedures, and eventual transfer to the Public Records Office.
  21W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, have made of the report produced by the US Institute of Medicine in 1993 entitled, "Veterans at Risk-the health effects of mustard gas and lewisite"; and on what dates these assessments were made. [152082]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ways in which his Department and the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, have co-operated and provided assistance to the Wiltshire Police during their inquiry into human trials at Porton Down. [152081]

  Dr. Moonie
  From the start of the investigation by Wiltshire Police, staff at Porton Down have been as helpful as possible in providing them with the material they require. Officers were issued passes to allow them easy access to the Porton Down site and, prior to moving the records to the Police Headquarters, the Police had use of an office containing the archived volunteer files to carry out their work. The Police have also had access to archive material held in the Ministry of Defence's archives, and research advice and assistance from the MOD historical branches.

  MOD staff continue to be in regular contact with their opposite numbers in the Wiltshire Constabulary and meet with them whenever necessary to discuss points of concern.

  US-UK Strategic Defence Initiative (Memorandum of Understanding)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1985 US-UK Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding. [152052]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding this information under exemption lb of the Code of Practice, relating to international relations.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to offer stakeholder pensions to members of the reserve forces. [152055]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is in the process of going out to tender for a designated stakeholder pension scheme. It is intended to offer eligible members of the reserve forces the opportunity to make contributions to the designated stakeholder pension scheme via deductions from their pay.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his policy planners department was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers 22W
  participate in its work; how many regular (a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the department on a full-time basis. [150373]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Directorate of Defence Policy in the Ministry of Defence was renamed the Directorate of Policy Planning in autumn 1999, although the role it undertakes remains similar. It supports the strategic planning process which arose from the Strategic Defence Review, and undertakes policy development work on a range of issues. It also carries out work in support of the Defence Diplomacy initiative and the Government's conflict prevention agenda.

  The Directorate does not generally publish reports in the public domain in its own right, but it had a major input, for example, into three recent Ministry of Defence publications (Defence Policy 2001, The Future Strategic Context for Defence and Policy Paper 1: Defence Diplomacy).

  The Directorate currently comprises 22 full-time Ministry of Defence employed personnel, both civilian and military, and one French military exchange officer. It does not contain any special advisers.

  In undertaking its work, the Directorate works with a wide range of bodies in the Ministry of Defence, other Government Departments, the academic community and other interested parties. Special advisers do not routinely participate in its work, although they may be involved in discussion of work undertaken by the Directorate, in the normal way.

  Investment Strategy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of progress in implementing the Investment Strategy; if he will list the exceptional circumstances under which sites may be offered to other public bodies; what sites have been disposed of in this way, and under what circumstances in each case, in the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [150524]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Investment Strategy was published as a result of the 2000 Spending Review, which sets out new plans for investment for 2001–02 to 2003–04. At the same time, the Government committed themselves to producing documents that would show how Departments planned to use this funding by setting out a strategic plan for both new investment and the use of existing assets. The Defence Investment Strategy is the result. The Strategy sets out the strategic context the MOD is working in, an analysis of its existing asset base, future investment plans and the systems the Department will be adopting to deliver value for money.

  The exceptional circumstances under which sites may be offered to other public bodies are where it will ensure the future preservation of an area of importance for nature conservation, a listed building or scheduled monument or to preserve a community facility which would have no alternative use. Details of the sites which have been disposed of in this way over the last four years are not held centrally, and the costs of retrieving this information would be disproportionate.

  Service Personnel Medical Assessment Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former service personnel have made an appointment with the Medical Assessment Programme at St. Thomas's Hospital since 21 November 2000; and how many of these appointments have been made following a referral from the individual's medical practitioner. [152049]

  Dr. Moonie
  All appointments with the Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) at St. Thomas' Hospital are made as a result of a referral by the patient's GP. During the period 21 November 2000 to 1 March 2001, 47 former service personnel who served in the Gulf have been referred to the MAP. Of these 26 have been seen.

  During the same time period 42 former Porton Down volunteers have been referred to the MAP by their GP. Of this number 12 have been seen.

  Firing Ranges
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available sites designated for live firing for dry military training. [151692]

  Dr. Moonie
  All sites designated for live firing are used for dry training whenever it is safe to do so.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates army firing took place within each of the firing ranges in the Dartmoor National Park; and which dates were advertised in advance for the year ending 31 December 2000. [151884]

  Dr. Moonie
  The advertised and actual number of days on which the Armed Forces fired on each of the three firing ranges in the Dartmoor National Park for the year ending 31 December 2000 are as follows:

  Range

  Advertised

  Actual

  Okehampton

  60

  47

  Willsworthy

  179

  125

  Merrivale

  128

  87

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglaries and Personal Attacks
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries and personal attacks for residents of(a) housing blocks owned by local authorities and housing associations and (b) privately owned houses there were in the last 12 months. [151532]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: Crimes recorded by the police do not provide this information. The most recent results available from the 2000 British crime survey relate to 1999, and estimate the number of burglaries and personal attacks against those in privately owned houses and those renting from social and private landlords. The survey cannot provide figures for people living in
  "housing blocks owned by local authorities and housing associations"
  24W
  as some blocks will have a tenure mix of owner occupiers, private tenants, and social renters. The figures for local authority/housing association properties will also include flats as well as houses. Table 1 gives the figures available.

  Table 1: Estimated number of burglaries and violence incidents in 1999 (in thousands), by tenure type (British crime survey estimates)

  Tenure

  Burglary1

  Violence2

  Owner occupiers

  596

  1,652

  Social rented sector

  476

  710

  Private rented sector

  237

  703

  1 Includes attempts and burglary with entry.

  2 Comprises the following offences; robbery, snatch theft, wounding and common assault.

  Note:

  These estimates are based on the number of incidents per 10,000 households/individuals, multiplied up to represent the adult population of England and Wales.

  Source:

  2000 BCS.

  Table 2 shows rates of victimisation in each sector (taking account of the varying number of householders in each). Tenants in private rented accommodation face the highest levels of both burglary and violent incidents, followed by social renters. The wider context needs to be borne in mind. For instance, rented accommodation is more common in urban and inner-city areas, where levels of crime are generally higher.

  Table 2: Rates per 10,000 of burglaries and violent incidents in 1999, by tenure type (British crime survey)

  Tenure

  Burglary1

  Violence2

  Owner occupiers

  394

  540

  Social rented sector

  1,040

  960

  Private rented sector

  1,061

  1,755

  All

  585

  773

  1 Includes attempts and burglary with entry.

  2 Comprises the following offences; robbery, snatch theft, wounding and common assault.

  Source:

  2000 BCS.

  Either-way Cases
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) hove many either-way offences were dealt with by magistrates in each year since 1987; of these how many were(a) committed to the Crown court for sentence and (b) committed for trial by Crown court; and in how many of these was mode of trial (i) elected by the defendant and (ii) referred for trial where the magistrate declined jurisdiction; [151818]

  (2) how many defendants in either-way cases pleaded (a) guilty and (b) not guilty in (i) cases dealt with by the magistrates court, (ii) cases referred for trial by Crown court on election by the defendant and (iii) cases referred for trial by the Crown court where the magistrate declined jurisdiction in each year since 1987; [151819]

  (3) how many either-way offences were committed to trial in the Crown court in each year since 1996, showing the proportion of elected cases to all either-way cases committed for trial in the Crown court. [151820]
  25W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office court proceedings database does not contain information on whether defendants elect Crown court trial or are directed for trial there, nor does it contain details on defendants' pleas at magistrates courts. The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences in England and Wales for the years 1987 to 1999 are shown in Table A, together with details of those committed for trial or sentence. Table B shows details of plea entered by defendants committed for trial on triable either-way offences at tf e Crown court in England and Wales for the years 1996to 1999.

  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not separately record plea by type of offence at magistrates courts, but does record defendants finalised at the Crown court who elected for Crown court trial. Table C, from CPS statistics for the years 1992 to 2000, shows the proportion of defendants committed for trial to the Crown court in England and Wales for either-way offences who elected Crown court trial.

  Table A: Defendants proceeded against for triable either-way offences at magistrates courts in England and Wales, and those committed for trial or sentence, 1987 to 1999

  Year

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants committed for trial

  Defendants committed for sentence

  1987

  468,900

  95,600

  5,800

  1988

  473,300

  95,100

  6,100

  1989

  425,900

  82,000

  5,500

  1990

  444,500

  82,000

  6,200

  1991

  462,400

  82,600

  7,100

  1992

  462,000

  74,900

  5,900

  1993

  449,600

  66,600

  3,600

  1994

  466,800

  69,500

  3,600

  1995

  434,100

  61,100

  3,700

  1996

  432,600

  61,200

  4,400

  1997

  454,400

  66,500

  6,800

  1998

  477,500

  52,000

  18,200

  1999

  479,900

  51,000

  19,300

  Table B: Defendants committed for trial for triable either-way offences to the Crown court in England and Wales, by plea, 1996 to 1999

  Year

  Defendants pleading guilty

  Defendants pleading not guilty

  1996

  46,500

  21,300

  1997

  51,000

  21,900

  1998

  40,000

  22,200

  1999

  35,900

  21,900

  Table C: Crown Prosecution Statistics—Percentage of either-way cases committed to the Crown court in which the defendant has elected Crown court trial, England and Wales, 1987 to 2000

  Year

  Percentage of triable either-way defendants electing to be committed for trial

  19871

  52

  1988

  45

  1989

  42

  1990

  38

  1991

  37

  1992

  37

  1993

  35

  1994

  35

  1995

  33

  26W

  Table C: Crown Prosecution Statistics—Percentage of either-way cases committed to the Crown court in which the defendant has elected Crown court trial, England and Wales, 1987 to 2000

  Year

  Percentage of triable either-way defendants electing to be committed for trial

  1996

  32

  1997

  28

  1998

  28

  1999

  32

  2000

  30

  1 Data available for April to December only

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in Lancashire in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [151759]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistics on the strength of the Special Constabulary have been collected since 1995 by the Home Office research development and statistics directorate. These figures are compiled at the end of March and September each year. Before 1995, figures were collected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The figures for 1992 were compiled at the end of the calendar year.

  The Special Constabulary strength figures for Lancashire Special Constabulary for 1992, September 1997 and September 2000 (the latest figures available) are as follows:

  December 1992

  September 1997

  September 2000

  Male

  313

  286

  222

  Female

  226

  214

  140

  Total

  539

  500

  362

  We are currently considering a number of recruitment and retention issues in relation to the Special Constabulary with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities with a view to seeing how best to address the decline in the number of special constables in England and Wales.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who have had their applications rejected are in receipt of NASS support prior to removal from the country; and if he will make a statement. [151746]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not currently available. However, the national asylum support service (NASS) supports single asylum seekers who receive a negative decision for 14 days following notification to them of the decision. Families with children under 18 who receive a final negative decision will continue to be supported by NASS until they leave the country.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of crimes committed by asylum seekers in each police authority area in each quarter of(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [151237]
  27W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on offences recorded in each police authority area that is routinely returned to the Home Office does not include details of the offender. Information is also not held in respect of statistics relating to asylum seekers themselves. The only statistics which relate in any way to offences committed by those from abroad are court statistics of the number of offenders recommended for deportation, but these relate to others as well as asylum seekers.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many held asylum seekers have been returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo in each month of the last two years. [151289]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152028]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Ilford, North constituency or the immediate locality.

  Redbridge, in partnership with Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Waltham Forest, is running a drug arrest referral scheme. The borough is policed by the Metropolitan police, who have increased the amount of class A drugs seized by 23 per cent. from 1997 to 1998. The borough also benefits from a Londonwide domestic violence and racially motivated crime initiative being run by the Metropolitan police.

  The Redbridge crime and disorder reduction partnership audit, which covers Ilford, North, was published in 1999. It showed, among other findings, that Redbridge has the second lowest crime rate in London. Redbridge's crime and disorder reduction strategy for 1999–2002 was published later in the year, setting three-year objectives for each priority area and identifying specific projects to enable these to be met.
  28W
  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  The Redbridge YOT covers the constituency of Ilford, North. The YOT is working with other youth justice agencies to deliver the Government's pledge to halve the average time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 to 71 days. According to local information, the Redbridge youth court achieved an average of 40 days for the last quarter.

  The YOT is carrying out initial assessments of young people using a research-based structured assessment tool. Assessment interviews are conducted jointly by YOT staff members from two different professional backgrounds to enhance the quality of the assessment process.

  A bail support scheme is in operation locally in order to reduce the incidence of secure remands and reoffending by young people while on bail. Structured group work and individual programmes of differing intensities have been developed in order to address different levels of offending behaviour. 89 per cent. of young people receiving a community-based order are seen for their first appointment within one working day. All community-based orders contain a focus on the consequences of the offending for the victim. Local victim-offender mediation and mentoring projects have been established to support the YOT in the delivery of programmes. The team also works closely with the Odyssey under-18 drug and alcohol project. Two thirds of young people in contact with the YOT receive an input on education and training. Significant progress has been made in preventing school exclusions.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Ilford, North to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150605]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service
  29W
  Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Bolton, West constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative:

  Our scheme covering Bolton, North-East was awarded £174,000 under round two of the reducing burglary initiative.

  One other scheme, for £189,000, was submitted under round three of the reducing burglary initiative, and is currently under consideration.

  Neighbourhood Wardens Schemes:

  One scheme covering Great Lever Hutton, Lane and Deane, has been awarded £343,000.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOT):

  The Bolton YOT covers the constituency of Bolton, West. The YOT has achieved an 85 per cent. compliance with national standards for the production of written court reports within agreed timescales. The YOT has also achieved a reduction in the number of young people being remanded into local authority accommodation. The availability of bail supervision programmes is targeting young people who previously would have been remanded by the courts and preventing reoffending while on bail. Reoffending by young people on bail is also being reduced through the introduction of Narey court procedures, as courts are now processing the cases of young people faster.

  The police final warning scheme has been in operation since January 2000 and approximately 201 young people have been referred to the YOT for assessment and intervention work. More than 50 per cent. have engaged in some form of reparative activity. The YOT has also established a project to facilitate victim/offender mediation in support of the new community-based court orders. They are also providing victim awareness programmes for young people.

  The health workers within the YOT have established links with child and adolescent mental health services; immunisation clinics; teenage pregnancy and sexual health programmes promoted by healh staff.

  Greater Manchester (including the Bolton, West constituency) is benefiting from the Youth Justice Board's development fund, which has awarded grants of approximately £3,754,000 over three years for one bail support scheme (covering the Greater Manchester area) and seven intervention programmes).

  There is one additional intervention programme benefiting from grant funding by the Youth Justice Board which is specific to Bolton. The project is receiving a grant of approximately £15,000 over three years. This grant, together with match funding from health and social services, has allowed the "360? substance misuse project" to be established for young people. The project provides
  30W
  a drug treatment service covering all drugs and provides a community-based response offering a safe environment in which young people can assess their current lifestyles.

  The youth justice board also provided funding for the operation of Splash schemes during the summer holidays in 2000. These schemes provided constructive and positive leisure activities for young people most at risk of offending. A Splash scheme was run in Johnson Fold.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Bolton, West to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established:
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website: (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide during the period of a foot and mouth emergency for(a) one free postal delivery of municipal election addresses, (b) moneys to be spent promoting voting by post, (c) Northern Ireland local government elections to be brought forward to 3 May and (d) moneys to promote awareness among those using postal votes in Northern Ireland of the different method for voting between Westminster elections and that used for electing members of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [151880]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have no current plans to extend the provision of free posting of electoral addresses to candidates in local elections. A Home Office-funded campaign to publicise the changes in postal voting procedures began on 19 February, shortly after they came into force.

  The conduct of local government elections in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have no plans to introduce either of the suggested measures.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessments he has made of the implications of the current foot and mouth outbreak for the feasibility of holding national or local elections in(a) April and (b) May. [152168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The date of a parliamentary general election is not a matter for me. The law requires the local elections schedule for 3 May to take place on that date. At the moment we have no intention to change that.

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to prepare for commencement of the Race Relations (Amendment)
  31W
  Act 2000; and what public bodies he has consulted concerning future application of a general duty to promote race equality. [150613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A commencement order has been made for the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act to come into force on 2 April 2001. There is one exception to this. To enable the immigration provisions to work effectively from 2 April 2001, the order provides for section 1 of the Act to come into force on 26 March 2001 (for the purposes of the imposition of requirements or giving of express authorisations (as defined) by a Minister of the Crown).

  A public consultation paper was issued on 22 February 2001 setting out the Government's proposals for extending the list of public bodies in the Act that are subject to the general duty to promote and the specific duties to promote race equality that might apply. The paper has been circulated widely among the public bodies that are likely to be affected by the new duty and to other interested parties for comments by 15 May 2001. A copy has been placed in the Library. The paper is also available on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ raceact/welcome.htm.

  Religious Affiliation (Prisoners)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will break down by religious belief(a) the prison population and (b) the population as a whole. [150614]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 30 June 1999, there were 64,529 prisoners in England and Wales. Information on inmates' religious affiliation is recorded as a standard part of the reception process on entry into prison.

  Of the inmates, 42 per cent. were Anglican, 17.5 per cent. were Roman Catholic and 3 per cent. belonged to other Christian denominations. Further, 7 per cent. were Muslim, 1.5 per cent. were Buddhist, Hindu or Sikh and 1 per cent. belonged to other religions. The remaining 28 per cent. of the population did not profess to belong to any religion.

  This information is also published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Table 6.6 of the 1999 edition, Cm 4805) copies of which are in the Library.

  Information on the religious composition of the general population is currently available only through the British social attitudes survey, which is conducted annually. This is a sample survey of 3,500 randomly chosen households in Great Britain, of whom 3,143 responded to the following question: "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?"

  In 1999, the responses were as follows: 27 per cent. were Anglican, 9 per cent. were Roman Catholic and 16 per cent. belonged to other Christian denominations. Further, 1.5 per cent. were Muslim, 1 per cent. were Buddhist, Hindu or Sikh and 0.6 per cent. belonged to other religions.

  Forty-four per cent. of the sample claimed no religion. One per cent. refused to divulge their religion or did not answer.
  32W
  The information for 1999 is published in Appendix III of "British Social Attitudes—The 17th Report" (2000), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department' s policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150618]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Hull, North constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing:

  Humberside police, in partnership with Kingston-upon-Hull city council, was awarded £377,000 for a project aimed at reducing the level of anti-social and low-level criminal behaviour in Bransholme.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative:

  Three projects were awarded a total of £275,000—one scheme covering the Stoneferry and Bransholme area of Hull, was awarded £135,000 under the first round of the reducing burglary initiative. Two schemes, both covering Hull, West, were awarded a total of £139,000 under round two of the reducing burglary initiative.

  Youth offending Teams (YOTs):

  The Kingston-upon-Hull YOT covers the constituency of Hull, North. The YOT is working with other youth justice agencies to deliver the Government's pledge to halve the average time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, from 142 to 71 days. Locally the average time for the youth court is below the Government target of 71 days. The YOT is also preparing 100 per cent. of all pre-sentence reports on young people within the adjournment period specified by the courts for the preparation of such reports.

  The YOT is utilising the ASSET assessment system in order to ensure intervention work is effectively targeted at the personal, family, social, educational and health

  33W
  problems that contribute to the causes of a young person's offending behaviour. The YOT is achieving a 96.6 per cent. completion rate for assessment work at the pre-sentence report stage and a 100 per cent completion rate for assessment of young people referred to in through the police final warning scheme.

  The YOT is also delivering intervention programmes for young people referred to it through the operation of the police final warning scheme. 96.4 per cent. of all programmes delivered as the result of a police final warning contain an element of either direct or indirect reparation to victims. The team is also working with victims as a result of the operation of the police final warning scheme and the community-based reparation order.

  Kingston-upon-Hull (including the Hull, North constituency) is benefiting from the Youth Justice Board's development fund, which has awarded grants of approximately £483,000 over three years for one bail support scheme and two intervention programmes.

  The Youth Justice Board also provided funding for the operation of Splash schemes during the summer holidays in 2000. These schemes provided constructive and positive leisure activities for young people most at risk of offending. A Splash scheme was run in Orchard Park.

  The YOT is also working in partnership locally in order to address youth crime. For the first time it has created a single and coherent database about youth crime so it can establish a baseline for local youth crime reduction targets.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Hull, North to a greater or lesser extent. For example
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue was raised from fixed speeding penalties, arising front police cameras in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [150624]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information showing the number of fixed penalties for speeding offences, where cameras have provided evidence, from 1995 to 1999 is given in the table. Automatic camera devices provided evidence from 1995 to 1998 and all camera types for 1999. Data for 2000 are not yet available. From 1995 to 1999 the fixed penalty ch trge for speeding offences was £40.34W

  Fixed penalties for speeding offences detected by cameras1, England and Wales, 1995–99

  Year

  Fixed penalties2

  'Estimated' revenue (£ million)3

  1995

  170,000

  6.8

  1996

  212,600

  8.8

  1997

  288,600

  11.5

  1998

  338,800

  13.6

  1999

  423,000

  16.9

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types for 1999

  2 Paid ie no further action

  3 'Estimate' based on £40 fixed penalty charge from 1995 to 1999

  Departmental Policies (Vale of Clwyd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Vale of Clwyd constituency, the effects on the Vale of Clwyd of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [151931]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the right and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although examples relating to the Vale of Clwyd constituency or the immediate locality are set out as follows:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  The Rhyl south-east scheme was awarded £159,000 under the first round of the CCTV initiative. The scheme is a four-camera extension of the existing town centre system, covering three educational sites with additional surveillance capabilities for the surrounding residential and smaller commercial areas. The scheme proposes to impact on incidents of criminal damage, burglary and anti-social behaviour.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  One scheme, covering houses in multiple occupancy in Colwyn Bay, Abergele and Rhyl, elderly persons sheltered housing in Flintshire, and the areas of Gwenfro and Y Wern in Wrexham was awarded £33,000 under round two of the reducing burglary initiative. Interventions include: covert observations; high profile and targeted policing; high profile media press strategy; preparation/distribution of crime prevention literature and a crime stoppers campaign.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  The central north Wales YOT covers the constituency of Vale of Clwyd. The YOT is making an excellent contribution to reducing delays within the court process

  35W
  by producing 98 per cent. of court reports within the agreed timescales. A bail supervision scheme has been established to reduce the incidence of secure remands and reoffending by young people while on bail. The YOT is also performing well against national standards and objectives with 90 per cent. of all final warning assessments being completed within 14 days.

  A community reparation scheme is being operated in support of the community-based court orders and 11 agencies are supporting community reparation work. As a result, 60 per cent. of local reparation work is community-based. There is also a trained YOT worker in place to consult and liaise with victims of crime on their willingness to become involved in direct reparation work. The YOT has also developed protocols with appropriate agencies with the aim of involving parents in the youth justice process.

  The Youth Justice Board is also providing funding for Splash schemes to be run during Easter and summer school holidays in 2001. These schemes provide positive and constructive activities for young people most at risk of offending. Easter and summer Splash schemes are planned for Rhyl.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Vale of Clwyd to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Criminal Bar
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to address members of the Criminal Bar Association on their relationships with the criminal fraternity; [152133]

  (2) what plans he has to meet the Chairman of the Bar Council to discuss the criminal justice system and the conduct of barristers; [152131]

  (3) what plans he has to bring forward legislation enabling action to be taken against barristers at the criminal bar who are suspected of acting unprofessionally. [152132]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Barristers are subject to the Bar code of conduct. The code is a matter for the Bar Council, which is responsible for its enforcement, including investigating allegations of professional misconduct.

  Title of contract

  Awarded by

  Contract start

  Contract finish

  Facilities Management at Police Scientific Development Branch Langhurst

  Home Office

  6 January 1998

  31 January 2002

  Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Mandatory Training

  Fire Service College

  28 September 1998

  31 March 2003

  Mode of Trial
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to bring forward the Mode of Trial Bill; [152130]

  (2) if he will abandon his previously announced plans to restrict trial by jury. [152129]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As was affirmed in the speech from the Throne, the Government propose to give the courts, rather than the defendant, the power to decide where an either-way case should be tried. No decisions have been taken on the timing of this measure.

  Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual level of sewerage charges is on homes in(a) Devon, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) his Department's estate in Denbury. [151882]

  Mr. Boateng
  Unmeasured sewerage charges consist of a fixed charge and a charge based on the rateable value of the property, both of which vary by water company. Information on unmeasured sewerage charges published by the Office of Water Services (Ofwat) show that in England and Wales in the financial year 2000–01, the weighted average fixed charge is £41.50 and the weighted average charged based on rateable value is 46.89p in the pound. Figures for South West Water, which covers Devon, are £42 and 112.35P in the pound respectively. The charges for the properties in the former Prison Service quarters estates are based on South West Water's figures and are equivalent to the charge which would be made by that company.

  Exemption Certificates
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exemption certificates have been issued on the grounds of national security since the implementation of the Data Protection Act 1998. [151119]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Since the Act came into force I have signed one certificate, which relates to categories of personal data held by the Security Service. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has signed two certificates which relate to categories of personal data held by the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) respectively.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts that exist between SERCo and his Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151336]

  Mr. Straw
  I list the details on existing contracts with SERCo. The available information shows that there have been no other contracts between SERCo and my Department, its agencies and associated public bodies in the last three years.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151027]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The list of Ministers within my Department who have visited the Peterborough unitary authority area within the specified period above are as follows:

  Area

  Date

  Minister

  Huntingdon Life Sciences, Cambridgeshire

  8 June 2000

  Mike O'Brien

  Newmarket, Cambridgeshire

  19 April 2000

  Mike O'Brien

  The Minister did not meet the local MP on these visits.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill. [152128]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today published a Command Paper, CM 5066, entitled "Proceeds of Crime Bill: Publication of Draft Clauses." Copies have been placed in the Library. It is also available on the Home Office website, www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  The draft clauses we are publishing provide for the establishment of an asset recovery agency; the introduction of civil recovery; the application of taxation powers to suspected criminal assets; the creation of new specific powers for the tracing and investigation of criminal assets; the restraint of assets of suspected persons during a criminal investigation instead of only at the point of charge; improvements in the United Kingdom's ability to assist foreign jurisdictions; and the reform and updating of confiscation procedures and money laundering offences. The Bill, the work on which has been undertaken on a collaborative basis, will introduce equivalent measures in Scotland and Northern Ireland, adjusted for the legal systems of those Jurisdictions.

  The Government will take account of the responses to the Command Paper before finalising the Bill for introduction. We are asking to receive replies before the end of May.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) operators and (b) hirers of self-drive vehicles have been liable for penalties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Carriers Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sate of Transporter) Regulations 2000 attributable to the actions of their clients; and if he will make a statement [151797]

  Mrs. Roche
  The civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 enable the imposition of a penalty on those who, through negligence or 38W
  otherwise, allow their vehicles to be used by persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely. Owners, hirers and drivers of vehicles found to have carried clandestine entrants are jointly and severally liable to a penalty of £2,000 for each clandestine entrant carried.

  Since 3 April, when the provisions were implemented, and as at 28 February 2001, a total of 815 civil penalties have been imposed on persons found to have carried between them 4,514 clandestine entrants. Eighteen of the penalties have been imposed on the owners, hirers and drivers of self-drive vehicles in respect of a total of 193 clandestine entrants carried.

  A code of practice, issued in accordance with the legislation, sets out the practical measures that should be taken by those seeking to prevent unauthorised entry into their vehicles, and provides a basis for a defence against a penalty should clandestine entrance nevertheless be found. Vehicle owners who believe they are unable to fulfil the requirements of the code of practice are advised to seek ways to offset any financial liability to which they may be exposed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Corus
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many apprentices and other trainees have been affected by the Corns closures announced on 1 February; and what action he is taking to secure continuity in their training programmes. [148986]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: Corns informs me that where there have been major job reductions/closures in the past, the company has been able, with very few exceptions, to get all trainees through to the end of their apprenticeships. The company's intention is to ensure that all current trainees have the opportunity of completing their training. This may require some to relocate.

  The announcement on 1 February related to several plants in England and Wales. The company has provided me with the following information about the number of apprentices/trainees at the plants as follows:

  Number

  Ebbw Vale

  48 apprentices

  Scunthorpe and Teesside

  No impact on trainees as they are employed directly by local colleges

  Llanwern and Port Talbot

  130 apprentices

  Shotton

  30 apprentices

  Rotherham

  17 apprentices/trainees

  Corus has a good track record on training and we will encourage it to maintain this record.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the occasions on which he met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the job losses at Corus in Wales, prior to the announcement on 1 February; and if he will make a statement; [150253]
  39W
  (2) if he will list the occasions on which he met the Secretary of State for Wales to discuss the job losses at Corus in Wales, prior to the announcement on 1 February; and if he will make a statement; [150255]

  (3) if he will list the occasions on which he discussed the proposed job losses at Corns in Wales with the Economic Development Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, prior to the announcement on 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [150254]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: I have maintained a regular dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and the Economic Development Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales in recent months about a range of issues. Since 5 December, when Corns announced its intention to restructure, I have met them on the following occasions to discuss the matter:

  Date

  Names

  15 December

  Paul Murphy and Rhodri Morgan

  17 January

  Paul Murphy, Rhodri Morgan and Mike German

  31 January

  Paul Murphy and Rhodri Morgan

  1 February

  Paul Murphy

  5 February

  Paul Murphy

  6 February

  Paul Murphy

  8 February

  Paul Murphy

  13 February

  Paul Murphy

  26 February

  Paul Murphy, Rhodri Morgan and Mike German

  Project Grants (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each category of grants given to projects in(a) Westminster and (b) the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [148598]

  Mr. Caborn
  Westminster and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have benefited from a range of DTI initiatives since 1997 to support innovation and promote business development.

  Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has been provided by the DTI through core programmes and Business Links. While the Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a borough basis, Business Links have handled 12,758 requests for advice, information and support from SMEs in Westminster and 4,158 requests from SMEs in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea since 1997. During the same period grants totalling over £533,000 and £128,000 have been awarded to SMEs in Westminster and the royal borough respectively, for innovation and technology projects under the Smart scheme.

  All wards in both boroughs are eligible for the enterprise grant scheme, which was introduced in 2000.

  Universal Banking Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 20W, if
  40W
  universal banking services will be registered as a bank or be subject to prudential regulation; if the Post Office card account will permit (a) phased withdrawals of benefits due and (b) the setting up of direct debits to councils and public utilities; and if the card account and universal banking services will have a single payment system manager. [150973]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: There is a lot of detailed work to be done to implement the concept of universal banking services between now and 2003 when it is due to come on stream. The project is at too early a stage in its development to he prescriptive about issues such as whether the Post Office will need to register as a bank; or whether there will be a single payment systems manager.

  The intention is that the Post Office card account will permit phased withdrawal of benefits. With regard to the setting up of direct debits, users of the basic bank account element of universal banking services will be able to benefit from direct debit facilities, which will mean that gas and electricity bills are reduced. It is also the intention of the Post Office to provide a bill payment service alongside the card account, with the aim that such payments will attract discounts in a similar way to those offered to direct debit customers. Development of this is at an early stage.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if export licences have been granted for the export of(a) depleted uranium materials and (b) manufactured products of which depleted uranium materials form part; and how many such licences were granted and in which years. [151043]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The export of depleted uranium is controlled under entry 0C001 of Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1334–2000. This entry also covers natural uranium and thorium. Since May 2 1997 details of licences granted covering the export of goods rated 0C001 have been outlined in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls. In addition, between 1 January 2000 and 11 February 2001, seven standard individual export licences (SIELs) and four open individual export licences (OIELs) have been issued covering goods with this rating. As regards how many of these licences covered the export of depleted uranium, investigations are being made and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Manufactured products of which depleted uranium materials form part would be controlled under the relevant entries in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 and also under the relevant entries in Annex 1 of the Dual Use and Related Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000. The control would cover the product itself and not the depleted uranium contained therein. Consequently, it would entail disproportionate cost to establish which, if any, licences covered the export of manufactured products of which depleted uranium materials form part
  41W
  There are also certain forms of depleted uranium, for example, when specifically fabricated for certain non-nuclear applications, which are not covered by strategic export controls and would not therefore require an export licence.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been allocated to fund pilot schemes for post offices in Scotland to act(a) as Government general practitioners and (b) internet learning and access points. [151798]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Scottish Executive received a funding consequential of £3.5 million as a result of money being allocated in England for the support of pilots of Government general practitioner and internet learning and access points. All funding consequentials contribute to a block allocation to the Scottish Executive. It is for Scottish Executive Ministers to decide how that money is allocated.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150608]

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

  My hon. Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Greater Manchester, will have benefited from my Department's employment rights policies, which include the national minimum wage, working time directive, part-time working regulations and improved maternity leave.

  All wards in Bolton, West are eligible for the enterprise grant scheme. Halliwell and Blackrod are included in the revised assisted area map and are therefore also eligible for regional selective assistance.

  In the north-west region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000, and to reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150620]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for firms in Hull since May 1997. Information at constituency level is not available in all cases.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  RSA is a capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need. 24 RSA grant offers totaling £4,485,000 have been made
  42W
  to firms in the Hull, North constituency, to support projects with a capital expenditure of £74,118,750, and to create and safeguard a total of 854 jobs.

  Enterprise Grants

  The enterprise grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Three offers totalling £54,000 have been made to firms in the Hull, North constituency, to support projects with a capital expenditure of £466,675.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. 15 Smart awards totalling £743,933 have been made to firms in Hull (information is not available at constituency level).

  Business Link

  Business Link Humberside have provided services to small business in Hull (including the Hull, North constituency) since 1997. This has included general and specialised advice to help businesses expand, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001, these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a new Humberside Business Link.

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152036]

  Mr. Caborn
  The parliamentary constituency of Ilford, North has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997. Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) is available from the DTI through core programmes and Business Links. While the Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a constituency basis, over 394 requests for advice, information and support from SMEs in Ilford, North have been handled by the Business Links since May 1997.

  All wards in the constituency are eligible for the enterprise grant scheme, which was introduced in 2000.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunals were outstanding against Post Office Counters Ltd. at the beginning of February. [151780]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  As of 31 January 2001, the public registers of applications and decisions for England and Wales and Scotland showed a total of 11 employment tribunal claims against Post Office Counters Ltd. as still outstanding with no decision recorded in these cases.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been allocated to the insurance liability fund set aside to underwrite accidents at United Kingdom nuclear facilities; and what steps have been taken to increase the amount of compensation available under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. [151601]
  43W
  Mr. Hain
  There is no specific insurance liability fund set aside by the Treasury. Under UK legislation, implementing the Paris and Brussels conventions on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy, it is the duty of the operator of a nuclear installation to maintain insurance cover of £140 million per accident.

  In the event of a nuclear accident causing damage exceeding this amount, public funds would be made available, at present up to a guaranteed amount of 300 million special drawing rights (approx £300 million). Parliament may vote additional funds. Proposals currently under consideration as part of the negotiations to revise the Paris and Brussels conventions would significantly increase the amount of guaranteed compensation provided.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the incident that occurred at the high level radioactive waste storage tanks at Sellafield in January; and what report he has received from the nuclear installations inspectorate in respect of the incident. [151598]

  Mr. Hain
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) informed my Department on 29 January 2001 that on 26 January, the ventilation system in B215, the building which houses the highly active liquid storage vessels at Sellafield, was out of action for two and three quarter hours. The problem occurred during work to install a new caustic scrubber to improve the building's ventilation system. This work is being undertaken in line with requirements of the Environment Agency (EA). No radioactivity was released and no worker was exposed to enhanced levels of radiation.

  I understand that HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) has directed BNFL to halt work on the ventilation system in B215 and to review the conduct of operations within that plant. BNFL are required to submit a report to HSE within four weeks (ie by 5 March). HSE's consent will be required before BNFL can resume work on modifying the ventilation system. The HSE has also informed the Department that as a result of its action THORP remains closed.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 289W, how many specialist working time officers there are in the United Kingdom. [151822]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are currently seven specialist working time officers at the HSE, who work solely on working time enforcement. As described in my previous answer, the working time officers carry out their functions as an integral part of the HSE's wider structure of regulatory teams based throughout the country.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Department for International Development concerning the establishment of a commission to investigate intellectual property rights. [151675]
  44W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The establishment of the new Commission for Intellectual Property Rights was discussed in contacts between the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Patent Office, as well as a number of other Departments, in the context of the preparation of the White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", and officials will continue to work together.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work his Department has carried out to identify how many of those workers earning below the minimum wage as recorded by the new earnings survey should have been in receipt of the minimum wage. [151768]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: An estimate of the number of workers being paid below the national minimum wage can be made from central estimates based on the Office for National Statistics' new earnings and labour force surveys. However, this in itself is not an indication of the extent of non-compliance. There are a number of factors which need to be taken into account. Exactly which jobs and workers have been included in the surveys, for example, the different components of pay received and the composition of hours of work, can all affect the estimates. There is also the issue of sampling variation in the survey results, which means that any estimates should properly be provided as a range. The surveys do not tell us how many people are receiving free accommodation, are Government trainees, or are working for their family business and thus exempt. Account needs to be taken of the level of economic activity in the informal economy, which may not be picked up by the central estimates. The Low Pay Commission is monitoring and evaluating the impact of the minimum wage and is due to report its findings by July. I look forward to receiving the commission's report. My Department is also working with the Inland Revenue, which enforces the national minimum wage and administers the Working Families Tax Credit, to obtain indications of the level of minimum wage non-compliance from those sources

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made by the Radiocommunications Agency in its audit of mobile phone base stations and masts and the assessment of emissions from them. [151129]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Radiocommunications Agency's audit of mobile phone base stations started at the end of December 2000. The focus of the audit is schools with base stations located on their premises and these schools were asked to register with the RA to express an interest in their being included in the audit. 107 schools have registered their interest.

  The first eight surveys have now been completed and the results are published on the RA website www.radio.gov.uk. All the surveys have shown emissions that will lead to exposure substantially inside the public exposure guidelines of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The

  45W
  adoption of these guidelines was recommended by the Stewart Group, and this recommendation was accepted by the Government.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of mothers with children born in 1999–2000 were entitled to(a) statutory maternity pay and (b) maternity allowance. [150997]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Both statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are payments made to pregnant working women to help them take time off work around the time of the birth.

  It is estimated that 42 per cent. of mothers with children born in 1999–2000 received statutory maternity pay and that 6 per cent. received maternity allowance.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Vale of Clwyd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Vale of Clwyd, the effects on the Vale of Clwyd of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [151930]

  The Solicitor-General
  In October 1998 the Colwyn Bay and Bangor offices of Crown Prosecution Service, North Wales, in liaison with the police and courts, became a Narey Pilot site. All defendants charged with a criminal offence now make their first appearance before local magistrates courts within 96 hours. Current information indicates that around 40 per cent. of defendants now have their cases finalised at that first hearing.

  On 1 June 2000 the Crown Prosecution Service, North Wales altered its structures in line with the proposals contained in the Glidewell review to establish a Criminal Justice Unit and Trials Unit in Colwyn Bay. This enabled the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on more serious crime proceeding to the Crown court.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, North Wales is also piloting statutory time limits in youth cases and has worked together with the other agencies locally to speed up youth justice, particularly persistent young offenders. Since May 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service has reduced the time taken to finalise prosecutions arising in the Vale of Clwyd area, especially cases involving youth offenders. This has resulted in the target of 71 days being achieved in two of the quarters in if the current year. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the work of the criminal justice system.

  North Wales is also piloting the Victim Information Bureau at Wrexham which provides detailed explanations to victims when cases are dropped or charges substantially amended. Meetings are also offered to victims in certain cases and so far, since the commencement of the pilot in April 2000, seven meetings have been held.

  Action and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office affect my hon. Friend's constituency only indirectly.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150621]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Hull branch of the Crown Prosecution has worked closely with the police and courts to implement a number of changes which have reduced delay in the prosecution process. Other changes now in hand aim to improve the preparation of more serious cases for trial in the Crown court.

  In October 1999, in line with national policy, the Narey proposals were implemented. Defendants now appear in Hull magistrates court within 36 to 72 hours of being charged by the police. Before this change there was often a delay of four to five weeks. To ensure that all relevant information is available for court, CPS lawyers and caseworkers attend at the police station and liaise with police staff prior to court. This means that in spite of the shorter timescales more cases can be finalised at the first hearing rather than being adjourned.

  Further changes in January this year have enabled serious cases such as robbery, rape and murder to get to the Crown court much more quickly. In one recent case a defendant appeared at Hull Crown court only eight days after committing an offence of robbery and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Last year it would have taken around 12 weeks to deal with the case. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the work of the criminal justice system.

  Progress is being made on the structural changes recommended by Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the CPS. Lay staff known as designated caseworkers now deal with straightforward guilty pleas and road traffic cases in the magistrates court. In Hull they cover eight courts per week which would previously have required a lawyer. The lawyers freed from this routine work are able to spend their time on more serious matters and in June they will form a specialist Trials Unit dedicated to Crown court cases.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office affect my hon. Friend's constituency only indirectly.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150609]

  The Solicitor-General
  In November 1999, in line with national policy, the Bolton/Wigan branch of the Crown Prosecution Service, in liaison with Greater Manchester police and Bolton magistrates court, introduced the Narey proposals. All adult defendants charged with a criminal offence now make their first appearance before Bolton magistrates court within 48 hours. The present figures suggest that more than 50 per cent. of all defendants now have their case finished far more quickly than was previously the case. In January 2001, also in line with national policy and new legislation, the Crown Prosecution
  47W
  Service and the magistrates courts started sending the most serious cases to the Crown court within one week of the first appearance in the magistrates court. Henceforth, Crown court judges will monitor the progress of these cases and they will be finalised more quickly than previously.

  So far as young offenders are concerned, the Crown Prosecution Service, together with the police, the magistrates court and the local Youth Offending Team, have agreed procedures designed to bring persistent young offenders before the courts much more quickly. A recent survey of independent consultants revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service in Bolton reviewed 69 per cent. of trial files on the day of receipt, 8 per cent. within 48 hours of receipt, 8 per cent. within three days of receipt and 15 per cent. within six days of receipt. All these changes illustrate the success of the Government's policy of speeding up the work of the Criminal Justice System.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has also contributed to the formulation of a local crime and disorder strategy which, after widespread consultation, identified the types of offence which cause the greatest public concern. It is now working with other criminal justice agencies to meet targets which the strategy group has set for the reduction of those offences.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office affect my hon. Friend's constituency only indirectly.

  Operation Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many of the cases referred to the CPS as part of Operation Care were(a) accepted and (b) refused; and what the main reasons for refusal were. [151613]

  The Solicitor-General
  Operation Care is an investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse of children in care in the Merseyside area from 1960 to the present day. Since April 1996, when Operation Care commenced, Merseyside police have submitted cases relating to 181 suspects to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS prosecuted 59 suspects; 20 pleaded guilty, seven were convicted after trial, 10 were acquitted, four died before trial and 16 suspects sill await trial. Allegations against a further 21 suspects have been referred back to the police for further inquiries to be made. In addition, one person has been cautioned for a single sexual offence, which was unlikely to result in a sentence of imprisonment.

  The CPS advised the police that a prosecution was not justified in the cases of the remaining 100 suspects. There was insufficient evidence against 90 of the suspects. The

  £

  Nature of funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (examples include):

  Revenue Support Grant1

  126,825,635

  128,711,991

  122,542,693

  Income from National Non-domestic Rates1

  60,589,879

  65,495,908

  73,718,842

  Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment (SSA)

  7,763,000

  7,968,000

  7,293,000

  SSA Reduction Grant (SSA review)

  7,498,940

  0

  0

  Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Support Grant

  33,601,236

  30,198,391

  29,740,875

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP)

  8,249,000

  8,484,000

  20,832,000

  48W
  circumstances of the remaining 10 suspects meant that the public interest test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors was not satisfied.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many affordable housing units were built in the Wandsworth planning area in(a) 2000, (b) 1999, (c) 1998, (d) 1997 and (e) 1996. [148123]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information requested is, as far as possible, as follows:

  1999–2000

  Units completed: 117

  Units approved: 42.

  Earlier figures are unavailable as information of this type was not routinely collected before the 2000–01 Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocation round.

  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many affordable housing units were built in the Wandsworth planning area through planning gain (Section 106) in(a) 2000, (b) 1999, (c) 1998, (d) 1997 and (e) 1996. [148122]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information requested is, as far as possible, as follows:

  1999–2000

  Discounted/free land: nil

  Financial contributions: nil.

  Earlier figures are unavailable as information of this type was not routinely collected before the 2000–01 Housing Investment Programme (HIP) round.

  Departmental Policies (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tooting parliamentary constituency, the effect of his Department's policies and actions since 1 May 1997. [149866]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to the London Borough of Wandsworth since 1 May 1997 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Tooting. It is for the local authority to decide where, within its boundaries, these resources are invested.
  49W

  £

  Nature of funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  2,226,000

  2,283,274

  3,260,264

  Local Transport Capital Expenditure

  2,308,000

  2,080,000

  1,676,000

  Central Support Protection Grant

  n/a

  6,304,020

  6,523,300

  1 This relates to the grants for 1998–99 as amended by 'The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998/1999: Amending Report 2000'

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  SRB Round 3—Wandsworth Town—A new urban center

  Currently in its fourth year of operation, this Round 3 SRB scheme incorporates the original Round 1 scheme. The central aim of the scheme is to transform Wandsworth into a new urban riverside centre for the 21st century. This scheme is delivered through the Wandsworth Challenge Partnership.

  SRB Round 4—East Battersea Powerhouse

  This is a six-year programme to ensure the redevelopment of the Battersea power station site benefits the surrounding community and contributes towards the overall regeneration of the East Battersea area.

  SRB Round 6—Young People—Agepts for change in Tooting

  The purpose of this seven-year programme is to support and involve young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged and socially excluded from mainstream activity, in the development of their community in the Tooting priority community area. It focuses on four themes: Young People and Society; Young People, Education and Learning; Young People and Work; and Young People, Health and Wellbeing.

  Hastings Bypass
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost-benefit ratio is for the A259 Hastings bypass recommended by the Steer Davies Cleave multi-modal study, according to the same methodology used by his Department appraising other schemes. [150901]

  Mr. Hill
  Guidance on the methodology for multi-modal Studies (GOMMMs), published by DETR in March 2000, provided a framework for applying the Government's new approach to appraisal (NATA) as part of the multi-modal study process GOMMMs was followed by the Access to Hastings study which was completed in November 2000. The final report for this study provides a table of impacts which contains all the significant costs and benefits of the strategies. The balance of this information gives an 'overall net value' of the strategies. This includes an assessment of the affordability of the strategies, represented in more conventional terms of a cost benefit analysis.

  An error was made by the consultants in their cost-benefit analysis for their two preferred strategies within the final report. Revised figures have been circulated and provide a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 0.5 for Strategy 12 ("without bypasses") and of 1.0 for strategy 13 ("with bypasses"). An assessment of the A259 Hastings bypass schemes provided a BCR of 1.7. These figures relate only to the economic assessment and not to other aspects of the appraisal, for example the environmental assessment.

  Local Transport (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much capital programme (local transport plan) has been allocated to Sefton Council for 2001 to 2006; and if he will indicate the sums allocated to support schemes relating to(a) travel to schools, (b) walkwise, (c) traffic management and signing, (d) CCTV televisions, (e) cycling measures, (f) bridge maintenance, (g) principal road maintenance, (h) quality of life, including local safety schemes, street lighting, traffic calming and home zones, and (i) forward planning, in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) each year since 1994. [151568]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is as follows.

  Financial years 2001–06

  The block allocation local transport plan settlement for Merseyside for 2001–06 is as follows:

  £000

  Integrated transport block

  Maintenance

  Total

  Allocation

  2001–02

  34,000

  11,164

  45,164

  Indicative allocation

  2002–03

  31,700

  11,628

  43,328

  2003–04

  32,000

  8,721

  40,721

  2004–06

  31,600

  8,721

  40,321

  2005–06

  31,900

  8,721

  40,621

  Of the total allocation for Merseyside for 2001–02, £5.163 million has been allocated to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC). This covers both maintenance (principal road and bridge maintenance) and the integrated transport block, which includes the other elements referred to in the question. It is for Sefton MBC to decide how it will spend this allocation, but expenditure should be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the local transport plan for Merseyside.

  The indicative allocations for 2002–03 to 2005–06 are Merseyside-wide, and the five local authorities will together decide the exact allocation to each on an annual basis.

  Financial 2000–01

  The allocation to Sefton MBC for 2000–01 was £2.847 million. This represents Sefton's share of the £22.967 million block allocation to Merseyside for the maintenance and integrated transport programme contained in the 'provisional' Merseyside Local Transport Plan.

  Financial years 1994–99

  Prior to the introduction of Local Transport Plans, local transport funding was allocated under Transport Policies and Programmes system. Funding was allocated in four areas and the figures for Sefton MBC are detailed in the table.

  51W

  £000

  Bridge maintenance

  Principal road maintenance

  Local safety schemes

  Minor works— transport projects under £2 million

  1994–95

  363

  185

  319

  308

  1995–96

  328

  248

  266

  1,220

  1996–97

  510

  192

  200

  1,000

  1997–98

  605

  540

  225

  957

  1998–99

  170

  190

  181

  979

  1999–2000

  640

  192

  254

  1,222

  It was for Sefton MBC to decide how to spend these allocations on the other specific elements mentioned in the question.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those major road schemes which were provisionally accepted in the 1999 local transport financial settlement, indicating for each whether they have(a) been given full approval, (b) require further work or (c) have been subsequently rejected. [151557]

  Mr. Hill
  The following schemes were provisionally accepted in the 1999 local transport financial settlement:Barnsley: Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3
  Bedfordshire: A507 Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link
  Bedfordshire: Bedford Western Bypass
  Buckinghamshire: A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass
  Cambridgeshire: A142 Fordham Bypass
  Doncaster: A6023 Denaby Main Diversion1
  Hertfordshire: Baldock Bypass
  Manchester, Salford: Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road (Regent Road/Gore Street)1
  North Yorkshire: Scarborough Integrated Transport Scheme
  Nottinghamshire: A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route
  Suffolk: Stowmarket B1115 Relief Road
  1 These schemes have now been given full approval.

  Work on the remainder is still in progress. None have been rejected.

  Teenage Lone Parents
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many foyer projects have been established for teenage lone parents since 1997; how many teenage lone parents they accommodate; and where they are located. [151745]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Edmund's Court Foyer in Birmingham, which opened in July 1997, has 48 bedspaces for teenage lone parents. Aberdeen Foyer, which opened in April 1998, also has a number of units held exclusively for teenage lone parents to use. Many other foyers across the country also have a small number of flats or converted units, which would be appropriate for use by this group.

  Southampton Airport
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government 52W
  have asked the British Airports Authority to examine the feasibility of adding an extra runway to Southampton Airport; and if he will make a statement. [151674]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  As part of the ongoing South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) study we asked BAA and other operators of major airports to provide technical assistance to the Department's consultants who are preparing possible options for development of airports to serve the study area. This work by the airport operators is subject to audit by the Department's consultants. The appraisal of the options, in line with the published framework, is being carried out entirely by our consultants.

  We are currently appraising a very large number of options and will proceed through successive sifts to narrow down these options to a final shortlist, on which there will be a full public consultation before Ministers come to decisions. The published terms of reference clearly indicate that the study should consider both scenarios incorporating additional capacity and no additional capacity, and should consider both terminal capacity and runway capacity.

  In advance of the consultation, it would be premature to comment on the status of any specific option. Releasing information in the early stages of a possible project, in advance of final options, could result in unnecessary and lengthy blight, as well as multiplying uncertainty and anxiety. This approach is consistent with my Department's Code of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major Infrastructure Developments.

  Local Strategic Partnerships
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who is responsible for deciding the membership of each local strategic partnership. [151786]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The membership and size of a local strategic partnership will depend on local circumstances. To be effective any strategic partnership will need to involve the key public agencies who provide most local services, such as local authorities, the health authority, police, Employment Service and Benefits Agency. However, local strategic partnerships must also include the private sector, voluntary organisations and local people in their core membership. The specific membership in any area should reflect local needs and priorities (as identified by the community strategy and local neighbourhood renewal strategy). Local authorities should take the first steps to ensure that a local strategic partnership is set up, building on existing effective partnerships in the area wherever possible.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to issue further guidance on the establishment of local strategic partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [151758]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Draft guidance on the establishment and key objectives of local strategic partnerships was issued for consultation in October 2000. Over 250 responses were received. The Government have considered these responses and are drafting final guidance in light of the comments made and other
  53W
  relevant policy developments on neighbourhood renewal, local government modernisation and urban and rural issues. We intend to issue this guidance shortly.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Scheme
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Lancaster city council is entitled to apply for funding under the neighbourhood renewal scheme. [151659]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is a new fund that will provide grants to local authorities over the next three years to improve services in the most deprived areas.

  88 local authorities will benefit from this fund. Lancaster city council is not eligible to receive money from the NRF. However, it is one of the authorities invited to express an interest in taking part in the Neighbourhood Management pilot schemes.

  MPG6
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review Minerals Policy Guidance 6 following the recent floods. [151812]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 (MPG6) sets out "Guidelines for the provision of aggregates in England". It is currently under review and it is at present planned that public consultation on a draft revision will be undertaken later this year. That draft revision will make appropriate references to other guidance including Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG25) "Development and Flood Risk". The publication of a revised draft of PPG25, for fast-track consultation, was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in a written answer to my hon. Friend on 6 February 2001,Official Report, column 456W. That draft refers briefly to mineral workings in flood plain areas that could affect water storage and the control of flooding. We will consider, in the light of responses, whether this needs to be elaborated in the final text of PPG25. This will be the primary document giving planning guidance on flood risk.

  Air Pollution (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the days on which in the last five years, the air quality in Leeds city centre was classified as severely polluted. [152018]

  Mr. Hill
  The dates when levels of air pollution were recorded as high or very high at the Leeds city centre monitoring station are as follows.

  1996

  16 January

  28 February

  11 March

  15 March

  16 March

  17 March

  18 March

  19 March

  21 March

  22 March

  54W
  1997

  14 January

  15 January

  16 January

  26 January

  27 January

  30 January

  11 March

  12 March

  11 April

  12 April

  15 April

  16 April

  17 April

  18 April

  10 July1

  11 July1

  19 August1

  29 October

  30 October

  31 October

  6 November

  1998

  18 November

  1999

  1 August2

  12 August1

  2000

  Nil days

  Note:

  Particles (PM10) were responsible for the majority of days when levels were high or very high, apart from dates indicated 1 when sulphur dioxide levels were high and 2 when ozone levels were high.

  Urban Development Plans
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the time frame required for publication of UDPs following their approval. [151838]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The procedures to be followed for the adoption or approval of development plans are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Regulations 1999. These require printed copies of a development plan to be available for inspection or purchase, as soon as practicable after its adoption or approval. There are currently no plans to prescribe a timescale for plan publication.

  Bus Vehicle Inspectors
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus vehicle inspectors are in post in each traffic region. [152002]

  Mr. Hill
  The Vehicle Examiners and Traffic Examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate check Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), Passenger Service Vehicles (PSVs) and other road vehicles for roadworthiness, emissions and compliance with drivers' hours and other traffic legislation. Vehicle Examiners also carry out standards control checks
  55W
  at MOT testing stations and support the Traffic Commissioners in their operator licensing functions. The total number of Vehicle Examiners and Traffic Examiners

  Enforcement Group

  Number of Vehicle Examiners (VE)

  Number of Traffic Examiners (TE)

  VE resource deployed on PSV work

  TE resource deployed on PSV work

  Scottish

  26

  17

  2.0

  1.7

  North Eastern

  48

  29

  3.3

  3.2

  North Western1

  42

  25

  2.9

  2.7

  West Midlands

  26

  17

  1.4

  1.3

  South Wales

  14

  9

  1.4

  0.8

  Eastern

  41

  28

  2.6

  2.4

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  39

  29

  2.3

  3.4

  Western

  40

  21

  2.2

  2.4

  Total

  276

  175

  18.1

  17.9

  1 Including North Wales

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many buses were inspected by bus vehicle inspectors in the West Midlands Traffic Commission area in the(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 financial year to date; and how many were found to be defective in each year. [151999]

  Mr. Hill
  Vehicle Examiners (VEs) and Traffic Examiners (TEs) employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate check buses and coaches at the roadside and at operators' premises for roadworthiness, emissions, weight and compliance with drivers' hours and other traffic legislation. Where serious defects are found, or offences detected, an immediate or delayed prohibition notice may be issued and the offence may be reported for prosecution. The tables show the number of passenger service vehicles checked in the West Midlands Traffic Area and the enforcement action taken in 1999–2000 and in the half year to the end of September 2000.

  Results of PSV spot and fleet roadworthiness checks and emission spot checks

  Spot and fleet checks

  Emission checks

  Number of vehicles examined

  1999–2000

  2,634

  —

  Half year 2000–01

  1,068

  —

  Spot check prohibitions

  1999–2000

  Number of checks

  2,195

  664

  Percentage

  10.3

  0.6

  Half year 2000–01

  Number of checks

  880

  143

  Percentage

  14.1

  1.4

  Fleet check prohibitions

  1999–2000

  Number of checks

  439

  —

  Percentage

  11.8

  —

  Half year 2000–01

  Number of checks

  188

  —

  Percentage

  4.8

  —

  56W
  in post in each Enforcement Group Area in 1999–2000 and the equivalent resource deployed on PSVs are shown in the table.

  PSV traffic enforcement examinations, weighing and offences prohibited and prosecuted

  1999–2000

  Half year 2000–01

  UK

  Foreign

  UK

  Foreign

  Number examined (inc. number weighed)

  1,822

  71

  933

  68

  Number weighed

  85

  0

  47

  2

  Offences found and action taken:

  Drivers' hours tachographs and records

  Report for prosecution

  60

  —

  149

  —

  Convicted

  52

  —

  148

  —

  Prohibited (foreign only)

  —

  0

  —

  2

  Overloading

  Prohibited

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Other

  Report for prosecution

  9

  —

  23

  —

  Convicted

  8

  —

  10

  —

  GM Crop Trials
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will advise the removal of flower heads from the winter and spring trials as a precautionary measure in line with the advice from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), in a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions press release of 23 August 2000. [151539]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The News Release of 23 August 2000 set out the arrangements for the farm-scale evaluations of autumn oilseed rape. It recognised that the review of separation distances for GM crops published by MAFF earlier that month had highlighted that increased separation distances might be required for certain types of oilseed rape. As an interim measure the News Release announced 100 m separation distances for varietal association oilseed rape pending full consideration of the NIAB report. If as a result the separation distances turned out to be greater than 100 m, consideration would be given to other risk reduction measures such as removal of flower heads from the rape plants to prevent pollen dispersal.
  57W
  MAFF announced the outcome of their review and the distances to be applied to future rounds of the farm-scale evaluations on 6 February 2001, Official Report, column 492W. As a result the Government have asked the agriculture and farming industry body SCIMAC to incorporate two changes into their revised code of practice on GM crops. The first is to continue to apply the 100 m separation distance used at the autumn sown sites where varietal association oilseed rape was nearby, as mentioned in the 23 August press release. The second is an increased distance of 80 m for maize crops. This is intended, to ensure that contamination of neighbouring crops does not exceed 1 per cent.

  The MAFF announcement means that it is not necessary to remove the flower heads from the GM oilseed rape fields presently growing or planned for this spring where they are near conventional crops of varietal association oilseed rape. There are no maize or beet sites presently being grown. The new separation distance for maize crops will be implemented at all of the spring 2001 sites, when they are sown later in the year.

  Local Authority Reserves
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have been advised by the Audit Commission to increase their reserves in each of the past three years. [152142]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is the responsibility of the independent auditors appointed by the Audit Commission to consider the financial practices of authorities and to comment direct to an authority where they identify any matter which gives any cause for concern. This may include the level of an authority's reserves. The Audit Commission does not advise authorities on the level of reserves nor does it keep any central record of the recommendations of individual auditors.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those who have responded to the three-month consultation on the NATS PPP; when the consultation period will end; and when he plans to announce his decision. [152377]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government undertook to hold further discussions about the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services during a period of three months from the date of Royal Assent to the Transport Act 2000. Royal Assent was given on 30 November, so the discussion period ended on 28 February. A report will be made to Parliament shortly.

  During the three-month period, my colleagues and I had meetings with, or received written representations from, the following organisations:

  Air 2000

  Air Transport Users Council

  Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

  Airport Operators Association

  Association of British Travel Agents Ltd

  Aviation Environment Federation

  BAA plc

  Birmingham International Airport Ltd.

  58W

  Board of Airline Representatives in the UK

  British Air Transport Association

  British Airline Pilots Association

  British Helicopter Advisory Board

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Civil Aviation Authority Retired Staff Association

  Federation of the Electronics Industry

  Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee

  General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association

  Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers

  Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee

  Independent Pilots Association

  International Air Carrier Association

  International Air Transport Association

  International Civil Aviation Organisation

  Institute of Directors

  Institute of Logistics and Transport

  Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists

  London Luton Airport Consultative Committee

  Manchester Airport plc

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.

  Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety

  Popular Flying Association

  Public and Commercial Services Union

  Royal Aeronautical Society

  Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd.

  Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group of the Local Government Association

  Trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if it is the policy of the Government to maintain the existing formula for capping regulated fares on the railway for the purpose of new or revised rail franchises; [152375]

  (2) if it is the policy of the Government to extend coverage of regulated fares on the railway; [152374]

  (3) what arrangements have been agreed for new franchise agreements for the capping of regulated fares in respect of (i) the Chiltern franchise and (ii) the South Central franchise. [152376]

  Mr. Hill
  The regulation of fares is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. The Authority has no current plans to extend or change the existing formula for capping regulated fares on the railways, but it is reviewing the relationship between performance and fare caps. The current arrangements will apply to new or revised franchises including Chiltern and South Central, unless or until revised arrangements are subsequently agreed.

  Railway Records
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the policy of his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority is in respect of historic railway documents previously kept in the British Railways Board Records Centre; [152366]
  59W
  (2) if it is the policy of his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority to sell the British Railways Board Records Centre, London W2; [152365]

  (3) what consultation takes place with Railtrack before railway records relating to the railway infrastructure are disposed of; [152368]

  (4) if it is the policy of his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority permanently to transfer records from the British Railways Board Records Centre to Railtrack and to the Public Record Office. [152367]

  Mr. Hill
  The great majority of the British Railways Board's (BRB's) responsibilities have been assumed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) as a consequence of the Transport Act 2000. The management of the BRB records is, therefore, a matter for the SRA. With the ending of the BRB's operational responsibilities, a decision was made in 1997 to rationalise the archive and to retain only those documents necessary to meet the on-going requirements of the Board to deal with its continuing legal liabilities. Under an appraisal process agreed by the Public Record Office (PRO) and the Railway Heritage Committee, records of historical importance are being deposited with the PRO or County Record Offices. Railtrack (and where appropriate any other successor body) are being advised of those records in which they may have an interest for the on-going running of the railway. The building in which the former BRB Records Centre is housed is now much larger than that appropriate for the number of records held and will be sold in due course.

  Rough Sleepers (London)
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department has made in reducing the number of people sleeping rough in London. [152410]

  Ms Armstrong
  Using information from street counts carried out in 12 London boroughs on 11 December 2000, it was estimated that there were around 438 people sleeping rough on any one night in London. This is a reduction of 29.5 per cent. from the baseline of 621 in June 1998. A borough by borough breakdown is available in the Library of the House. Using information from street counts carried out in central London on 1 March 2001, it is currently estimated that there are 380 people sleeping rough in London.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is giving local authorities in planning their municipal waste management strategies; and if he will make a statement. [152427]

  Mr. Meacher
  Best value guidance which was published last December already sets out clear standards for local authorities to adhere to in delivering waste management services.

  Today I am publishing guidance for English local authorities in preparing their Municipal Waste Management Strategies. It sets out the new statutory targets for authorities on household waste recycling and composting, which we promised in "Waste Strategy 2000".
  60W
  Overall these statutory targets will double recycling of such waste by 2003–04 and triple it by 2005–06. The guidance encourages Collection and Disposal Authorities to work closely together to deliver these targets. It also includes guidance on the Waste Minimisation Act 1998. Copies of the guidance have been deposited in the House of Commons Library and are being sent to all relevant English local authorities.

  Concessionary Fares (Students)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend concessionary travel fares to students. [152121]

  Mr. Hill
  Travel concessions are primarily a matter for local authorities. They already have powers to provide discounted fares for young people under 19 years of age who are in full-time education.

  Environmentally Sustainable Fuels
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative environmental sustainability of(a) the liquid biofuels, biodiesel and bioethanol and (b) the road fuel gases CNG and LPG. [152066]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have undertaken an environmental assessment of a range of alternative fuels, including biofuels and road fuel gases, as part of the Government's Green Fuel Challenge. The Government will make a further announcement about the Green Fuel Challenge in the Budget.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the outcome of the review of Part L of the Building Regulations will be announced; and what technical changes he plans to introduce as a result of consultation. [152449]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The review of Part L of the Building Regulations is now almost complete. The Government wish to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity to maximise the reduction in Co2 emissions that will result. In order to allow the construction industry the maximum time possible to gear up to the changes in the Building Regulations with regard to energy efficiency, we are working towards publishing the proposed draft Approved Document in the near future, in advance of its formal publication, with a view to making amendment regulations in August of this year.

  The draft cannot be finalised and formally published until after we have received the responses to the current consultation on Part E of the Building Regulations, which deals with sound insulation. We recognise the interaction between these two parts of the regulations, and specifically sought any further comments on Part L in the consultation on Part E. This consultation closes on 20 April 2001.

  A key issue in the consultation on Part L was the target U-values. We have listened to the views expressed in response to the consultation, and have decided to implement the changes in one stage rather than two, to reduce the disruption to the industry. We have also accepted that the U-value of 0.30W/m2K for walls would

  61W
  put an undue burden on builders and their materials and component suppliers in circumstances where European standards for declaring thermal insulation performance have yet to settle, and have relaxed it to 0.35 W/m2K. This is still an important improvement on the current standard and we will work towards a further seduction at a future date by early signalling of the prospective higher target.

  Lead Pipes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that lead pipes carrying water into domestic properties in Lancashire are replaced; and if he will make a statement. [152276]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Under Regulations laid before Parliament in December 2000, North West Water and other water companies are embarking on major programmes of new and improved treatment to minimise the capacity of water to dissolve lead from pipes. These programmes should enable the Drinking Water Directive's interim standard of 25 microgrammes of lead per litre of water (25 µgPb/l) to be substantially met by December 2003, and will go a long way towards meeting the final standard of 10 µgPb/l which has to be complied with by December 2013. Where the standards are not met, water companies will need to replace (or line) their own lead pipes and advise consumers as to any action that it is desirable that they take in the interests of their health. We shall know the full extent to which these additional measures will be needed when the treatment programmes have been completed. Property owners remain responsible for the pipes within their own properties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Credit
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the responses received during the consultation period on pension credit. [150493]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received over 400 responses to the pension credit consultation paper so far and are now carefully considering the points raised in them.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints he has received about the operation of the Child Support Agency over the past year; and if he will make a statement. [150495]

  Angela Eagle
  Normally, complaints about the operation of the Child Support Agency are addressed to the chief executive of the CSA. Around 16,000 complaints have been received to date this financial year. The agency is committed to reducing complaints, and these are currently within the target set by Secretary of State of 0.15 per cent. of the total caseload.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency. [150503]
  62W
  Angela Eagle
  The child support scheme is being completely reformed to address the failures of the current system. The new system will be straightforward and easily understood, allowing the Child Support Agency to deliver an effective and reliable service.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the administration of the Housing Benefit system. [150497]

  Angela Eagle
  Following years of neglect by previous Governments, improving administration is the biggest challenge facing the Housing Benefit system.

  We published our strategy to achieve this in December. One of our first steps is the formation of the expert help team. Working in partnership with local authorities, the team will help authorities turn things around.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to improve the administration of Housing Benefit. [150507]

  Angela Eagle
  We recognise that some local authorities provide a better service than others. The Housing Green Paper set out our strategy for reforming the complex and fragmented Housing Benefit system that we inherited. Our priority is to work with local authorities to improve standards, drive our fraud and error and promote work incentives.

  Our response to consultation on the Green Paper set out a wide-ranging package of measures to help improve service delivery and streamline the system, making Housing Benefit easier for councils to administer and those in need to claim.

  We will work with local authorities to develop the detail and discuss timing for the introduction of these measures.

  We have already announced the setting up of the expert help team, which will help those councils committed to working in partnership to develop and manage improvement plans. I am pleased to see that East Ayrshire council is among the first wave of local authorities to take advantage of the help offered by the team.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the action he will take against local authorities which have a poor record for addressing Housing Benefit fraud. [150512]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are working in partnership with local authorities, through the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) and other agencies, to ensure that the unacceptable levels of fraud and error are reduced. Fighting fraud is fundamental to the good administration of Housing Benefit. If the BFI identifies administrative weaknesses in a local authority, we expect the authority to act quickly to remedy them. Where the BR finds evidence of persistent service failings, we will use our statutory powers to direct the authority concerned on the standards it is to achieve and the time scales for doing so.

  Retirement Pension Payments
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the system
  63W
  of paying retirement pensions to ensure that payments are made from the actual day of entitlement rather than from the following Monday. [150498]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to change the present arrangements, which work well and take account of the sensitivities at the time the pension is no longer required as well as when it is claimed.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from employers organisations about the New Deal for Disabled People. [150500]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have consulted widely, including with employers. Their views are helping us to target our measures more effectively to support those currently claiming incapacity benefits who wish to move into work.

  The New Deal for Disabled People has already helped over 6,200 people move into work. We will be extending services nationally from July this year and in addition we are currently tendering for job retention and rehabilitation pilot providers.

  Free Television Licences (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households in the northwest are in receipt of a free television licence. [150501]

  Mr. Rooker
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued.

  However, using family resources survey data, we estimate that 360,000 pensioner households may qualify for a free television licence in the North West Government Office Region.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [150504]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers from this Department and the Department for Education and Employment attended regional events last week in advance of the national advertising campaign for the New Deal for Lone Parents, which starts today. These events brought together employers and some of the over 200,000 lone parents who have participated in the programme.

  Latest results show the number of lone parents dependent on Income Support continuing to fall and the number has fallen by over 100,000 since May 1997.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to(a) increase the take-up of benefits and (b) simplify the procedure for receiving benefits. [150505]
  64W
  Mr. Rooker
  This week the Department is writing to pensioners who might be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the April increases to the capital limits. We are also reducing the size of the MIG claim from 40 pages to 10 pages.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help pensioners who have savings. [150506]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners who make provision for their retirement should be and will be rewarded for doing so. From next month, we will raise the capital limits in the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  In addition, the pension credit will be designed to reward pensioners with modest pensions and savings. Part of our proposals for the pension credit includes the abolition of the current capital rules, with consideration given to the income from savings instead.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with pensioner organisations about the level of spending by his Department on pensioners. [150510]

  Mr. Rooker
  All spending on benefits by my Department is scrutinised by Parliament. I have not had any recent meetings with pensioner organisations to discuss issues specifically relating to spending—nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. However, the fact that we are spending £4 5 billion this year on pensioners has been widely welcomed.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to tackle pensioner poverty. [150508]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our record speaks volumes. This April, around two million of the poorest pensioner households will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997. That is a real terms rise in living standards of at least 17 per cent.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will propose to amend the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 so as to provide that where the dependant of a state pensioner earns money and is paid monthly there would be no deduction from the state pensioner's benefit in respect of any weeks within that monthly period in which no money was earned by the dependant. [152004]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Computation of Earnings Regulations, which were introduced in October 1996, align the method of calculation of earnings for the non-income-related benefits with that used for the income-related benefits. The change was designed to remove inconsistencies between benefits and reduce complexity in the social security scheme. The current rules are intended to make the calculation of earnings fair, easy to understand and straightforward to administer, while ensuring similarity of treatment between people in similar circumstances.

  We have no plans to change the present arrangements.
  65W
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact on income-related benefits for pensioners of the basic state pension being uprated in line with earnings from 2002–03. [151796]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 2002–03, we will be spending over £5 billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies since 1997. This will be £3 billion more a year than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings since April 1998.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that his Department can inform individually those who will be retiring with a SERPS pension after 2002 that their spouse will not be entitled to full inherited rights. [151919]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are writing to all pensioners to reassure them that they will not be affected by the change in the rules. Regulations were laid on 26 February to put into effect the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 November. Subject to parliamentary approval for these regulations, arrangements are being made to inform the large number of people affected and to answer queries from individuals about their own entitlement to SERPS.

  Disability Benefits
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons no longer receive disability allowances which they previously received over the past 12 months. [150509]

  Mr. Bayley
  About 170,000 awards of Disability Living Allowance and 283,000 awards of Attendance Allowance were terminated in the 12 months ending 31 January 2001. Awards are terminated when people's condition improves and their care and/or mobility needs reduce, they go to live abroad, they enter long-term residential care, or they die.

  During the same period about 186,000 awards of Disability Living Allowance and 6,000 awards of Attendance Allowance were renewed, and 270,000 new awards of Disability Living Allowance and 330,000 new awards of Attendance Allowance were made. There was therefore a net increase in the number of people receiving Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance in the period.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee in(a) Wales and (b) England; and how many and what proportion have had their applications approved to date. [150511]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are currently some 97,000 pensioners in Wales and some 1.4 million in England in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee. This figure does not include spouses and dependants, who account for some 2 million beneficiaries in GB. As a result of the national take-up campaign over 182,000 additional claims have been processed by the end of January, of which some 82,000 were successful.
  66W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been sent letters inviting them to apply for the Minimum Income Guarantee; how many tear-off slips have been returned; how many of the letters have resulted in a successful claim; how many people have contacted the Minimum Income Guarantee helpline; how many claims have been submitted as a result of a helpline inquiry; and how many of the helpline inquiries have resulted in a successful claim. [151497]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since the launch of the campaign last May, 2.4 million pensioners have been written to and around 840,000 pensioners have responded. Over 475,000 calls have been received by the MIG claim line service and some 365,000 pensioners have requested a postal claim pack. At the end of January, the Department had received over 182,000 additional claims. Claims continue to be received and processed.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee. [151668]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 541W.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met(a) the National Autistic Society, (b) Mencap, (c) the Royal National Institute for the Blind, (d) the Royal National Institution for Deaf People, (e) the Council for Disabled Children and (f) the Down's Syndrome Association to discuss the provision of benefits. [150513]

  Mr. Bayley
  I last met the National Autistic Society in February 1999; Mencap in November 2000; the Royal National Institute for the Blind in May 2000; and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf in May 1999. I have not met the Council for Disabled Children or the Down's Syndrome Association, though I have recently written to the latter about a report it produced on benefits.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the exclusion from eligibility for winter fuel allowance of those who are aged 60 years or over on the relevant date. [150514]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not kept in the format requested. So far this winter, around 11 million people have benefited from Winter Fuel Payments. The representations we have received concerning exclusions from the scheme are negligible.

  Widows Benefit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his oral answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 1, what the value is of bereavement benefit anticipated to be paid out; and what conveniently available figures he has for the likely number of recipients. [150515]
  67W
  Angela Eagle
  The information available is in the table.

  Estimated expenditure on bereavement benefits 2001–02

  Gross expenditure (£ million)

  Number of recipients (Thousand)

  Average amount of weekly benefit (£ per week)

  Lump-sum bereavement payment

  110

  60

  —

  Widowed parents allowance

  340

  60

  100

  Bereavement allowance

  40

  20

  50

  Total

  490

  180

  —

  1 Due to overlaps between the numbers receiving lump sum bereavement payment and those receiving weekly benefits, the total number of recipients counts numbers of weekly benefit recipients only.

  Notes:

  1. Figures estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the latest pre-Budget report. Estimates are in cash terms.

  2. Expenditure estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million; recipient numbers to the nearest 10,000: and average amounts to the nearest £10. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Income-related benefit effects are excluded. Figures do not therefore represent changes in overall benefit expenditure due to the reforms to widow's bereavement benefits, nor do the average amounts represent average changes in weekly incomes.

  4. No explicit assumptions are made about levels of take-up.

  5. For the lump sum bereavement payment it is assumed that a certain proportion of payments in early 2001–02 continue to attract a payment of £1,000 as the deaths occurred in the previous financial year.

  6. Figures do not include women who receive Widow's Pension under the current rules.

  Means Testing
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the means testing of benefits. [150516]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) earlier today,Official Report, Column 16.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the savings in means tested social security payments to his Department of a lone parent with one child aged over 11 leaving unemployment and entering a job that pays(a) £20,000 per annum and (b) £7,500 per annum; [151545]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the average change in benefits and tax credits paid when a participant in the New Deal for Lone Parents enters full-time employment. [151638]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The information is in the table.

  Weekly income related benefit savings of a lone parent with one child aged 11–15 moving into work (at April 2000 rates)

  £

  Out of work benefits

  In work benefits

  Income related benefit saving

  No rent

  Earn £20,000

  87.95

  —

  87.95

  Earn £7,500

  87.95

  70.40

  17.91

  68W

  Weekly income related benefit savings of a lone parent with one child aged 11–15 moving into work (at April 2000 rates)

  £

  Out of work benefits

  In work benefits

  Income related benefit saving

  Private renter

  Earn £20,000

  166.35

  —

  166.35

  Earn £7,500

  166.35

  94.18

  72.17

  Local authority renter

  Earn £20,000

  131.27

  —

  131.27

  Earn £7.500

  131.27

  70.04

  61.23

  Notes:

  1. This table assumes:

  (a) work of 30 hours or more per week

  (b) no child care costs involved in WFTC assessment

  (c) private rented housing average rent of £78.40

  (d) local authority housing average rent £43.32

  (e) council tax of £9.90.

  2. Working Families Tax Credit has been treated as an income-related benefit for these calculations.

  3. Of the examples in this table the one that is most typical of a lone parent moving from benefit into work would be a local authority renter.

  Savings Incentives
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to provide a greater incentive to save by those in receipt of, or on the threshold of, benefits. [150517]

  Mr. Bayley
  Investment in income-related benefits such as the Minimum Income Guarantee has provided the most effective and immediate way of tackling poverty. Modernising current systems through the development of tax credits and more tax-like assessments of benefits will provide a more efficient and simpler way of ensuring that people on low and modest incomes receive the security to which they are entitled.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions for social security fraud were secured in each calendar year since 1996. [150518]

  Mr. Rooker
  These figures are collected by financial year and are not available by calendar year. The number of prosecutions by financial year were given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 10 January 2001,Official Report, column 575–76W.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to combat social security fraud. [150499]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Fraud Bill currently before Parliament sets out measures that will make it easier to detect fraud and provide greater deterrents for those thinking of committing fraud.

  Yesterday we launched a national advertising campaign that will raise public awareness and reinforce the message that benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and hurts everyone who has to pay for it.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals for reducing fraud in social security.[150492]
  69W
  Mr. Rooker
  We have already taken steps to tighten the gateways to benefit, improve the training of fraud investigators, modernise technology to identify cheats, and we are seeking new powers to toughen the penalties against persistent offenders and gather the information necessary to catch them.

  Today we have also launched a national advertising campaign that will raise public awareness and reinforce our message that benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and will not be tolerated.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost(a) to the Government and (b) to employers of paying statutory maternity pay at 90 per cent. of earnings for a period of 13 weeks, followed by (i) 13 and (ii) 39 weeks at a flat rate of £100. [150996]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Estimated cost to:

  Government in 2001–02

  Employers in 2001–02

  Statutory maternity pay at 90 per cent. of earnings for 13 weeks followed by 13 weeks at flat rate of £100

  1,300

  600

  Statutory maternity pay at 90 per cent. of earnings for 13 weeks followed by 39 weeks at flat rate of £100

  2,100

  1,200

  Notes:

  1. Costs to Government take no account of effects on tax revenue, or of any income-related benefit offsets.

  2. Costs to employers include an estimation of the costs of engaging and training staff cover for employees on maternity leave and other costs, assuming the mother does not return to work during the statutory maternity pay period.

  3. Possible benefits to employers such as staff retention are excluded.

  4. Costs assume 100 per cent. take up by mothers eligible for receipt of statutory maternity pay in 2001–02

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152029]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual Opportunity for all reports. Our second report, Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than
  70W
  constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Ilford, North since May 1997.

  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over 1 million children out of poverty. These include record increases in Child Benefit, Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Ilford, North 11,420 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562.400 to 1,044,; in Ilford, North the number has reduced from 2,200 to 1,500. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally, and in Ilford, North from 1,600 to 1,500.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, so we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 17,000 older people in Ilford, North have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 16,400 pensioners in Ilford, North will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State Pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s, of whom we estimate there are about 7,000 in Ilford, North. 2,700 pensioner families in Ilford, North are receiving the minimum income guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include the new Pension Credit in 2003, designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings. The launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 will both help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150604]
  71W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Bolton, West since May 1997.

  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over one million children out of poverty. These include record increases in Child Benefit, Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Bolton, West 11,106 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The new deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Bolton, West the number has reduced from 1,200 to 1,100. Since May 1997, the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally, and in Bolton, West from 1,100 to 1,000.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 15,500 older people in Bolton, West have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,500 pensioners in Bolton, West will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s, of whom we estimate there are about 5,800 in Bolton, West. 2,000 pensioner families in Bolton, West are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.
  72W
  Other reforms in the pipeline include the new pension credit in 2003, designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings. The launch of stakeholder pensions in April this year and the introduction of the state second pension in April 2002 will both help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150617]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Hull, North since May 1997.

  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over one million children out of poverty. These include record increases in Child Benefit, Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10 35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Hull, North 11,834 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Hull, North the number has reduced from 4,400 to 3,300. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally, and in Hull, North from 2,900 to 2,800.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 13,500 older people in Hull, North have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 12,300 pensioners in Hull, North will benefit from the substantial increases

  73W
  in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s, of whom we estimate there are about 5,100 in Hull, North. 3,300 pensioner families in Hull, North are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include the new pension credit in 2003, designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings. The launch of stakeholder pensions in April this year and the introduction of the state second pension in April 2002 will both help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Regulated Tenancies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tenants of regulated tenancies are not in receipt of housing benefit. [151877]

  Angela Eagle
  The information available is as follows.

  It is estimated from the survey of English housing data for 1999–2000 and other sources that there are some 80,000 regulated tenancies in Great Britain where housing benefit is not received.
  Notes:
  1. Rounded to nearest five thousand.
  2. Information from the Family Resources Survey 1998–99 is used to estimate the ratio of regulated tenancies in Scotland and Wales to those in England. It is assumed that regulated tenancies are those commencing prior to 1998–99.
  3. The Survey of English Housing data for 1998–99 is used to estimate proportions in receipt of HB, results for 1999–2000, the latest available, are used to estimate the number of regulated tenancies in England.
  4. The above estimates are based on survey information rather than administrative data with regard to benefit receipt. This follows published information for England in the "Housing in England" publication.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned on the income distribution of regulated new tenants. [151878]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not undertaken or commissioned any research on the income distribution of regulated tenants.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a range of information on the economic status of regulated tenants in the publication "Housing in England 1998–99", which is available in the Library.

  War Pensions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow those who are 15 per cent. disabled to be eligible for a war pension. [151685]

  Mr. Bayley
  Where service disablement is assessed at 20 per cent. or more, the War Pensions Agency pays an on-going pension based on a weekly or annual rate. Where the assessment is less than 20 per cent. a war pension is paid as a lump sum gratuity.
  74W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to spend more money on processing claims for war pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [151686]

  Mr. Bayley
  The War Pensions Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department of Social Security and as such remains subject to gross expenditure control under the Parliamentary Vote system.

  The agency expects to meet all targets in its current business plan relating to claims and appeals processing for 2000–01. It is confident of receiving sufficient funding for 2001–02 to deliver further improved performance and to continue to reduce the total number of cases in action at the agency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 19 January and 8 February relating to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Walker of Broadholme Lane Farm, Belper. [152261]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply was issued on 5 March 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister which department organises and books(a) air flights and (b) other travel arrangements, when Lord Levy is travelling abroad as his personal envoy. [148516]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: Lord Levy's air flights are normally booked by his personal assistant. On a few occasions, they have been booked by the Foreign Office travel centre in London or by embassies in countries visited by Lord Levy, and Lord Levy has reimbursed the cost.

  Other travel arrangements are made by embassies in the countries visited by Lord Levy.

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish the origin of the appearance in Sunday newspapers of details of the findings of the inquiry set up under Sir Anthony Hammond into the Hinduja passport affair; if he will identify publicly the person or persons responsible; and if he will make a statement. [151837]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Sir Anthony Hammond was still compiling his report when a number of speculative newspaper reports appeared. I have made clear that I will publish Sir Anthony's report.

  Prime Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he met the Irish Prime Minister between 1 January and 1 July 2000; what the dates of each meeting were; and where each meeting took place. [152060]
  75W
  The Prime Minister
  I met the Taoiseach on the following occasions between 1 January and 1 July 2000:

  Date

  Location/event

  16 February

  Talks at No. 10

  23 March

  Bilateral talks, Lisbon

  18 April

  Dinner, Dublin

  20 April

  Webcast at No. 10

  2 May

  Lunch at No. 10

  4 May

  Talks at Hillsborough

  7 June

  Dinner at No. 10

  19 June

  Meeting in Oporto

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 338W, concerning the Cabinet Secretary's meeting with the Hinduja brothers, from whom the advice came that it would be beneficial for the Cabinet Secretary to accept the lunch invitation. [152064]

  The Prime Minister
  As is normal with such invitations, the Secretary of the Cabinet took advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Albania
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with(a) the President of France, (b) the Chancellor of Germany, (c) the Prime Minister of Italy and (d) the Prime Minister of Greece, KFOR' s response to Albanian incursion into (i) Macedonia and (ii) Southern Serbia. [152337]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed this issue with his EU and NATO colleagues on 26 and 27 February respectively and with the FRY Foreign Minister on 28 February. We have also remained in close contact with partners in the region including Macedonia.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Performance and Innovation Unit's research into new technologies to address HIV/AIDS in developing countries is considering microbicides; and if he will make a statement. [151630]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit project, announced on 8 November 2000, is considering how to increase the availability of technologies for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. As part of this, the project is looking at increasing incentives for research and development of new technologies. Technologies being considered include preventative measures such as microbicides as well as treatments.

CABINET OFFICE

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when her Performance and Innovation Unit was established; which of its reports are placed in the public 76W
  domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular (a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150364]

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

  I announced the establishment of the Performance and Innovation Unit on 28 July 1998. The PIU provides the Government with a capacity to analyse major policy issues and design strategic solutions. Since then it has published the following reports:
  Encryption and Law Enforcement (published May 1999)
  E-commerce@its.best.uk (September 1999)
  Rural Economies (December 1999)
  Wiring It Up: Whitehall's Management of Cross-Cutting Policies and Services (January 2000)
  Adding It Up: Improving Analysis and Modelling in Central Government (January 2000)
  Reaching Out: The Role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level (February 2000)
  Winning the Generation Game—Improving Opportunities for People Aged 50–65 in Work and Community Activity (April 2000)
  Recovering Criminal Assets (June 2000)
  Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network (July 2000)
  Adoption (July 2000)
  e.gov—Electronic Government Services for the 21st Century (September 2000)
  Rights of Exchange—Social, Health, Environmental and Trade Objectives on the Global Stage (September 2000).

  The modernising government White Paper recommended that the PIU examine future strategic challenges. In addition, a research study "Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis" produced by the research, development and statistics directorate of the Home Office, with the assistance of the Performance and Innovation Unit, was published in January 2001. Copies of PIU reports have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Details of all completed and current projects can also be found the PIU website.

  Most projects are overseen by an advisory group of outside stakeholders and senior Whitehall officials including some special advisers. Details of these groups can be found in the published reports.

  The PIU primarily works on individual projects, using small teams drawn from government and across the public, private and voluntary sectors. The unit has about 50–60 staff at any one time. As at 1 March 2001, 10 members of the FIU are permanent employees of the Cabinet Office, 22 are on loan from other Government Departments and 19 have been brought in from the wider public sector and the private and voluntary sectors. All except five members of staff are employed on a full-time basis.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Committee on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communication he has had
  77W
  with other Government Departments concerning his contribution to the UK periodic report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child [150601]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Northern Ireland Departments were consulted concerning the Northern Ireland Office's contribution to the UK periodic report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

  Smuggling
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been(a) charged, (b) brought to court, (c) found guilty and (d) given a custodial sentence for smuggling goods across the Irish border in each of the past 10 years; if he will break down prosecutions in each of those years by (i) class A drugs, (ii) class B drugs, (iii) alcohol, (iv) tobacco, (v) petrol, (vi) arms and (vii) videos and musical recordings; if he will break down sentences in each year; and if he will break down arrests in each year by the electoral district in which the arrest was made. [150580]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151508]

  Dr. Reid
  The Northern Ireland Office is currently undertaking the following IT projects:

  Project

  Start date

  Completion date

  Cost

  Criminal Justice information systems and sharing (£ million)

  April 2001

  March 2004

  1.5

  Extension of Oasis to compensation agency and tariff scheme (£000)

  May 2001

  Stage 1: December 2001

  300

  Stage 2: March 2002

  Integra software upgrade (£000)

  April 2001

  August 2001

  200

  Document and records management system (£ million)

  April 2001

  December 2003

  1.2

  Electronic commerce (£000)

  April 2001

  April 2002

  20

  PAFIS software upgrade (£000)

  April 2001

  August 2001

  200

  YOC access control (£000)

  April 2001

  December 2001

  60

  Atlas operations (£000)

  April 2001

  December 2001

  40

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151031]

  Date

  Base demolition/closure

  12 October 1998

  Demolition of Crumlin Road Sangar, Belfast

  21 October 1998

  Demolition of R16 roadside Sangar, Newry

  23 November 1998

  Demolition of three Bessbrook PVCP's

  January 1999

  Vacation of six Fermanagh Patrol Bases—Mullan Bridge, Rosscor Bridge, Wattle Bridge, Clonatty Bridge, Annaglimartin, Killyvilly

  3 February 1999

  Demolition of Aughnacloy PVCP

  8 February 1999

  Demolition of Hump PVCP, Strahane

  12 February 1999

  Demolition of Muff PVCP, Londonderry

  78W

  Project

  Completion date

  Cost (£000)

  Knowledge Network

  December 2001

  106

  Redesign of NIO website

  December 2001

  80

  Intranet

  June 2003

  500

  Replacement hardware for Records Management System

  March 2001

  14.5

  Forensic Science DNA Database

  December 2001

  100

  Oasis Resilience

  March 2001

  127

  Oasis Infrastructure Communications lines

  March 2001

  130

  Replace Electoral Register System

  June 2002

  300

  xGSI

  June 2001

  110

  Visitor Records Booking System

  December 2001

  200

  COMPASS

  September 2002

  £2 million

  PRISM

  December 2003

  £3 million

  To ensure probity and value for money, my Department complies with EC public procurement rules, Government accounting rules, national audit requirements and UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance when contracting for IT projects.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151472]

  Dr. Reid
  The Northern Ireland Office is currently considering its medium-term IT strategy. Subject to the conclusions of this, it currently plans to undertake the following projects, commencing in the year 1 April 200131 March 2002:

  Dr. Reid
  There have been no visits by Ministers in my Department to any of the constituencies in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001.

  Normalisation Measures
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each of the normalisation measures taken in Northern Ireland since 1 April 1998. [150297]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is in the table
  79W

  Date

  Base demolition/closure

  26 February 1999

  Demolition of Letterkenny PVCP, Londonderry

  April 1998 to April 1999

  Withdrawal of troops from RUC Stations: Corry Square, Warrenpoint, Castlederg, Carrickmore, Kesh, Rosemount, Andersonstown, Springfield Road

  21 May 1999

  Demolition of Fort Whitrock, Belfast

  4 August 1999

  Demolition of Gortmullan PB, Fermanagh

  5 September 1999

  Closure of Carrickfergus Royal Irish Base

  31 December 1999

  Closure of Castlereagh Holding Centre

  May 2000

  Withdrawal of troops from RUC Pomeroy

  16 June 2000

  Templar House Op, Belfast closed and handed back

  21 June 2000

  Broadway Op, Belfast closed and handed back

  4 August 2000

  Demolition of Boruchi Sangar, Crossmaglen

  1 October 2000

  Closure of Strand Road Holding Centre

  8 October 2000

  Demolition of R16 Base, Cloghoge, Newry completed

  8 November 2000

  Cookstown Royal Irish Base closed and demolished

  8 November 2000

  Demolition work at Fort George, Londonderry complete. Site to be handed over to the Harbour Commissioners

  27 November 2000

  Long Kesh vacated and handed over to contractors for demolition

  12 January 2001

  Demolition of Killyvilly PB completed

  17 January 2001

  Demolition of Wattle Bridge PB completed

  19 January 2001

  Demolition of Rosscor Bridge PB completed

  Other normalisation measures include the return to Land Command of two roulement battalions. Three of the remaining four roulement battalions are now rear-based in GB with elements called to Northern Ireland as and when required.

  When the Good Friday agreement was signed there were 18 battalions under the command of the GOC (NI). There are now 15 battalions (six resident battalions, four roulement battalions, and five home service battalions of the Royal Irish).

  Also, since the Good Friday agreement, the security forces have been able to return areas of previously requisitioned land to their original owners.

  In addition, the police are making increased use of soft-skinned and high-profiled liveried vehicles and beat patrols. Police officers increasingly wear fluorescent jackets and now patrol without Army support in most parts of the Province.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to public funds, broken down by Department, of(a) establishing and (b) running the Saville inquiry up to 31 December 2000. [149876]

  Dr. Reid
  The cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to my Department, from its establishment in January 1998 to 31 December 2000, was £33,834,904. In addition, I estimate that around £81,705 was incurred in staff and other administrative costs within the Department over the same period. Since no departmental staff are employed full-time on inquiry work, it is not possible to give precise figures.

  I am advised that the Ministry of Defence's expenditure until 31 December 2000 was £8,823,819. This includes the cost of staff employed full-time on inquiry-related work.
  80W
  Other Departments do not employ staff full-time on inquiry work so are able to estimate only the costs to them. I am advised that the approximate expenditure of the Cabinet Office for this period was £33,600; for the Home Office the figure was £56,0001; and for the Treasury Solicitor's Department the figure was £12,247. The security and intelligence agencies have also incurred costs of this nature, but it is not Government practice to disclose expenditure by these agencies. I am not aware of any other Department incurring expenditure in connection with the inquiry.
  1 This includes the cost of providing legal advice to the Northern Ireland Office, which is covered by the Home Office Vote.

  Post
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) letters and (b) parcels posted in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months were sent to (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Ireland, (c) Great Britain, (d) the European Union, (e) Europe (other), (f) USA, and (g) elsewhere. [152084]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Post Office that it does not hold this information for the last 12 months. However, the Post Office has provided snapshot figures for letters and parcels posted in Northern Ireland as follows:

  Destination

  Percentage

  Letters (Royal Mail)

  Northern Ireland

  65

  Republic of Ireland

  10

  Great Britain

  20

  Rest of World

  5

  Parcels (Parcelforce Worldwide)

  Northern Ireland

  20

  Republic of Ireland

  4

  Great Britain

  70

  Rest of World

  6

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the special advisers working for her will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149310]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the IT projects currently undertaken in her Department; and if she will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: No IT projects are currently being undertaken by my Department.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the IT projects her Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if she will state in each case the(a)expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151470]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: No IT projects are planned by my Department for next year.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many electors there are in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland as per the electoral registers published on 15 February. [151167]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table as shown provides the number of electors in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland as per the electoral registers published on 15 February.

  Number

  Aberdeen, Central

  50,423

  Aberdeen, North

  53,530

  Aberdeen, South

  59,495

  Airdrie and Shotts

  58,785

  Angus

  60,508

  Argyll and Bute

  48,819

  Ayr

  56,,297

  Banff and Buchan

  57,225

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  41,181

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  65,735

  Central Fife

  59,705

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  51,844

  Clydesdale

  64,928

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  52,375

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  50,042

  Cunninghame, North

  55,612

  Cunninghame, South

  50,568

  Dumbarton

  55,251

  Dumfries

  63,502

  Dundee, East

  57,255

  Dundee, West

  54,558

  Dunfermline, East

  52,822

  Dunfermline, West

  54,185

  East Kilbride

  67,031

  East Lothian

  59,422

  Eastwood

  68,920

  Edinburgh, Central

  66,296

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  59,775

  82W

  Number

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  62,731

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  60,484

  Edinburgh, South

  64,437

  Edinburgh, West

  62,503

  Falkirk, East

  58,095

  Falkirk, West

  53,888

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,189

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  53,189

  Glasgow, Baillieston

  49,350

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  52,055

  Glasgow, Govan

  53,832

  Glasgow, Kelvin

  60,000

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  55,087

  Glasgow, Pollok

  49,257

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  52,175

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  51,363

  Glasgow. Springburn

  55,185

  Gordon

  60,619

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  48,492

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill

  54,146

  Hamilton, South

  47,054

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  66,893

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  61,719

  Kirkcaldy

  51,636

  Linlithgow

  55,086

  Livingston

  65,393

  Midlothian

  49,253

  Moray

  57,752

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  52,790

  North-East Fife

  61,356

  North Tayside

  62,253

  Ochil

  45,042

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,340

  Paisley, North

  47,982

  Paisley, South

  53,098

  Perth

  62,069

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  56,300

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  47,429

  Stirling

  53,340

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  62,482

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  52,396

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  61,961

  West Renfrewshire

  52,736

  Western Isles

  21,941

WALES

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning declaring St. David's day a bank holiday. [151926]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly and discuss a wide range of subjects, including this one.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150610]
  83W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Bolton community legal service partnership (CLSP), which covers Bolton, West, is one of 165 CLSPs throughout England and Wales.

  Throughout the Bolton area, 29 agencies have been awarded contracts with the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The suppliers are generally located in the centre of the city, but provide services to residents of all Bolton wards. The suppliers include 28 law firms, and one district citizens advice bureau. The total value of the contracts awarded amounts to over £790,000 in year one of the contracting strategy.

  The 29 agencies are all holders of the CLS quality mark. In addition, there are a further 16 organisations in the Bolton area which provide general help or general help with casework and which have committed themselves to applying for the CLS quality mark by October 2001.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150622]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Hull community advice and legal service partnership. which covers Hull, North, is one of 165 community legal service partnerships (CLSPs) throughout England and Wales.

  The Hull partnership is reviewing the need for and supply of advice services throughout Hull, and intends to produce its strategy for advice and legal services for consultation this summer.

  Throughout the Hull area, 22 agencies have been awarded contracts with the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The suppliers are all located in the centre of the city, but provide services to residents of all Hull wards. The 22 agencies includes 20 law firms, one law centre and one independent housing aid centre. The total value of the contracts awarded amounts to over £1,178,000.

  The 22 agencies noted are all holders of the CLS quality mark. In addition, Hull fair trading advice centre has been awarded the quality mark at general help with casework level, and there are a further six organisations which provide general help or general help with casework and which have committed themselves to applying for the CLS quality mark by October 2001.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sums were offered by each founding partner and sponsor of the millennium dome; and what sums have been paid so far by each sponsor, distinguishing cash payments from benefits in kind. [147781]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) achieved a total sponsorship and donation income of £119.7 million, of which the total value-in-kind
  84W
  sponsorship was £34.7 million. These figures exclude the direct funding by BT and Ford of the costs of their zones and the extra funding for marketing and promotion spent by a number of sponsors over and above the requirements of their contracts. Actual payments of cash and value-in-kind following detailed and lengthy negotiations are subject to the confidentiality requirements of the contracts between NMEC and the sponsors.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the dates on which sponsorship agreements for the faith zone at the millennium dome were agreed, listing in each case the amount and the identity of the sponsor; [148362]

  (2) how much sponsorship money was received by the New Millennium Experience Company for the faith zone; which organisations contributed funds; and how much each contribution was. [149223]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: On 3 June 1999 NMEC announced that the faith zone would receive £4 million in sponsorship—£2 million from the Laing Family Trusts (Christian charitable foundations); £ 1 million from the Hinduja Foundation; and £1 million from other Christian Trusts including the Jerusalem Trust. Agreement with the Hinduja Foundation was confirmed on 16 February 1999. Agreement with the Laing Family Trusts was also confirmed in February 1999. Agreements with other Christian Trusts, including the Jerusalem Trust, were confirmed between January 1999 and August 1999. The terms of their agreements with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) require that details remain confidential.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) on how many occasions Lord Levy acted on behalf of the New Millennium Experience Company in discussion with potential millennium dome sponsors; [149222]

  (2) when the New Millennium Experience Company authorised Lord Levy to act on its behalf in discussions with potential sponsors for the millennium dome. [149221]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: Lord Levy was asked to help with advice to NMEC on fundraising in June 1998.

  According to my Department's records, Lord Levy attended a meeting on one occasion on 29 October 1998 with the then chief executive of NMEC and representatives of the Hindjua Foundation to discuss their potential support of the faith zone in the millennium dome.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much commission was paid for the securing of sponsorship for the dome; and to whom it was paid. [150932]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 537W. IMG provided significant support to the in-house team but did not itself deliver sponsorship. No commission has therefore been paid by the New Millennium Experience Company to third parties for securing sponsorship.
  85W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent on advertising and promoting the dome [150928]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (N VIEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the company's annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that marketing and sales expenditure was £38.8 million. Of that, £24.4 million was attributable to advertising.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was received from sponsors of the dome in(a) cash and (b) contributions to the fabric of the dome or its exhibits. [150922]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) achieved a total sponsorship and donation income, including cash and value-in-kind of £119.7 million. This figure excludes the direct funding by BT and Ford of the costs of their zones and the extra funding for marketing and promotion spent by a number of sponsors over and above the requirements of their contracts. Taken together, the overall sponsorship and donations relevant to the dome is estimated at £150 million—the most ever raised for a single event in the UK. Sponsorship received contributed to the overall budget of the project not just to the exhibits and other structures.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what professional fees were paid to(a) lawyers and (b) accountants for the dome (i) up to its closure and (ii) since its closure. [150927]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the company's annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that expenditure on legal firms for a range of professional advice, including contractual and sponsorship issues, was £3.8 million for the period February 1997 to 31 December 2000. Expenditure for the period 1 January 2001 to 16 February 2001 was £576,000 net.

  Expenditure on accounting firms for a range of professional advice including tax, audit, IT, management support and accounting was £5.8 million net for the period February 1997 to December 2000. Expenditure for the period 1 January 2001 to 16 February 2001 was £729,000 net. Both the legal and accountancy figures for post-December 2000 represent payments made against invoices received after 31 December 2000. Those invoices cover some work undertaken prior to 31 December. In particular, the expenditure reflects the detailed and comprehensive review of all the contracts undertaken by the NMEC, and also reflects the management and finance support provided to the company's executive. Both of these areas of work are essential to the successful implementation of the company's programme to achieve solvent liquidation.
  86W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of the exhibits in the dome was to NMEC; and what percentage of the costs of exhibits were paid by the sponsors. [150931]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the company's annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that the total cost of the exhibits was £95 million. This figure excludes the millennium show and exhibit zone foundation and heavy steel works, the costs of which are reflected in dome construction costs. It includes the costs of those staff within the department of NMEC that had responsibility for the exhibits. It is not possible to identify the costs paid by sponsors in the way requested. Sponsorship received contributed to the overall budget of the project, not just to the exhibits and other structures.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the final construction costs of the dome were. [150930]

  Janet Anderson
  The figure provided by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is subject to the company's necessary external audit scrutiny. That work will begin shortly and will inform the content of the company's annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. The report and statements will be published in due course. NMEC has advised that the final construction costs of the dome were £332.3 million including infrastructure, planning costs, dome structure, exhibit zone foundations and exhibit zone heavy steel works.

  ASHA Project
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Millennium Commission's funding of the ASHA project. [151927]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  BBC
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2001,Official Report, column 133W, if the to-date costs for BBC Choice, BBC Knowledge and BBC News 24 were approved in principle with the BBC. [152364]

  Janet Anderson
  No. Budgets for individual services are not subject to Government approval.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the guidelines for enforcement by the Television Licensing Authority of television licence payments. [151462]
  87W
  Janet Anderson
  No. Statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system rests with the BBC. TV Licensing carries out the day-to-day administration and enforcement as agent for the corporation. It is for the BBC, as licensing authority, to keep under review the guidelines under which TV Licensing operates.

TREASURY

  EU Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the Opinion of the Council made under Council Regulation EC No. 1466/97 and Article 99 EC. [151118]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: A copy of the Opinion has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150602]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Bolton, West, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 439, or 33 per cent, youth unemployment is down by 67 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 66 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18–24-year-olds had helped 447 young people in Bolton, West constituency gain valuable skills and experience—238 (53 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,700 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent Pre-Budget Report, all pensioners, including 14,500 in Bolton, West, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,700 in Bolton, West.

  Child Care
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the types of child care costs taken into consideration in the payment of the Working Families Tax Credit. [150519]
  88W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit supports the National Child Care Strategy not only by making child care more affordable but by ensuring that the help we give goes to those using safe, good quality, child care. By the end of August 2000, 124 000 working families were getting money towards their child care costs through the Working Families Tax Credit. This is far in excess of the 47,000 families who received child care help at the high-water mark of family credit.

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150616]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Hull, North along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 998, or 22 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 72 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 34 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of November 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 2,434 young people in Hull, North constituency gain valuable skills and experience—1,160 (48 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,800 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 12,300 in Hull, North, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week.. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000— including around 8,000 in Hull, North.

  Tax and Dividend Income
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) mean and (b) median taxable income of pensioners was in the most recent year for which information is available; [151639]

  (2) if he will estimate the annual cost of exempting non-taxpayers from the abolition of payable tax credits on dividend income; [151642]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the gains in income decile of cutting the basic and starting rates of tax on savings and dividends income to zero; and if he will make a statement; [151641]
  89W
  (4) what estimate he has made of the gains (a) in absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of income by income decile, of increasing age- related personal allowances for all people aged over 65 years by £2,000; [151637]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the (a) cost and (b) absolute and relative gain by income decile of increasing the amount of income subject to basic rate income tax by £6,000; and if he will make a statement. [151643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 1 March 2001]: An analysis by range of income decile for increasing tax age-related allowances by £2,000 in 2001–02 is in the table:

  Decile of total income

  Gains (£ million)

  Gain as a percentage of income

  Bottom 7

  90

  1—

  8

  310

  2.6

  9

  380

  2.8

  Top

  220

  0.8

  All

  1,000

  1—

  1 It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the bottom deciles as the survey of personal incomes can only provide reliable estimates for the income of taxpayers.

  Note:

  The estimates are based on the Survey 01 Personal Incomes and consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  In 2000–01 the mean and median taxable income for people of state retirement pension age are £3,700 and £0 respectively, where taxable income is defined as income above the appropriate personal allowance.

  An analysis by range of income decile for cutting the basic and starting rates of tax on savings and dividends income to zero in 2001–02 is in the table:

  Decile of total income

  Gains (£ million)

  Bottom 7

  490

  8

  780

  9

  830

  Top

  1,010

  All

  3,000

  Note:

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the bottom deciles as the survey of personal incomes can only provide reliable estimates for taxpayers.

  The cost of exempting non-taxpayers from the abolition of payable tax credits on dividend income is around £50 million in 2001–01 before allowing for behavioural effects.

  An analysis by range of income decile for increasing the income tax basic rate limit by £6,000 in 2001–02 is in the table:

  Decile of total income

  Gains (£ million)

  Bottom 9

  0

  Top

  2,500

  All

  2,500

  Note:

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Italian Government about debt relief discussions at the forthcoming G8 Summit; and if he will make a statement. [152296]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK has discussed debt relief and development issues extensively with the Italian Government, who are currently chair of the G7. In particular the UK is working closely with the Italian Government to build on announcements made at an international conference on Child Poverty hosted by the UK on 26 February, aimed at improving the access to drugs and vaccines for the world's poorest children.

  Departmental Policies (Vale of Clywd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Vale of Clwyd constituency, the effects on the Vale of Clwyd of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [151932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Vale of Clwyd, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 504, or 26 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 79 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 57 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 809 young people in the Vale of Clwyd constituency gain valuable skills and experience—393 (49 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,000 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 15,800 in the Vale of Clwyd, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,000 in the Vale of Clwyd.

  Pensions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit on future pensions. [150488]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Our package of corporation tax reforms included measures to boost corporate investment by removing tax distortions. The withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends was just one part of these measures. Pension funds will share in the long-term
  91W
  benefits from these changes to corporation tax. The overall effects of these changes on future pensions will vary depending upon many factors, such as: the type of scheme paying the pension; the take-up of private pensions; the level of future pension contributions; and the investment policy adopted by pensions fund managers.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates will invest in an individual pension account between April 2001 and April 2002. [152439]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No such estimates have been made.

  Insurance Industry
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what point after 1990 the trend towards lower inflation and lower interest rates was reflected in advice to the insurance industry on the likely implications for guaranteed annuity rate liabilities. [150437]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: The latest professional guidance on guaranteed annuity rate liabilities was issued by the Government Actuary's Department in January 1999 and December 1999.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps his Department took, between 1990 and the transfer of the insurance regulatory function to the Financial Services Authority to(a) investigate and monitor the reserves kept by insurance companies to satisfy their commitments under their guaranteed annuity rate policies, (b) monitor the extent of potential liabilities of insurance companies under guaranteed annuity rate policies and (c) ensure that insurance companies had (i) provided for and (ii) fully disclosed their potential liabilities under their guaranteed annuity rate policies within their annual report and accounts; [150438]

  (2) on what occasions between 1990 and the transfer of the insurance regulatory function to the Financial Services Association his Department approved of the operation of non-guaranteed annuity rate policies from within the same fund or funds as guaranteed annuity rate policies. [150436]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: The Insurance Companies Act 1982 sets out the requirements on insurance companies to maintain an adequate margin of solvency. The regulator monitors companies on an on-going basis to ensure that regulatory requirements are met.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes were made between 1990 and the transfer of the insurance regulatory function to the Financial Services Authority to the information requests required of insurance companies in respect of potential liabilities; and at whose behest such changes were made. [150439]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information that insurance companies must provide to the regulator is set out in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and in consequent regulations. The regulator monitors companies on an on-going basis to ensure that regulatory requirements are met.

  Homes Bill
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the home packs to be provided by sellers, as proposed in the Homes Bill, will be subject to VAT; and if this will be extended to new-built homes, otherwise exempt from VAT. [150993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Homes Bill will allow the seller of a property (or his agent) to charge potential buyers for a copy of the seller's pack, but only for reasonable costs such as photocopying and postage. This will also apply to the sale of new homes. The majority of homes are marketed by estate agents. Where the seller or agent is registered for VAT and makes a charge for the seller's pack, the charge will be subject to VAT.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what year of income is being used as the basis for assessing pupils' entitlement to the children's tax credit. [151449]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is the parent rather than the child or pupil who has the entitlement to the children's tax credit.

  Gift Aid
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated repayment of tax to charities as a result of the Gift Aid changes implemented in April 2000; and what is the total tax repayable resulting from the Gift Aid scheme to date. [151363]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Repayments to charities of basic rate income tax on donations made under the Gift Aid scheme up to the end of 1999–2000 are available in table 10.3 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2000, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Repayments from April 2000 are not comparable with those in earlier years as companies are no longer required to deduct basic rate income tax from their Gift Aid donations. Since company donations are now made gross these no longer have associated tax repayments.

  Full year figures for April 2001 will not be available for some time yet and it is not possible, at this stage, to estimate how much of current year repayments is due to last year's changes.

  Pensioners (Tax)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retired people in receipt of the state retirement pension pay income tax at(a) the standard rate and (b) the higher rate; and if he will make a statement. [151991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 518W.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2001,Official

  93W
  Report, column 104W, on working families tax credit, what assessment he has made of the findings of the NACB report, "Work in Progress". [151861]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) is a success in making work pay for families on low to middle incomes and tackling child poverty. Over 1.1 million families are receiving it—300,000 more than claimed the predecessor benefit, Family Credit. The WFTC is boosting incomes, paying on average an extra £76.86 a week to families looking after 2.2 million children.

  We welcome NACAB's recognition of the contribution made by the WFTC to making work pay and tackling child poverty.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households are in receipt of the working families tax credit in each English local authority. [152504]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) average change in absolute net income and (b) the percentage of net income per recipient household of working families tax credit if it were tapered away from the higher rate tax payers on a comparable basis with children's tax credit. [151572]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Such a tapering away would not be possible because, in general, the information needed to establish whether any person in the applicant's family is a higher rate taxpayer for the relevant year cannot be known at the application date.

  Jobcentre Vacancies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the accuracy of the recording of the official data on Jobcentre vacancies following the Low Pay Unit's report. [151769]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Frank Field, dated 28 February 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on jobcentre vacancies (151769). I am replying in his absence.

  All key outputs of National Statistics, including jobcentre vacancy statistics, are subject to quality assurance reviews at least every five years with the involvement of external expertise. The next review of vacancy statistics has been provisionally scheduled to take place in 2002/03.

  Gilt-edged Securities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what powers he has to withhold issue of payment warrants for interest clue upon gilt-edged securities to the name of a security holder known to have died; [151172]
  94W
  (2) when he made it his policy to withhold issue of payment warrants for interest due upon gilt-edged securities after receipt of notification of the death of the security holder and prior to the receipt of the office copy of the grant of probate or administration; what representations he has received on it; what plans he has to review the policy; how many estates hold Treasury stock in respect of which the Bank of England's Registrar's Department delayed issue of payment warrants in compliance with the policy in 2000; if he will estimate the average period between receipt of notification of death and receipt of an office copy grant by the Bank of England's Registrar's Department in 2000 and the consequential delay in issue of payment warrant once interest had contractually become due; what assessment he has made of the total financial benefit to the Treasury from implementation of this policy in 2000; and if he will make it his policy to make compensatory interest at the statutory rate payable in respect of late issue of payment warrants. [151173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information sought will take some time to assemble and I will write to the hon. Member separately.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many repossessions by building societies and other providers of mortgages there were in each of the last 10 years. [152005]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information, as set out in a Council of Mortgage Lenders press release of 31 January 2001, is as follows:

  Property repossessions from 1991 to 2000

  Period

  Number of properties taken into possession

  1991

  75,540

  1992

  68,540

  1993

  58,540

  1994

  49,210

  1995

  49,410

  1996

  42,560

  1997

  32,770

  1998

  33,820

  1999

  30,030

  2000

  22,610

  Source:

  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152032]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Ilford, North, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,071, or 48 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 85 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent.
  95W
  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 552 young people in Ilford, North constituency gain valuable skills and experience—241 (44 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 600 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget Report, all pensioners, including 16,400 in Ilford, North, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic State Pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,600 in Ilford, North.

  Banking Facilities
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking, prior to the establishment of the proposed universal bank, to help people on low incomes gain access to banking facilities; and which banks accept benefit books as proof of identity for the purpose of opening an account. [148490]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are currently consulting on a benchmark standard for basic bank accounts which includes the requirement that they are free to open and run, making them suitable for those people on low or variable incomes.

  The British Bankers Association's advice to customers on the subject of proving their identity includes a benefit book on its list of documents frequently requested by banks as evidence of identity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to the criteria for selecting "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow venues; and if he will make a statement. [151636]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since the launch of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" information initiative, we have aimed to visit all of the English regions and devolved Administrations. We have not changed these selection criteria.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make available the responses to the "Your Britain, Your Europe" questionnaire. [151653]

  Mr. Vaz
  Among other things, the questionnaire asked where respondents got their information on the EU. We have not retained copies of the responses.
  96W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which budget line expenditure on the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow has been drawn; and if he has applied for EC funds. [151635]

  Mr. Vaz
  All expenditure on "Your Britain, Your Europe" activities is drawn from the programme budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's EU Command. We have not applied for funds from alternative sources.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) of 14 December 2000 Official Report, column 226W, what meetings and events were organised in connection with the visit to Northern Ireland of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow; which political representatives of what political parties he met; what advice he (a) sought and (b) received concerning the marketing of the Your Britain, Your Europe road show among (i) young people and (ii) people whose community origin is not British; what flags and emblems are (A) associated with and (B) on display in conjunction with the roadshow; in what publications the visit of the roadshow was advertised; what the breakdown was of the total cost of the visit of the roadshow; and what further initiatives are planned in Northern Ireland. [150612]

  Mr. Vaz
  Unfortunately, because of diary pressures we had to postpone this visit.

  Conflict Diamonds
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the United States Government about conflict diamonds; and if he will make a statement. [149990]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are in regular contact with the Government of the United States of America on the subject of conflict diamonds. Both Governments are playing an active role in the current series of meetings of the Kimberley process, a grouping of all the major participants in the diamond sector, involving Governments, industry and civil society. We hope that the Kimberley process will lead to the adoption by the end of the year of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds, as envisaged in the United Nations resolution adopted by the General Assembly last December. Such a scheme would make an invaluable contribution to preventing illegally mined rough diamonds fuelling civil conflict.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2001,Official Report, column 585W, concerning representations from other countries about recruitment of staff for the NHS in those countries if he will list the representations to which he refers. [152038]

  Mr. Wilson
  The international recruitment of medical staff has been raised during our normal discussions—both formal and informal—with other Governments, including those of Antigua and Barbuda, China, Croatia, Georgia,
  97W
  South Africa, Spain and Vietnam. The Department of Health has of course also received a number of direct representations.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 26 and 27 February; if he will set out the Government's voting record at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [151993]

  Mr. Vaz
  The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 26–27 February adopted 29 of the 31 "A" points listed document no. 6378/01 (two items were withdrawn: nos. 23 and 28). It also noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 11–15 December 2000 and 15–18 January 2001 in Strasbourg and 31 January-1 February 2001 in Brussels, listed in document nos. 13762/1/00, 5006/01 and 5009/01 respectively. Copies of these documents have been placed in the House Libraries.

  1. Western Balkans

  The Council heard a briefing from UN Secretary-General Special Representative (UNSGSR) in Kosovo, Hans Haekkerup. The Council welcomed his proposal to develop a legal framework for provisional institutions of self-government. It also expressed support for his efforts to ensure full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1244. The Council expressed concern over the situation in south-east Serbia, condemning actions by ethnic Albanian armed groups. The Council supported initiatives by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to find a peaceful outcome and underlined the importance of an increased presence of representatives of the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM). The Council welcomed a letter from Javier Solana, the Secretary-General/High Representative. It asked him to present proposals urgently for further EU action concerning the Presevo Valley. The Council endorsed Antoin MacUnfraidh as the new EUMM Head of Mission.

  2. MEPP/Aid to Palestinian Authority

  Foreign Ministers discussed the MEPP and the Palestinian Authority's economic situation. The Council stressed the need for the EU to play an important role in a concerted international effort aimed at avoiding economic and institutional collapse in the Palestinian territories. To that end, the EU would urge the Palestinian Authority to draw up a revised restrictive budget; press for an international donor meeting under the auspices of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee soon; and make full use of the funds available under the existing cash facility in favour of the Palestinian Authority. The Council called on both sides to refrain from violence and return to the negotiating table and renewed its call on Israel to resume payments to the Palestinian Authority And lift closures.

  3. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

  The Council discussed developments in the DRC and agreed conclusions pledging the EU's support for UNCSR 1341 and for the relaunching of the Lusaka peace process.

  4. South Caucasus

  Following the recent ministerial Troika visit to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Council agreed that the EU should play a more active political role in the region. The EU will support the efforts of international
  98W
  organisations to prevent and resolve conflicts. The EU will also reinforce the bilateral and multilateral political dialogue with the countries in the region and with Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States. The Council invited its competent bodies to make recommendations for its reinforced EU policy.

  5. GSP Regulation: Everything but Arms Proposal for LDC Market Access

  The GAC adopted, by qualified majority, amendments to the GSP Regulation extending duty and quota-free access to products from the 48 least developed countries (the everything but arms proposal). It welcomed this regulation as a measure not only of substantive value to least developed countries (LDCs), but as a concrete sign of political goodwill towards the LDC in the context of the next round of WTO negotiations and the 3rd UN Conference on LDCs in May.

  The regulation will apply from 5 March 2001. Duty-free and quota-free access will be extended immediately to all LDC products except arms, with transitional periods for the three sensitive products of bananas, rice and sugar. For bananas, tariffs will be reduced by 20 per cent. annually, starting on 1 January 2002. Access will be completely tariff-free by 1 January 2006. For rice and sugar, tariff reductions will be phased in with a 20 per cent. cut in 2006, 50 per cent. in 2007 and 80 per cent. in 2008. In the meantime, duty-free quotas, based on previous best exports to the EU, will be opened for the marketing year 2001–02, and these will increase by 15 per cent. each year until 2009, when all tariffs and quotas will be removed.

  The Commission will, in 2005, submit a report to the Council on the implementation of the regulation, and will make appropriate proposals, if necessary, for its amendment.

  AOB:

  6. El Salvador

  The Council invited member states and the Commission to closely co-ordinate their actions in the region and to pursue their assistance to El Salvador. It also emphasised the need for effective co-ordination of international assistance and commended the forthcoming meeting of the consultative group on El Salvador in Madrid on 7 March.

  7. Zimbabwe

  The Council discussed the worsening political and economic situation in Zimbabwe and agreed on the need for political dialogue with the Zimbabwean Government, as provided for in article 8 of the Cotonou agreement.

  8. Voting Record

  No formal votes were taken on the points under discussion at the GAC. The UK supported the Commission/Presidency compromise proposal on everything but arms. This was adopted at the GAC without a formal vote. The presidency concluded after discussions that sufficient votes in favour existed for a qualified majority.

  Gafur Rakhimov
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to grant an application from Mr. Gafur Rakhimov, a senior official of the International Amateur Boxing Federation, for a visa to travel to Belfast. [151787]
  99W
  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: If Mr. Rakhimov applies for a visa to visit the United Kingdom, his application will be considered under the Immigration Rules and a decision will be made on the evidence available at the time. All applications are considered on the individual merits of the case.

  Ministerial Visit (Egypt)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the(a) cost to public funds and (b) purpose of the visit of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), to Egypt in February. [151688]

  Mr. Wilson
  The visit cost £8,371.49 for myself and two FCO officials and its purpose was to discuss bilateral and trade relations with Egypt. I had meetings with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

  Burma
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to implement the ILO resolution recommending that the organisation's members review the relations they may have with Burma, to ensure that Burma cannot perpetuate or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour. [152158]

  Mr. Battle
  We share the international abhorrence at the practice of forced labour in Burma. In 1997, the European Community suspended GSP privileges to Burma as a result of this practice. We played an active role in pressing for the IL0 resolution on Burma. Since the decision, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to employers and workers groups in the UK on 18 February, asking them to draw the ILO decision to their members' attention and to consider how to give effect to the ILO resolution. We, too, are actively considering what further steps HMG could take.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to prevent(a) UK investment in Burma and (b) UK imports from Burma when they are associated with the use of forced or compulsory labour. [152159]

  Mr. Battle
  We have given a cautious welcome to recent news that the regime in Burma has begun discussions with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. As a result of these talks, the regime has recently taken steps to decrease pressure on the National League for Democracy (NLD), including the release of 85 youth members. However, senior members of the NLD remain under house arrest. We have called for these restrictions to be lifted, and have made it clear that there will be no softening of our stance until we see real evidence of progress in Burma.

  We do not encourage trade or investment with Burma. There is now virtually no new investment into the country. We have asked the biggest British investor in Burma. Premier Oil, to leave. We have drawn the attention of the tourism industry to the views of democratic leaders that tourism to Burma is inappropriate. We are actively considering how best to give effect to the ILO's decision last November to invoke measures against Burma over forced labour. Any action will need to be
  100W
  balanced against the delicate discussions currently taking place between the Burmese regime and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply substantively to the questions from the hon. Member for Gloucester tabled on 31 January. [152150]

  Mr. Wilson
  These questions were answered on 1 March 2001,Official Report, columns 735–36W.

  Belize
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to refer to the territory of Belize as that defined in the 1859 Boundary Convention whenever he expresses his support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity for the country. [151876]

  Mr. Battle
  In supporting Belize's sovereignty and territorial integrity, the UK continues to regard the 1859 convention as defining the boundary between Belize and Guatemala.

  China
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK/China human rights dialogue of 12 to 14 February. [152484]

  Mr. Battle
  The sixth round of the UK/China human rights dialogue was held in China between 12–14 February. This comprised two days of talks in Peking and a one day mission to Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province.

  The formal talks were held with representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, National People's Congress Legislative Affairs Commission, United Front Works Department, Supreme People's Court, Prisons Administration Bureau and the State Religious Affairs Bureau. We discussed China's co-operation with international human rights mechanisms; the ratification of the two human rights covenants; Tibet; Xinjiang; Falun Gong; rule of law issues; the use of the death penalty; and freedoms of religion, expression and association. We also called on the Ministry for Civil Affairs to discuss the village democracy programme, and on the All China Federation of Trade Unions.

  We also raised 28 individual cases of concern: Chadrel Rinpoche, Chen Gang, Gao Xiaoliang; Gedhun Choekyi Nyima; Kang Yuchun, Liu Jingsheng, Ngawang Choepel, Ngawang Sangdrol, Abidjan Obulkasim, Zha Jianguo, Gao Hongming, Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, Qin Yongmin, Li Dexian, Jiang Qisheng, Rebiya Kadeer, Wang Ce, Li Chang, Wang Zhiwen, Jelil Turdi, Zhang Shanguang, Jiang Shurang, Bishop Jame Su Zhimin, Huang Qi, Zhao Ming, Wenjiang Liang and Abdulhelil Abdumijit.

  During the visit to Wenzhou, the British delegation was able to examine and discuss with the Wenzhou authorities the background to the reports of destruction of churches and temples as part of an urban redevelopment programme.

  Foreign Government Representations
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist for ensuring that representations made by foreign Governments to overseas diplomatic posts are brought to his attention. [151156]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  All posts overseas report to the FCO in London any formal approach from an overseas Government. This is normally in writing direct to the relevant FCO department. Correspondence on important issues is routinely copied to my private office.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister [151025]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: To the best of my knowledge, none of the Ministers in my Department visited any of the constituencies in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 47W, on qualified majority voting, if he will list each relevant article of Community treaties which moved to qualified majority voting, together with the topics concerned and the relevant competencies. [151602]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 511–12W, which sets out a complete list of each article that will move to qualified majority voting when the treaty of Nice comes into force. The list also gives the topic covered by each article.

  All of the articles of the EC treaty listed fall within the shared competence of the Community and member states except for articles 111(4), 123(4) and 133(5) of the EC treaty which fall within the Community's exclusive competence. The two articles of the treaty on European Union listed come within the intergovernmental pillars of that treaty where the concept of shared or exclusive competence is not relevant.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his United States counterpart indicated to him in recent discussions that the National Missile Defence Project could be used to provide protection for the United Kingdom. [151599]

  Mr. Vaz
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146589]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry is committed to listening to those affected by our policies and actions. We always aim to consult our stakeholders on policy developments and proposals at an early stage.

  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and comprehensive data could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total gross running costs to his Department of the NDPBs accountable through his Department in the last 12 months. [149147]

  Ms Quin
  The net cost to MAFF of carrying out our NDPB sponsorship role in the financial year 1999–2000 is shown under "Other Expenditure by the Department" on pages 1–8 of the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 2000", which was published on 4 January 2001. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  There are two changes to the published figures:
  Horticulture Research International—net cost is £0.078 million;
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—net cost is £0.086 million.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total gross running costs were to his Department in the last 12 months of(a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing. [149144]

  Ms Quin
  From information held centrally, the total gross running costs to the Department in the last 12 months of(a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing were £1.338 million and £2.685 million respectively.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries to which British beef is exported; and what quantity was exported during the week beginning 1 January. [149379]

  Ms Quin
  The quantity and destination of exports of British beef from the UK are commercially confidential as only two slaughterhouses are currently approved to export under the date-based export scheme (DBES).

  Farming (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value to Leicestershire farmers of all public funding made available to them for the most recent year for which figures are available. [149988]
  103W
  Ms Quin
  Total subsidies paid to Leicestershire farmers by MAFF during the EU financial year 16 October 1999 to 15 October 2000 are provided in my answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, columns 506–07W.

  Farmers also have access to other sources of public funding, for which other Government Departments, local authorities and other public bodies are responsible, such as the regional development agencies redundant building grant programme and Working Families Tax Credit. We do not have data on the provision of such funds to Leicestershire farmers.

  Agrimonetary Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the Government's plans for the application of the £200 million of EU agrimonetary compensation available to UK farmers until 30 April. [150706]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are notifying the European Commission of their intention to draw down all of the agrimonetary compensation that is currently available for the beef, sheep and dairy sectors. This will total approximately £156 million.

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance has been provided to encourage British farmers to produce environmentally sustainable biofuels for road transport. [151564]

  Ms Quin
  The green fuels challenge invited proposals for the development of alternative environmentally friendly fuels for road transport, and any announcements about the outcome will be made in the Budget.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential of crops grown for the production of biodiesel and bioethanol as alternative crops for British agriculture. [152067]

  Ms Quin
  The alternative crops which appear to have potential for the production of road transport fuels are non-food rapeseed for biodiesel and short rotation coppice and miscanthus for bioethanol.

  BSE
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the implications for health of the decision to move to a policy of rendering carcases killed under the OTMS prior to incineration; and if he will make a statement. [151810]

  Ms Quin
  Since the outset of the OTMS in 1996, disposal of cattle has been by two means, either by direct incineration of the carcase, or by rendering of the carcase followed by the storage and subsequent incineration of the rendered material. There was then, and remains, insufficient capacity directly to incinerate all of the cattle 104W
  slaughtered. The majority are, therefore, rendered. All OTMS rendering plants operate under strict controls enforced by the Environment Agency and the relevant local authority to protect both public and environmental health. To assess the safety of OTMS operations, the Environment Agency commissioned a number of studies from independent expert consultations of the risk from BSE to human health via different environmental pathways, based on the precautionary principle. These were produced in consultation with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) and published in 1997. They showed that the risks are negligible compared to other risks in daily life and endorsed SEAC's advice to the Government in 1996 that the current and proposed methods of dealing with animal waste material from the slaughter of cattle are safe.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat and bonemeal has been created as a result of rendering carcases culled under the OTMS. [151781]

  Ms Quin
  The total quantity of meat and bonemeal created from rendering carcases under OTMS is 588,803 tonnes.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat and bonemeal has been disposed of via(a) direct incineration and (b) rendering followed by incineration in each year since the establishment of the OTMS. [151782]

  Ms Quin
  The total quality of meat and bonemeal incinerated so far is 157,613 tonnes, with a further 431,190 tonnes in store.

  For further information, the following table compares the weight of carease material directly incinerated with that rendered.

  Tonnes

  Year

  Direct incineration

  Rendering

  1996

  0

  206,627

  1997

  340

  133,429

  1998

  18,340

  376,763

  1999

  43,897

  384,398

  2000

  43,179

  387,049

  Stock Disposal
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with the agriculture industry on methods of disposing of dead stock. [151830]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman met the National Sheep Association in December 2000 to discuss the disposal of dead stock. Officials also have frequent discussions on this subject with representatives of the agriculture industry.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council
  105W
  held in Brussels on 26 and 27 February; if he will set out the Government's voting record at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [151992]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 26 February. Ross Finnie (Minister for Rural Development, Scottish Executive), Brid Rodgers MLA (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive), and Carwyn Jones (Minister for Rural Affairs, National Assembly for Wales), also attended.

  The Council reviewed the main decisions on BSE which it had taken at recent meetings. Member states underlined the importance of effective implementation of those measures, as well as the need to avoid national measures. On scrapie, the Council endorsed the Commission's proposals on testing and surveillance and undertook to keep the science under review.

  The Council also considered the Commission's proposed seven-point plan responding to the crisis in the European beef market. A wide range of reactions emerged. The UK supported the need for urgent measures to restore consumer confidence and remove unwanted beef from older animals from the market, while querying the appropriateness of some of the measures designed to rebalance the beef market in the medium term. We expressed particular concern about the proposals to require suckler cow premium claims to include a minimum of 20 per cent. heifers, the introduction of individual quotas for beef special premium and restoration of the 90 head limit on beef special premium claims.

  I gave colleagues in the Council details of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom as well as the measures we are taking to contain the disease and, in collaboration with the Commission, to prevent its spread to other member states. Commissioner Byrne and other Ministers expressed great sympathy for UK farmers and their appreciation of the comprehensive measures we are taking.

  Jointly with the Italian delegation, we called for a review of the EU's food labelling policy so that food labels would better satisfy consumers demands for more information, including, for example, about how food is produced and what it contains. This initiative was given strong support by Germany and Austria.

  Farmers (Retirement)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial packages are available to help farmers with retirement; and if he will make a statement. [152290]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no financial packages available from MAFF to help farmers with retirement.

  Nitrogen
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much nitrogen is(a) produced and (b) used annually on farms in the UK. [152297]
  106W
  Mr. Morley
  Current research indicates that:

  (a) in the past five years an average of 1,060,000 tonnes of nitrogen (N) has been produced annually on farms;

  (b) an average total of 2,330,000 tonnes of N has been used annually on farms over the past five years.

  Rural Development Regulation Fund
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what revenue funding is available from the rural development regulation fund; and if he will make a statement. [152303]

  Mr. Morley
  The England rural development programme (ERDP) sets out the funds available for people in farming, forestry and rural businesses under the rural development regulation. Details of planned expenditure under the ERDP were provided in the response to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 29 November 2000,Official Report, columns 662–64W.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the rural development regulation fund is spent on monitoring farmers; and if he will make a statement. [152302]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with local planning authorities regarding farm diversification applications; what guidance he gives to them; and if he will make a statement. [152304]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF is consulted on all planning applications which would involve the loss of 20 hectares or more of high quality farmland. MAFF also comments on local development plans to ensure that they encourage farm diversification. The rural White Paper gave an undertaking that planning guidance would be updated to take account of the needs of the living, working countryside.

  Veterinarians (Fish)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many registered veterinarians employed within his Department and its agencies(a) are engaged in aquaculture and (b) hold post-graduate qualifications in fish health; and where they are based. [151922]

  Mr. Morley
  CEFAS employs three registered veterinarians working in aquaculture, all based at the Weymouth laboratory, one of whom holds a post-graduate qualification in fish health.

HEALTH

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of BSE controls in(a) Spain and (b) Sweden on the safety of beef products imported into the UK. [144312]
  107W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that assessments of the implementation of BSE controls in European Union member states are the responsibility of the European Commission. Its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out inspection missions to all member states to check on the implementation and effectiveness of EU BSE control measures. An additional programme of urgent FVO missions is currently under way. Spain was visited in the week beginning 11 December 2000 and Sweden in the week beginning 29 January 2001. The reports of these missions will be published on the EU Commission website, as is normal practice. In the light of the findings, the EU Commission will consider whether any further protective measures are necessary beyond those already in place or under consideration.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of recorded cases of TB(a) in the Avon area and (b) nationally in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [146107]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Notification rates of tuberculosis in England and Wales are monitored by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS).

  Data on the notifications of TB for Avon and nationally for the past 10 years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Avon health authority

  England and Wales Total

  1990

  44

  5,204

  1991

  48

  5,436

  1992

  52

  5,799

  1993

  53

  5,921

  1994

  47

  5,591

  1995

  54

  5,608

  1996

  66

  5,654

  1997

  61

  5,859

  1998

  60

  6,087

  1999

  60

  6,144

  The relatively low levels of disease in this country compared with other countries can be maintained only through active TB control. We have taken steps to strengthen the surveillance, prevention and control of TB, including drug-resistant TB, within the United Kingdom. Current provision includes:
  specialised chest clinics in every area with doctors experienced in the treatment of TB;
  the screening of immigrants from countries with high rates of TB either at ports of entry or locally when they arrive at their destination, or a combination of these;
  the publication of guidance from the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis with recommendations on how local control and prevention of TB (including in homeless people) can be enhanced and for prevention and control of the transmission of HIV-related and drug-resistant, including multiple drug-resistant, tuberculosis'.
  108W
  In addition to the existing provisions, recent developments include:
  the commencement of work on on-going enhanced surveillance of TB to improve monitoring;
  the appointment of regional epidemiologists to help towards a more co-ordinated approach to surveillance (including TB);
  the strengthening of surveillance of drug and multi-drug-resistant TB through a scheme co-ordinated by the PHLS;
  the development—by the PHLS—and availability of more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests for TB, which can be used where there is a presence of risk factors which might predispose towards multi-drug-resistant TB;
  the co-ordination of the PHLS's activities through the new tuberculosis programme;
  in London, where TB cases are concentrated, after wide consultation, proposals are being taken forward to improve delivery of TB services.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) nationally and (b) in East Sussex who had an operation on the NHS waited longer than one year for that operation in each year since 1992. [146699]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  We are committed to reducing waiting times for out-patient appointments and in-patient treatment. We addressed this in the NHS Plan announced in July 2000 where we pledged that by the end of 2005 the maximum in-patient waiting time would be cut from 18 months now to six months, and the maximum out-patient waiting time would be cut from over six months now to three months. Provided we can recruit the extra staff, and the National Health Service makes the necessary reforms, our eventual objective is to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months by the end of 2008.

  Number of people resident in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA and England who had waited for more than a year for treatment

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  England

  1992–93

  4,413

  174,945

  1993–94

  4,763

  180,411

  1994–95

  4,502

  188,125

  1995–96

  5,571

  156,257

  1996–97

  2,193

  117,607

  1997–98

  3,901

  189,371

  1998–99

  4,255

  271,234

  1999–2000

  3,095

  224,841

  Note:

  Figures for 1992–93 are the sum of Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings district health authorities

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Stephen O?Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total gross running costs to his Department of fees and disbursements paid to consultants in the last 12 months. [149152]

  Ms Stuart
  Total expenditure on external management consultants by the Department in the period February 2000 to January 2001 was £8,042,525.
  109W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were his Department's total gross running costs for travel, including fares, subsistence, accommodation and any other expenses met from public funds but excluding all such costs for journeys and stays exclusively within the United Kingdom(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [149156]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department's gross running costs for travel and subsistence outside of the United Kingdom has been(a) since 1 May 1997, £2,189,074 and, (b) in the last 12 months, £569,085.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total gross running costs to his Department of the NDPBs accountable through his Department in the last 12 months. [149157]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department estimates that the non-departmental public bodies will have received a total of £176.2 million for their gross running costs at the end of the current financial year 2000–01

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total gross running cost to his Department in the last 12 months of(a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing. [149153]

  Ms Stuart
  The total gross running cost to the Department for January to December 2000 for(a) stationery was £1,664,367, and (b) printing was £3,721,082.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total gross running cost to his Department was in the last 12 months of alcoholic drinks. [149149]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total gross running cost to his Department was in the last 12 months of entertaining by Ministers and officials. [149158]

  Ms Stuart
  The total gross running cost to the Department of the costs of entertaining by Ministers and officials from January to December 2000 was £84,634.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources were allocated for cancer care for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01. [149746]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of national health service services in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of a particular disease.

  It is estimated that cancer services account for 6.3 per cent. (£1,479 million) of national health service hospital expenditure in England. This excludes cancer services not normally provided on an in-patient basis—for example, cancer screening, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and community palliative care services.
  110W
  £10 million per year extra has been invested directly in breast cancer services since 1997; since 1998 £10 million extra per year has been invested in colorectal cancer services; since 1999 £10 million extra per year has been invested in lung cancer services; and from 1999 £10 million extra per year has been available for waiting times. These sums are included in health authority baselines.

  The NHS cancer plan set out funding for cancer services from 2001–02. Some £450 million has been hypothecated within health authority allocations for cancer and coronary heart disease, of which £255 million is specifically to support achievement of the cancer targets and milestones.

  There is also £25 million within central budgets, which brings the total funding to £280 million for cancer in 2001–02 as promised. This money will be used to support developments including: the extension of the breast screening programme; the roll out of the cancer services collaborative; the introduction of primary care group/trust lead clinicians through a shared initiative with Macmillan Cancer Relief; and a package of support and training for community nurses in the principles of palliative care provision.

  Hospital Beds (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of hospital beds in Leicestershire. [149981]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS plan provides for a total of 7,000 extra beds nationally by 2004, including 2,100 on general and acute wards—the first increase of its kind for 30 years—and around 5,000 extra intermediate care beds. Within this expanded bedstock, there will also be a 30 per cent. increase in adult critical care beds over the next three years.

  In 2000, Leicestershire health and social care community received an additional £2.7 million, specifically to help ease winter pressures. As a direct result, Leicestershire now has an additional 21 general and acute beds, 21 more intermediate care beds and four extra critical care beds compared with this time last year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 15 February that Leicestershire's strategic outline case for the reconfiguration of its acute services had been given the go-ahead. This £286 million capital scheme will provide a further 320 beds in Leicestershire by 2009, making a total of 2,545. This figure is in line with recommendations in the national beds inquiry.

  Hospital Treatments (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in Leicestershire in each year between 1992–93 and the most recent year for which figures are available. [149979]

  Yvette Cooper
  The tables show the total number of finished consultant in-patient episodes (FCEs) for patients treated in Leicestershire health authority for each year between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 and also the total
  111W
  number of outpatient attendances and first outpatient attendances for patients in Leicestershire health authority for each of the same years.

  Table 1

  Year

  Total

  1992–93

  161,824

  1993–94

  177,035

  1994–95

  191,032

  1995–96

  192,566

  1996–97

  200,726

  1997–98

  205,196

  1998–99

  225,384

  1999–2000

  233,159

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1992–93 to 1996–97 are grossed for coverage.

  2. 1997–98 to 1999–2000 figures are ungrossed.

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Table 2

  Year

  Total attendances

  Total first attendances

  1992–93

  584,426

  138,136

  1993–94

  600,394

  152,938

  1994–95

  616,252

  164,717

  1995–96

  627,634

  173,060

  1996–97

  662,124

  185,073

  1997–98

  686,184

  189,419

  1998–99

  690,263

  195,052

  1999–2000

  684,304

  192,227

  Source:

  Figures are taken from the annual Körner return KHO9 'Consultant outpatient attendance activity'

  "Outpatients and ward attenders for England", a copy of which is placed in the Library, contains information for individual NHS trusts along with summary tables for England. The returns are made on a financial year basis and the latest year for which data are available is 1999–2000.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his strategic planning unit was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150372]

  Ms Stuart
  The strategy unit was established in February 2000. It works with Ministers, special advisers and officials to produce internal policy advice. It has six full-time staff, four of whom are permanent civil servants and two who were recruited externally. Special advisers participate in the work of the Department in line with the model contract for special advisers.

  Christchurch Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 50W, on Christchurch Health Centre, if there was a
  112W
  reserve placed upon the value of the long lease when it was offered at auction; and if he will give instructions for the lease to be sold without reserve. [151517]

  Ms Stuart
  A reserve price was placed on the property when it was offered for sale by auction.

  Due to the nature of the property and the restrictive leasehold terms on which it is held, the professional advisers have recommended that terms should be negotiated for the release of the restrictions and then the property marketed by private treaty rather than by auction.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government's commitment of an additional £50 million funding for palliative care by 2004 will include taxpayers' support to children' hospices. [150728]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: An additional £50 million of national health service money is to be invested in adult hospices and specialist palliative care services. Children's hospices will continue to have access to funding through the NHS. In addition, we will shortly announce funding specifically for children's palliative care services, including those provided by children's hospices. This funding will be available through the new opportunities fund.

  vCJD-Infected Blood
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his Department's policy is on informing individuals that they have received blood from a donor infected with vCJD; and what assessment he made of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 in formulating his policy; [151309]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the dangers to others posed by individuals who have received blood from a donor infected with vCJD, of (a) donating blood, (b) donating organs and (c) undergoing operational procedures. [151310]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's CJD clinical incident panel is currently addressing these issues taking into account the Human Rights Act 1998. The panel's guidelines should be made available for public consultation later this year.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the NHS has identified individuals who have received blood from a donor infected with vCJD. [151308]

  Mr. Denham
  The study which the National Blood Service and the CJD surveillance unit are carrying out has indicated that 23 people have received blood transfusions from donors who went on to develop variant CJD.

  Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority
  Mr. Hepburn
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Health how many referrals from the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area have been refused by health trusts in the Northern Area in the last year for which figures are available. [151007]
  113W
  Mr. Hutton
  Figures on referrals that are returned by health trusts are not collected centrally. I understand, however, that a small percentage of referrals from the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area have been returned by the Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals national health service trust. The vast majority of these related to a planned service change in dermatology where, due to the anticipated cessation of a service level agreement on 31 March 2001, the trust would accept no further referrals after 1 January 2001. I further understand that, following discussions between the trust and the health authority, the trust is once again accepting referrals for this service.

  Mobile Phones and Health
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the task force led by Sir William Stewart and announced on 8 December 2000 to carry out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health. [151009]

  Yvette Cooper
  The new research programme announced on 8 December 2000 was launched at a scientific workshop in London on Friday 9 February 2001, when the first call for proposals was issued. The research will be undertaken under the direction of an independent programme management committee chaired by Sir William Stewart. Details of the membership of the new committee and the call for proposals can be found on the website www.doh.gov.uk/mobliephones

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken to assess the safety of radiation levels from telecommunication masts. [151628]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Stewart report on mobile phones and health provided a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research and considered the possible effects on health of mobile phones and base stations (masts). The report concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, in view of the concerns expressed by residents near base stations and the indirect affect on people's health, the report made a number a recommendations aimed at improving the public consultation and the availability of information about the siting of base stations.

  In its summary, the Stewart group commented that the upsurge of mobile phone technology should be matched by good quality research. We have responded by setting up a new programme. This joint Government and industry initiative was launched at a scientific workshop in London on Friday 9 February when the first call for proposals was issued.

  The Department is also continuing to provide financial support for the World Health Organisation international electromagnetic fields (EMF) project which is comprehensively reviewing EMF effects, including those of radio waves.

  In addition to research programmes, the Radiocommunications Agency is currently undertaking an audit of radio emissions from cellular base stations. The results from this audit will be made available on the RA website at"www.radio.gov.uk"

  Organophosphates (Prions)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed in relation to the possible subverting of healthy prions in mammals to rogue prions by reaction with organophosphates in the presence of manganese; and what implications such a reaction would have for the use of insecticide lotions in school hair lice eradication programmes. [151236]

  Yvette Cooper
  The hypothesis that organophosphates (OPs) cause BSE in cattle by reacting with prions in normal mammalian cells to produce abnormal prions has been assessed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. This is an independent expert committee established by Government to advise on all matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies. The committee concluded that none of the available scientific evidence indicates that the BSE epidemic is related to the use of OPs. This hypothesis was not consistent with the available epidemiological evidence. For example it does not explain the high incidence of BSE in Great Britain alone when such compounds are used throughout the world. Nor does it account for the fact that the BSE epidemic in Northern Ireland lagged behind that in Great Britain by some 2 years, despite the fact that OPs were used earlier, and at higher concentrations, in Northern Ireland.

  Since the evidence does not support the hypothesis, there are no current implications for hair lice treatments containing OPs. Such products are licensed by the Medicines Control Agency in the United Kingdom; it has to be satisfied regarding safety, quality and efficacy before such licenses are issued.

  Registered Authorised Persons (Sterilisers) Panel
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the criteria for selecting members of the Registered Authorised Persons (Sterilisers) Panel. [R] [150677]

  Mr. Denham
  The Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management (IHEEM) has delegated authority, on behalf of the Department, to manage and direct all aspects of the professional duties of authorised persons (sterilisers) (AP(S)). This function is performed by the AP(S) Registration Panel on behalf of the IHEEM pursuant to its terms of reference. Criteria for selection are set out in the terms of reference. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to members of the Registered Authorised Persons (Sterilisers) panel; and if members are required to declare relevant interests. [R] [150678]

  Mr. Denham
  The members of the Authorised Persons (Sterilisers) (AP(S)) panel are expert professional persons recognised by their peers. They are nominated to become members by their respective national professional bodies, societies etc. The full details of panel membership are included in the terms of reference, which have been placed in the Library.

  Members are expected to abide by their relevant professional bodies' codes of conduct, which include training and continuous professional development requirements as appropriate.
  115W
  Under the current arrangements, the members are not required to declare relevant interests. However, with regard to the role of the AP(S) the code of conduct is very specific on issues of potential conflicts of interest. This is applied consistently to the members of the registration panel.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the selection of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority to lead the public consultation into the proposed transfer of services and facilities from Harefield hospital, Middlesex to a new hospital in Paddington. [151260]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: At the meeting of the west London partnership forum on 23 May 2000, it was confirmed that the consultation process would be led by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority although all health authorities in west London would be active partners in the process. As with other public authorities, health authorities have a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in any way which is incompatible with a right under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is for the health authorities concerned to ensure that they consider, and seek appropriate advice on, whether their acts or decisions are compatible.

  National Service Framework for Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a national service framework for children will be developed by the NHS. [151375]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 17 February that a national service framework for children is now under development.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts outside the 20 participating trusts in the modernising National Health Service hearing aid service project meet the service criteria for accessing the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids; and what steps his Department is taking to provide funding for equipment and staff training to enable more trusts to meet the service criteria. [151761]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pending the outcome of the modernising national health service hearing aid services project, other hospitals with the appropriate staff, training, equipment and experience are able to access the NHS purchasing and supply agency contract for digital hearing aids.

  The Department will spend £10.75 million over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02, and if successful, a further £25 million to roll out the project to the rest of England.

  Elderly and Disabled (Care)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce a detailed definition of nursing care for the purpose of funding care for the elderly and disabled. [151905]
  116W
  Mr. Hutton
  In the Health and Social Care Bill, currently before Parliament, nursing care which cannot be provided by local councils is defined as care provided by a registered nurse, and involving either the provision of care or the planning, supervision or delegation of the provision of care.

  The Department is currently developing a tool to evaluate people's nursing care needs as part of work on the single health and social care assessment. National health service staff will be trained in the use of the tool in order to ensure that people receive the care they need from registered nurses, arranged through the NHS. Detailed guidance will be issued to the NHS in May.

  Appointments (Electronic Booking)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the IT contract for an electronic booking system for appointments will be implemented on time. [151842]

  Ms Stuart
  The project timetable will achieve the objectives in this area set out in the NHS plan, published in July 2000.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure on drug rehabilitation work in(a) Somerset and (b) England and Wales for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [151582]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 01 March 2001]: The information requested is not collected centrally. Information from drug action team template returns indicate that £151.8 million was spent on drug treatment in England in 1999–2000 by all agencies, although this is likely to be an underestimate due to incomplete data, as some drug action teams were unable to provide data either in time or in the format required. Somerset health authority received a drug misuse special allocation of £405,000 in 1999–2000.

  Spending Review 2000 provides for a major gearing up of adult and young people's treatment services, and will raise total expenditure on treatment to over £400 million in 2003–04. Although its final remit is yet to be finally decided, the proposed National Treatment Agency is likely to oversee performance management and development of local agencies, including approval of the treatment plans of drug action teams.

  Drug Addicts (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of(a) heroin users and (b) registered heroin addicts in (i) Yeovil constituency, (ii) South Somerset and (iii) Somerset in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [151581]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: Information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on the number of addicts in the Avon and Somerset police area notified by doctors to the Home Office as addicted to heroin during the years 1989 to 1996 is given in table 1 The index was closed from April 1997.
  117W
  The regional drug misuse databases (RDMDs), which report to the Department of Health, are now the main source of information on persons presenting to drug treatment services with a drug misuse problem. The number of users presenting to drug misuse agencies (including both doctors and other agencies) in the Avon and Somerset health authority areas with heroin as their main drug of misuse in each of the six-month periods ending 30 September 1996 to 31 March 2000 is given in table 2.

  The two sources of information are not directly comparable.

  Table 1: Number of new drug addicts notified and number of addicts renotified to the Home Office as addicted to heroin during the year by police force area of addict, Avon and Somerset, 1989 to 1996

  Year

  Number of new drug addicts

  Number of renotified drug addicts

  Total

  1989

  84

  153

  237

  1990

  122

  149

  271

  1991

  131

  141

  272

  1992

  210

  155

  365

  1993

  336

  195

  531

  1994

  514

  359

  873

  1995

  583

  544

  1,127

  1996

  745

  688

  1,433

  Source:

  Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1996 Area Tables (Tables A5 and A6)

  Table 2: Number of users presenting for treatment at drug misuse agencies in Avon and Somerset with heroin as their main drug of misuse during the six-month periods ending 30 September 1996 to 31 March 2000

  Six-month period ending

  Avon

  Somerset

  Total

  September 1996

  720

  120

  840

  March 1997

  747

  142

  889

  September 1997

  671

  96

  767

  March 1998

  624

  99

  723

  September 1998

  711

  154

  865

  March 1999

  997

  79

  1,076

  September 1999

  943

  63

  1,006

  March 2000

  1,118

  73

  1,191

  Source:

  Statistics from the regional drug misuse databases, Department of Health

  Tackling drug misuse is a national priority for the NHS and its partners. Ambitious targets have been set and fully backed with additional new resources to prevent drug misuse and to enable those with drug problems to overcome them. Heroin is targeted in our anti-drugs strategy as one of the drugs which causes the most harm.

  Social Services (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in East Sussex are not in receipt of care from social services following assessment, despite being entitled to such care; and if he will make a statement. [151785]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Care (Private Hospitals)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the volume of health care being purchased by the NHS from private hospitals broken down by health district and health specialism. [151875]

  Ms Stuart
  The concordat signed between the National Health Service and the Independent Healthcare Association sets out a framework by which the NE-IS is best able to utilise the resources of the private, independent and voluntary healthcare sector locally to deliver better services for patients. That framework provides for local agreement in planning how and when to make use of these independent sector facilities and for monitoring the arrangements.

  Any patient treated making use of the private or voluntary sector under the terms of the concordat remains an NHS patient and their treatment remains NHS treatment. Such patients remain the responsibility of the NHS.

  Organisation-specific and condition-specific data are not collected centrally. However, the total amount of NHS funds spent on the provision of hospital and community services for NHS patients treated outside the NHS for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are as follows:

  Year

  Total (£ billion)

  Percentage of NHS expenditure on hospital and community services

  1998–99

  1.25

  4.8

  1997–98

  1.08

  4.6

  1996–97

  0.87

  3.8

  Source:

  Common Information Core, Outturn 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the top decile of wards by rate of teenage pregnancy, giving the rate in each case. [151920]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information is collected nationally about numbers of teenage pregnancies by ward. However, it is not possible to calculate ward rates as denominators for the relevant population are not available

  Pressure Sores
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment the National Institute for Clinical Excellence have made of the savings that could be made by more effective management of pressure sores; [R] [152310]

  (2) if he has asked NICE to consider targets for reducing pressure sores as part of its current study. [R] [152311]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has not yet published a guideline on pressure ulcers, but it is intending to do so. We have not asked NICE to set targets for the national health service, but it will develop methods of clinical audit for the review of patient care.

  Intercountry Adoption
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to introduce regulations under the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. [152312]

  Mr. Hutton
  Section 13 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, in so far as it inserts a new subsection (3A) after subsection (3) of section 72 of the Adoption Act 1976, came into force on 31 January 2000. This makes it clear that only local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may carry out an assessment of the suitability of an individual to be an adoptive parent.

  Section 14 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 makes it a criminal offence for a person habitually resident in the British Islands to bring to the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption a child who is habitually resident outside those islands, unless they comply with requirements to be prescribed by regulations. We intend to implement section 14 in April, and will be laying regulations before the House shortly.

  We are continuing to develop regulations under the rest of the Act and will be consulting on these as soon as possible. We will lay the regulations in time to meet our commitment to ratify the 1993 Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption by 1 January 2002.

  Drug Tariff
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what target times have been set for(a) new and (b) similar products to be given approval for placement on the drug tariff; [R] [152308]

  (2) what the waiting time is for (a) new and (b) similar products to be given approval for placement on the drug tariff. [R] [152309]

  Ms Stuart
  Applications for listing of appliances in part IX of the drug tariff take different lengths of time to consider depending on the complexity of any issues raised. Processing times are around a month in very simple cases but can be over a year in the more difficult cases. Types of product which are new to part IX tend to raise more complex issues and hence do take longer, but this is not invariably the case. Target times have not been set, but our constant aim is to deal with applications in the minimum time consistent with full consideration.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which imported products are required to be labelled with the country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [152329]

  Ms Stuart
  United Kingdom and European Union law requires country of origin labelling on certain specified foods and on all foods in cases where its omission might mislead consumers as to the true origin of the food. We are actively pressing for these rules to be amended to require compulsory origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that food imported into the United Kingdom is labelled so as to indicate the country of origin. [151690]

  Ms Stuart
  Origin labelling rules are harmonised at European level. We are actively pressing for these rules to be amended to require compulsory origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products, and for clear rules on the use of terms like "produce of".

  Visually Impaired People (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the Government's additional funding allocated for community equipment services will be available for low vision equipment in Eastbourne; and what plans he has to appoint a visually impaired representative on the advisory group that will issue guidance to the NHS and Social Services. [152165]

  Mr. Hutton
  Additional funding for community equipment services has been included in allocations to health authorities 2001–02, with provision also made in the personal social services settlement. It is for health authorities and local councils to determine local funding priorities. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has a representative on the community equipment services external reference group, which has been advising on the planned guidance.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to answer the question of 15 January, [Ref. 146107] tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on TB in Avon. [151924]

  Yvette Cooper
  The hon. Member's question was answered today,Official Report, column 107–08W.

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

Age Discrimination and the Civil Service
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to end age discrimination in the Civil Service.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have taken steps to end unfair discrimination in the Civil Service on the basis of age. The Cabinet Office has issued age diversity guidance to all departments and agencies and monitors implementation each year and is also working with departments and agencies to review their policies in the light of the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, Winning the Generation Game. It is considering a scheme for the flexible deployment of senior civil servants aged over 50 aimed at offering a wide range of career and retirement options. These will include increased opportunities for some civil servants more easily to extend their careers beyond the age of 60. Departments and agencies are also considering the feasibility of change in their retirement policies for staff at more junior level.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. But does he not think that the ages of 50 and 60 to which he has referred are extremely junior for him to be looking at? Has not the time come for Her Majesty's Government to say that where there is a job that needs to be done
2
and there is a person who is ready, anxious, willing, fit and well taught to do it, that person should not be ruled out because of age at any age? Having regard to the excellent advice and guidance which the Government are now giving, can he tell the House whether there is even one government department that he knows of that has started taking advantage of that advice to change the system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that people should be judged on the basis of their ability to do the job rather than on the basis of their age. The Government signed up to an anti-age discrimination directive and worked within the Government to try to make that a reality within the Civil Service. As regards whether individual departments have signed up to that, in the junior Civil Service something like 27 per cent of civil servants are now covered by a compulsory retirement age above 60. As I indicated in my initial Answer, as regards the senior Civil Service, we are considering a scheme whereby from 50 plus a career path which does not necessarily end at 60 can be mapped out. Therefore, we are putting our money where our mouth is.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is age discrimination in professions other than the Civil Service, one of them being the Bar? Although there is no fixed retirement age in many parts of the legal profession, the Bar stands accused of age discriminatory practices. Is he aware that it is difficult to get a pupilage even if one is a mature student of about 35? Can the Bar learn a thing or two from the Government's attempts to tackle age discrimination as the Minister has just expressed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot for one moment claim to speak on behalf of the Bar. As regards the Civil Service, as the Civil Service itself recognises, there is a need for change and steps are in process to make that change. If, and in so far as, other professions need to learn from that, I hope that they do.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister think that it is a sign of increasing age that both questions and answers elongate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for the length of my answers: I am trying to deal as fully as possible with all the questions raised.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that while age discrimination extends to many other areas apart from the Civil Service, there is one example of progressive views on age discrimination; that is, in your Lordships' House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure whether there is age discrimination upwards or downwards but as one looks around your Lordships' House one sees everywhere the benefit of great experience.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I was glad to hear that the Government have set up the advisory service to help to find alternative employment for civil servants over the age of 50 or 60. Can the Minster indicate the extent to which it has been able to place those who have applied for assistance?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure to what the noble Lord refers when he mentions the advisory service. We are considering a scheme whereby from the age of 50 onwards in the senior Civil Service a career path is mapped out which does not necessarily end at 60.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, as regards discrimination in the Home Office, when I was a young detective inspector I sported a full beard when I was a member of the drugs squad. I applied for a job at the Home Office as a superintendent and I was required to shave it off. Will the Minister assure me that "beardism" does not still exist in the Home Office?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Question is about age discrimination rather than facial hair discrimination. I see that the noble Lord still sports a last vestige of facial hair.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, while being in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord's answers, I ask him how he will deal with the many members of the clan Buggins.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure what the question means. The approach to age discrimination is based on the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Janner: that people able to do a job should not be ruled out because of age.

German Beef Imports
2.42 p.m.
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether German beef imported as carcasses may lawfully be described as British produce after it has been processed into minced beef, pies, beefburgers or other prepared foods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I shall try to be brief! No. Minced beef may be lawfully described as "British" only if it has been slaughtered in the United Kingdom. More general rules apply to beef products like pies. These prohibit food labelling likely to mislead consumers about a food's true nature, substance or quality.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that most helpful reply. Does that rule apply also to sides of Danish bacon cut into rashers in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should have preferred to have some notice of that very good question. In my Answer I referred to beef products. With regard to meat such as lamb and pork or bacon, the situation is different. There is no requirement to give the details to which I referred in relation to beef. The Government want to see an extension to other meats of the beef labelling regime. The chairman of the Food Standards Agency has communicated with the commissioner within the EU who is concerned with these matters to urge that that is done. I agree with the implication of the noble Lord's question. We need implementation as fully as possible. The rules should not relate only to beef products.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, should carcasses be asked which cricket team they support?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I imagine that they would all support Warwickshire.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which is in the minds of many people. During the past week or so we have heard that five carcasses containing spinal materials have been imported from Germany. Can the Minister explain why the Germans are allowed to refuse to import British beef, which is now clean and healthy, whereas we continue to import German beef?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that it is France, not Germany, which has refused to import British beef. In relation to France, we have complained to the European Union and action is being taken against the French Government.
We have taken vigorous action as regards the SRM contamination found on consignments of beef imported from Germany since New Year's Day. It is the responsibility of the authorities in Germany and the Netherlands to ensure that SRM is properly

5
removed. We have taken up matters with the European Commission and the German national authorities. The Meat Hygiene Service was instructed to check all consignments of German carcass beef arriving at licensed British meat plants. We have asked local authorities to step up their own inspection duties.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I speak as a farmer who has not been near a farm for weeks. Whatever the trade agreements, why are the Government so reticent about preventing the import of beef from countries outside the European Union where foot and mouth disease is endemic? The Government have taken the right domestic steps in relation to foot and mouth disease, but farmers will not feel confident about the future until imports of beef or lamb from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic are banned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that EU certification rules require freedom from foot and mouth disease in a country or region before meat from susceptible animals can be imported into the EU. Consignments of meat from third countries entering the EU are subject to checks at border inspection posts.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, have the Government considered imposing a temporary ban on meat coming from Germany until Germany adheres to the regulations? If not, will the Government consider doing so now?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no, we have taken up most vigorously with the EU and the German authorities the need for the German authorities to take the appropriate action. I have no reason to believe that that is not the appropriate way to proceed. We continue to be as vigilant as we possibly can be. If there are any further cases—I hope that there will be none—we shall take up those matters with the German authorities and the commissioner.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, in order to clarify the matter, can the Minister confirm or deny that products are still entering the United Kingdom from countries outside the EU in which foot and mouth disease is endemic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that has happened with regard to legal imports.

Meat Hygiene: Dispute Resolution
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications in law pertaining to the word "arbitration" which made it impossible to introduce an "arbitration system" at the same time
6
as the Draft Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, "arbitration" in the sense of the Arbitration Act 1996 would invoke procedures which would be costly and time consuming for both operators and the Meat Hygiene Service. That is why the Government have approved the Food Standards Agency's proposal for a simpler and quicker procedure involving resolution of disputes by a nominated independent person.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am pleased that the new draft statutory instrument goes a long way towards providing that reconciliation method. Is the noble Lord able to give a categorical assurance that the informal arbitration system will be in place when the statutory instrument comes into force? Can he also state that the extra charges—they will be levied mainly on small abattoirs if there are problems—will not be raised for matters beyond the operator's control? I refer, for example, to diseases (which we have had recently), flooding, machinery breakdown, or even unforeseen illness among the staff.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the aim is to have the revised provisions in place by 2nd April 2001, and I would expect the new charges and the informal arbitration system to be in place also. That would seem right and consistent.
I stress that any increased costs to slaughterhouses would be a result of inefficient operation. The statutory instrument that will lay out the circumstances under which that might occur makes it clear that in the case of mechanical breakdown, for example, a charge might be levied if it was caused by lack of maintenance. The proposals are designed to deal with inefficiencies in the operation of a slaughterhouse rather than any external event.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the action on the Maclean report that the Minister has outlined in the regulations, but are not the Government shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Small abattoirs are now clearly beneficial in containing the spread of disease and encouraging farmers' markets. Should not the Government be considering incentives for small abattoirs rather than simply a change of charges?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the £20 million that it will cost to implement the Maclean Group's recommendations will be made available. That will benefit small and medium-sized abattoirs. I certainly accept that they have an important contribution to make to the rural economy. We need to find ways of encouraging their future development. However, acceptance of the Maclean Group's recommendations is an important part of that process.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, again further to the Minister's response to the noble Countess, Lady Mar,

7
is he definitely confirming that the independent arbitration service will be in place? His response to our debate on slaughterhouses only two weeks ago suggested that it would not be possible to have that service in place in time. That is why that debate was so important. We are grateful to the Government for having listened to it. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the debate in your Lordships' House three weeks ago was very important and informed the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service of the strong opinions of many in the industry. A meeting was held with stakeholders only last week when the Meat Hygiene Service went through the proposals. If an operator disagrees with a decision of the Meat Hygiene Service to levy an additional charge, the operator may ask for the dispute to be determined within a month by an independent person. The FSA will nominate a panel of independent persons, having first consulted the industry on its nominations. The aim is to have the process in place at the same time as the new charge regime comes into operation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some slaughterhouses where animals licensed for slaughter are currently taken are charging between 15p and 17p per kilo for the meat that they slaughter? Many farmers regard that as excessive.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not aware of that. It is a matter of concern if farmers feel that the current very serious foot and mouth situation is causing them extra hardship because of higher charges levied by some people in the industry. On the substance of the issue, the new regime with its system of appeal will provide a stable way forward for the slaughterhouse industry. After the discussions between the Meat Hygiene Service and representatives of the industry last week, I am convinced that those in the industry are satisfied and believe that the proposals are fair.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the working of the new statutory instrument depends on agreement and the setting up of a template between the Meat Hygiene Service and the abattoir owners and managers? How long will the abattoir owners be allowed to develop the template and will they be given any assistance in doing so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is very important that the Meat Hygiene Service and the operators feel that we have a fair and non-bureaucratic system that will enable us to take forward the proposals as soon as possible. Those proposals include having an independent person to review decisions if an operator disagrees with an MHS decision. I cannot give the noble Countess a definite date by which the template that she refers to will be completed, but I assure her that we wish to do that as soon as possible.
8
The Meat Hygiene Service will also wish to publish some general ground rules on how the independent person process will operate.

Caribbean Banana Exports: US Stance
2.56 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I tabled this Question some days before the Prime Minister's recent visit to the United States.
The Question was as follows:
Whether the Prime Minister, during his visits to the United States, will seek to persuade the Bush Administration to have a more flexible approach than its predecessor to the current dispute with the European Union over its banana import policy.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have consistently urged all parties to the dispute to negotiate towards a rapid solution that will be acceptable under world trade rules and will address the needs of vulnerable Caribbean banana-exporting countries. It is for the European Commission to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the European Union on the banana import regime.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the efforts that are being made to relieve the terrible poverty that has arisen in parts of the Caribbean through the inability to export bananas to the European Union. Will he impress on the United States, which is the most prosperous country in the world and whose co-operation is needed to achieve agreements, that if it does not agree, it will cause continued poverty and confusion in the Caribbean?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have consistently impressed on the United States that we have commitments to the Caribbean islands and that if the issue is not resolved the impact on them will be devastating. We shall continue to stress that.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, no doubt most of us sympathise with the Caribbean banana-producing countries. However—my noble friend will correct me if I have got this wrong—has not the dispute been to the highest levels of the World Trade Organisation's appeal machinery and has it not twice been ruled that the European Union is legally in the wrong? If so, on what basis can we continue the argument with the United States? Is it simply that we do not trust the appeal machinery and impartiality of the World Trade Organisation? I hope that that is not the case.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: the World Trade Organisation has twice ruled in favour of the United States on the issue. That is why we continue to look for a solution in line with the WTO regulations that also takes account of the fact that we are dealing with very vulnerable

9
Caribbean countries. If they are not able to produce bananas, the effects on their economies will be dire. The social consequences of that would not be in the interests of those islands or, ultimately, of the United States of America.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sanctions that were threatened by the United States put in jeopardy the existence of the Scottish cashmere industry? The Americans do not grow any bananas themselves, but it appears that American lobby organisations pushed their government to fight on the issue.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly one of the retaliatory actions taken by the United States was against the cashmere industry. The Government helped that industry at a time when the action was unauthorised by the WTO. The action is, of course, now authorised by the WTO. Although one may not agree with the actions of the Americans, it is perfectly legitimate that they support American companies which grow bananas and which believe that they are being unjustly treated by this regime.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a worrying issue in relation to the ACP producers is that, if they were to diversify, it would be into illegal substances? Surely that is the worst thing that any country in the world would want to see happen. In asking this question, I declare an interest as a residual beneficiary of a Caribbean banana plantation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is quite right. As I said, the social consequences would be devastating. Although it was not spelt out, clearly one worrying result would be that the areas into which they diversified would not be socially desirable.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when I replied on behalf of agriculture on this subject, it was without doubt the most difficult part of my portfolio? Can he tell me whether the European Union is speaking with one voice? In the past, Germany ate only dollar bananas and was not at all helpful towards us. Also, what is the state of the Lomé Convention?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as always with regard to these complicated negotiations, there is a range of views as to what is the best way forward. As a government, we voted against the previous proposal on this matter because we considered that it would neither resolve the situation nor deal with the vulnerabilities of the Caribbean islands. There is a range of views as to what is the best way forward. I believe that that is natural if a range of countries is engaged in the negotiations. So far as concerns the Lomé Convention, that has now been taken over by the Cotonou agreement. We have responsibilities under that agreement.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, although the support for Caribbean banana growers, which is
10
evident in all parts of the House, is very welcome, is my noble friend aware that not only is the proposed legislation put forward by the EU Commission in December for a tariff quota system on a first-come. first-served basis in defiance of the Cotonou agreement, but that it would have the effect of wiping out almost entirely the Caribbean banana growers because undoubtedly it would favour the larger dollar importers? In his dealings with the Commission, will he do his utmost to put forward proposals for a tariff system based on past trade? That would at least give the Caribbean growers some chance of retaining a foothold in Europe.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we voted against the proposal described as the "first-come, first-served" system because we felt that it would neither resolve the issue nor protect the Caribbean exporting countries. We felt that we had to vote against it because it would not achieve the desired ends. There are, of course, other ways forward, one of which is an historical licensing basis. Negotiations have taken place in relation to that. Therefore, other alternatives exist.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the attitude of the European Commission flexible enough to help in this matter? However, does not the final solution depend upon the co-operation of the new government of the United States, who seem to be most anxious to co-operate with us when possible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the co-operation of the United States is absolutely essential if we are to obtain a resolution of this matter which, as I say, meets our twin objectives of protecting the islands and doing so within the regulations of the World Trade Organisation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do we still have a special relationship and, if we do, is this not the time to make use of it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have consistently discussed this matter at the highest level with the United States. We shall continue to urge the US to be flexible in resolving the issue.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the conclusion of the Report stage of the Private Security Industry Bill, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the national minimum wage.
Parliamentary Referendum Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Conduct prohibited without a licence]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 43 and insert—
("(j) in circumstances in which it is proposed to impose a charge for the release of immobilised vehicles, he carries out on his own behalf or on behalf of another person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 4 will make it necessary for a licence to be required not only for wheel clamping on one's own behalf but also on behalf of another where it is done with a view to charging a release fee, whoever demands or collects the fee. Under this amendment, an unlicensed wheel clamper would be committing an offence, whether he was acting for the landowner or on his own behalf.
Amendment No. 4 paves the way for Amendment No. 9, which will prevent occupiers of land allowing the unlicensed clamping of cars parked on their property in circumstances where a licence is required. The amendment creates a new offence which will be committed by an occupier of land—whether he occupies the land in whole or in part—who uses the services of unlicensed wheel clampers under a contract for services or who permits unlicensed wheel clamping on his land with a view to charging a release fee.
These amendments are designed to strengthen further the provisions which we presented to Parliament to protect members of the public from rogue wheel clampers. The need for the amendments became apparent in the light of the debate that we had in Committee on Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The focus of that debate rested on activities such as those of a temporary door supervisor at a jumble sale or other one-off events.
In my reply, I made it clear that it was not the Government's intention to require a licence of those who carry out the activities prescribed by Schedule 2 without financial or other reward where they and those whom they help perform such activities on a noncommercial basis. However, we consider it important to make it clear that such assurances do not extend to people who supposedly volunteer to immobilise vehicles where that involves the motorist being charged a release fee. If we are not to create a loophole which will leave the public exposed to cowboy wheel clampers, such an activity requires regulation.
As your Lordships know, the effect of Clause 3(2)(j), as currently drafted, is to require someone who carries out wheel clamping on his own behalf, with a view to
12
charging for release, to have a licence. We consider that landowners might subvert that provision by letting others clamp cars for a release fee on their behalf. Provided that the clamper was not his employee, the landowner would not be liable for a penalty for having no licence. Similarly, the person who attaches the immobilising device could argue that he did not need a licence under paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 3(2) as he was not under a contract for services. The damper could also argue that he did not need a licence under paragraph (j) as he was not acting on his own behalf.
Of course, in a case of that type, it is likely that there would be a contractual arrangement of some kind for the clamper to provide a service to the landowner. However, we recognise that proving that and the fact that a licence was therefore required by the clamper might be difficult. Accordingly, the first amendment in relation to Clause 3(2)(j) seeks to require a licence not only for wheel clamping on one's own behalf but also on behalf of another where it is done with a view to charging a release fee, whoever demands or collects the fee. Therefore, an unlicensed wheel damper would be committing an offence, whether or not he was acting for the landowner or on his own behalf.
The amendment paves the way for our second amendment, Amendment No. 9, which will prevent occupiers of land from allowing the unlicensed clamping of cars that are parked on their property in circumstances in which a licence is required. Amendment No. 9 creates a new offence that will be committed by occupiers of land, whether they occupy the land in whole or in part, who use the services of unlicensed wheelclampers under a contract or who permit unlicensed wheelclamping on land when that is done with a view to charging a release fee.
The offence would largely correspond to the offence of using an unlicensed security operative, which is covered by the existing Clause 5. It is not intended that an occupier of land should be guilty of an offence where he has taken reasonable efforts to ensure that he used licensed operatives or where he tried to ensure that clamping carried out for him on a voluntary basis was not performed for a release fee. We propose therefore that the provision containing the new offence should include the same defences as are provided by Clause 5(2). By the same token, the offence is potentially as serious as the offence that will be created by Clause 5 and should therefore attract the same maximum penalties as are set out in Clause 5(4). I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my reading of the amendment is that licences will required for unpaid dampers. Those who are paid or who carry out wheelclamping as an owner will already be caught by the Bill. The first example that occurred to me is that of someone who clamps or who arranges for clamping to be carried out on his property but who sends his wife—or maybe one of his larger sons would be more appropriate—to do it. They would not be paid for carrying out the clamping and would not be caught by the Bill as it is presently drafted. The Minister gave

13
some other examples of what might happen. Clearly, there is a potential loophole in this context that we want to be closed. I hope and believe that the amendment will do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("; or
(k) he is required in the course of his employment to engage in licensable conduct falling within paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I moved a similar amendment during the Bill's Committee stage. The answer that I received then was that the amendment was unnecessary because it would involve double vetting of security staff; a company will vet its staff, but requiring a licence from the authority would be an uncalled for double precaution. I have considered that argument. The amendment is intended to obtain a firm undertaking from the Minister to the effect that he will ensure that the authority will bear in mind the potential loophole. The loophole was noticed by the Government when they produced the White Paper, which states:
"The Government believes that to exclude in-house security personnel from the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system".
My concern is that should it so happen that firms seek to circumvent the Bill simply by employing unlicensed staff when in ordinary circumstances they would have employed licensed staff through a company—if that loophole exists—the authority will quickly bring the situation to the attention of the Secretary of State, who will remedy it, if necessary through regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, there is some concern in the industry about the exclusion of in-house security staff not so much from the point of view of a company that decides to shift from contracting arrangements to employing its own security staff in-house, but the other way round. If a firm decides that its security arm is going to be contracted out, contractors will be required under the TUPE regulations to take on board security employees who are in the company but who are unlicensed. A contractor may therefore say, "Those employees are no good to me because they do not have licences". Alternatively, he might say, "They are okay, they have been doing the job, but they will have to go and get a licence and pay for it themselves". Employees in the industry are concerned about whether the impact of the TUPE regulations has been considered.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand that the amendment is intended to provide for the inclusion of "in-house" or directly employed staff in the licensing regime. That was certainly the effect that the noble Lord described when he introduced the amendment at an earlier stage.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising the matter again, not least because I did not respond to it as substantially as I could have done in Committee.
14
I believe that our position on this issue is well-known, notwithstanding what I have just said. None the less, the amendment provides me with an opportunity to explain the Government's position again.
As the noble Lord said, in the White Pa per we envisaged that "in-house" manned guards, along with other groups that are the subject of the amendment, should be included in the licensing regime. However, after further careful consideration we decided not to include them at this stage because we concluded that requiring all in-house manned guards to undergo effectively two vetting processes—by the employer and the authority—would add a largely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to business. In my view, there is bureaucracy and unnecessary bureaucracy, and we believe that the proposal would contribute to the latter.
The Bill does, of course, seek in any event to regulate some in-house staff—door supervisors and wheelclampers—for reasons that we have debated before; namely, the particular positions of influence and power that those groups exercise over people who may be young or vulnerable or both.
In general, we believe that it is reasonable at present for companies to satisfy themselves about the probity of their own employees or potential employees, as distinct from situations in which services are provided under contract and the hirer has to place a greater degree of trust in the probity of the hired staff. As with the other groups that are the subject of Amendment No. 40—that is, alarm installers and CCTV operatives—we are aware of the arguments for the inclusion of those groups in the Bill's regulatory regime. Indeed, as I noted earlier, we shared those views at the time of the publication of our White Paper. We do not believe, on reflection, that it is currently right to add that group to the provisions. When the security industry authority is established, it will have a duty to keep the industry and the operation of legislation under review. I have no doubt that the authority will receive arguments about in-house staff, and the Government will be very happy to listen to those views in due course. For the present, however, I should like us to get on with regulating those priority groups that are listed in the Bill; at earlier stages, we discussed what those groups might be. I hope that for those reasons the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee asked whether the effects of TUPE had been considered. The fairest thing to say is that the question of whether TUPE applies depends on the facts of the case. In some circumstances, it will most certainly apply. The policy remains that contract staff should be licensed. If new contractual arrangements apply, so will the Bill's provisions. I hope that that clarifies my noble friend's point. If he has further questions, we shall try to deal with them during the Bill's passage through the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, having received the assurance from the Minister that the matter will be reviewed regularly by the authority and that the appropriate representations will be made to

15
the Government on this possible loophole which may be taken advantage of, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 50, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall not be treated as acting as the manager or supervisor of an individual by reason only of his giving directions to that individual in a case in which—

(a) the directions are given on behalf of a person to whom the individual's services are provided under a contract for services; and

(b) the person who under the contract provides the individual's services or another person acting on his behalf, acts as the manager or supervisor of that individual in relation to the activities carried out by him in accordance with those directions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to respond to an issue raised in Committee and to deal with it by adding a further clarificatory explanation as regards the categories of people to whom the licensing requirements of the Bill will apply.
It was suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that managers or personnel directors of businesses who employ security firms under contracts for services may themselves require licences under the terms of Clause 3(2)(d) as drafted. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to concerns raised originally with officials by the Cinema Exhibitors Association which feared that cinema managers might require a licence from the authority for the one or two days a year when they might find themselves managing an extra draft of security staff contracted in for a special gala event.
The Bill requires licences for everyone in the employment hierarchy where door supervisors and wheel dampers are concerned, whether employed in-house or under contract. That is for particular reasons of public concern which I have explained to your Lordships on previous occasions. However, it has never been part of the Government's policy in regulating the private security industry that users of security services should be licensed. The prime focus of the Bill is to provide reassurance for users about the providers of contract security services.
So I should put on record my gratitude to noble Lords opposite for raising the matter and for giving voice to the concerns of the Cinema Exhibitors Association on this issue. On reflection, we can see how the drafting of Clause 3(2)(d) might lend itself to the concerns previously expressed. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, this amendment seeks to add clarification in Clause 3 to the effect that managers and supervisors in client companies are not covered by the licensing regime, regardless of whether they are managing or supervising contracted-in staff directly or through what might be described as intermediate managers who have also been contracted in. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation in moving the amendment but I have one question relating to it. What he said about the general principle of the extension seems rather to differ from what he said in a letter he wrote to those who took part in the Committee stage about non-executive directors.
That letter stated that,
"the question was raised as to the extent to which non-executive and personnel directors should be required to have licences. We believe that it is right to extend the licensing requirement to such senior staff, even though their position in the company may not give them direct responsibility for the security services provided".
That principle seems to be rather different from that which the noble Lord has just outlined in relation to the amendment. I find his letter rather surprising because it refers to "senior staff" and non-executive directors are not senior staff and never can be. Perhaps the Home Office should ask the Department of Trade and Industry for a description of what a non-executive director is.
I realise that the amendment which the Minister moved does not exactly relate to non-executive directors but the principle is the same. It seems to me that we are treating two rather similar groups under an entirely different principle. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. It has given the Bill additional clarity because the Bill as originally drafted would have caused concern for those people who bring in additional staff, using contractors, because the question would arise as to whether or not they need to be licensed. Clearly, the Minister and the department recognised that they are not a suitable category to be licensed. Otherwise, anyone who hires a security firm would have to be licensed which would clearly be an unacceptable state of affairs. So as regards the amendment and the specific point which it addresses, I certainly welcome it and the constructive attitude which the Minister and the department have taken.
However, my noble friend has raised some interesting issues about non-executive directors, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. It is slightly different in that non-executive directors are not necessarily the customer for the security services. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to answer the issues which my noble friend raised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, acknowledged, the amendment is directed at managers, personnel directors of business and so on. It is the users that we are concerned with here. On the distinction as regards non-executive directors, I shall reflect on the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised, although it is not our intention to cover it by this amendment. I shall certainly seek clarification as to whether that area also needs to be covered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
REGULATED CLAMPING
("—(1) A licence shall not he required under section 3 of this Act for activities carried out to deter parking on private land without permission, which are conducted in accordance with regulations proposed by the Authority and contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under this section shall include—

(a) maximum permitted charges for release of an immobilised vehicle,

(b) a requirement for the display of a notice describing how to obtain the release of an immobilised vehicle and the hours at which it can be released,

(c) a requirement that when a business owns or occupies the land in question the vehicle can be released at any time during the hours of business,

(d) a requirement that when the land is attached to a dwelling the vehicle can be released at any time during the hours of daylight when the premises are occupied, and

(e) such other regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put forward this proposition in Committee and received some sympathy from the Minister and others. But at the same time there was also some criticism of the particular formulation which I used and so I return to the charge here.
The underlying point is that I believe that properly conducted wheel-clamping is a valid way for someone to protect his property from rogue parking. Our debates have sometimes proceeded as though there are only rogue dampers and no rogue parkers. But we know that there are rogue parkers. After all, government and more particularly local government have acquired from Parliament over the years all sorts of powers to deal with rogue parkers, including clamping, fines, towing away and so on. So the phenomenon is well understood.
Of course, the more that local authorities attack people who park on the roads in various ways, the more people are tempted to park on a piece of private land that may happen to be available. It is not always easy for individuals to protect their own land which they use for parking by means of fences, gates and so on. For example, it is particularly inconvenient for a shop which wishes to have customer parking in an area where parking is difficult in the middle of a town or for an individual who has a house somewhere near the shops and wishes to park his car on his own land but finds that shoppers are inclined to park on it if he is not careful. That is why I thought it would be a good idea if, subject to a set of regulations to be laid down and varied as necessary if they were being misused, an individual should be able to clamp vehicles on his private land.
When we discussed the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, expressed some sympathy for the idea but thought that it should be in a separate clause rather than as an amendment to a clause, which is how I drafted it at the time. I have therefore moved it into a separate clause.
The Minister seemed to have some private sympathy with the idea but then read out the ministerial brief which was against it. He even envisaged using clamps to protect his own front garden in certain circumstances. However, I have tried to meet his arguments which were, essentially, that the amendment would open the door to clamping being carried out by criminals.
This formulation gives the authority the power to propose a set of regulations which would have to be followed by anybody who wished to use that power. And if he wished to go outside what was allowed in the regulations, then a licence would be required and he would need to go through all the hoops set out in the Bill.
I have also provided for the Secretary of St ate to keep Parliament involved in agreeing to the regulations. The regulations could easily say that no one with convictions—particularly unspent convictions—could clamp. The Minister also said that the regulations should be clear and robust. I agree. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to suggest that the Home Office is incapable of drafting clear and robust regulations. Of course, it is not. It can certainly achieve that with the assistance of the authority.
Finally, the Minister said:
"it is an offence, with certain common-sense exceptions, to use a wheelclamp without a licence".—[Official Report, 30/01/01; col. 671.]
As far as I can discover., there are no common-sense exceptions in the Bill as it stands. This is an attempt to place some on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for placing this provision in a new clause as opposed to an amendment to the schedule. However, I am concerned about the power being given to anybody to clamp on their land no matter what sort of land it is. It seems to me that this places in the hands of the public a draconian power.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is a liberal power.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is a liberal power from one point of view, but a draconian power from the point of view of the motorist. Most of us tend to wear both hats. I am a liberal but I am also a motorist. I am not sure that the two things marry. If the regulations specified the kind of land that would be appropriate to be designated, I believe that the clause would acceptable. I would like to hear more in relation to that before I gave my wholehearted support to it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on his ingenuity and wit in bringing this new clause before us. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is more liberal than most on such matters, but perhaps I am closer to his position on the amendment than to that of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, putting on one side my initial sympathy.

19
In Committee we made it clear that our intentions are twofold in relation to regulating wheelclamping on private land. First, we want to keep criminal elements out of wheelclamping and, secondly, we want to make the matter as simple and as straightforward as possible so that, when confronted with a demand for payment or release, the motorist is able to determine that the demand is made in accordance with the law and not in the form of blackmail.
The amendment introduced by the noble Lord is identical to, but in a different format from, that which was produced in Committee. It adds a provision enabling the Secretary of State to make such other regulations as he or she may think fit. As before, it would exclude wheelclamping that conformed to the requirements set out in the regulations from the requirement of a licence issued by the authority. I am afraid that, as before, we consider that the Bill, if amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord, would fail to meet both of the twin objectives to which I have referred. It would permit a loophole for those with criminal convictions to operate as wheelclampers and, sadly, it would not give the public the safeguard of being able to see the licence of anyone demanding a release fee.
Wheelclamping for a release fee is an industry which, if not regulated strictly, will attract nefarious and devious operators wanting to make easy money. I can see how that can be done. Without a licensing system, it is possible for anyone to seek employment, or to act in a self-employed category, without anybody knowing whether he has been involved in a criminal activity in the past. Under the licensing regime proposed under this Bill, the security industry authority would be able to check an applicant's past before granting a licence. It would be proper for the authority to refuse a licence where an applicant had a string of convictions for offences of violence against the person. Not only does the requirement of a licence screen out criminal elements, but it also makes it a criminal offence to operate without a licence as a wheelclamper for monetary gain
I accept that the regulations proposed by the noble Lord could go into considerable detail. They could be, as he says, robust. They could even require an adherence to a code of practice and participation in some sort of an appeals system, but the teeth that come with a robust licensing system, effectively, would be missing. We believe that it is most important that the authority has the power to withhold licences from those who are absolutely unfit to hold one and to withdraw licences from those dampers who fail to adhere to the conditions attached to them.
A further consideration is that we have already provided for some flexibility in allowing for employers who want to wheelclamp vehicles on their own premises and who can satisfy certain conditions to have just one licence that covers all their in-house employees engaged in wheelclamping.
20
To sum up, we feel that this amendment would create in law a situation almost as ambiguous as the current, unacceptable situation. Although I may have sympathised with it, reality tells me that it would be unacceptable and probably unworkable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister came near to accepting that the regulations could cover all the difficulties in relation to this matter, but although he has some sympathy with it, I understand that he is prepared to put that on one side in order to object to the amendment. In those circumstances I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Offence of using unlicensed security operative]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("activities") and insert ("conduct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is purely technical. It substitutes the word "conduct" for the word "activities" in Clause 5(3). That clause refers back to Clause 4 which, in turn, makes provisions for exemptions from the need for a licence when circumstances as defined make a licence unnecessary. It engages in certain types of "conduct" that is made subject to the licensing requirement by Clause 3. The exemptions in Clause 4, therefore, also refer to "conduct", and for consistency Clause 5 should also refer to "conduct" rather than to "activities".
As far as we can see, there is no substantive effect other than to make the wording of the Bill more consistent, and noble Lords opposite are keen to ensure that we satisfy consistency. For those reasons, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause
OFFENCE OF USING UNLICENSED WHEEL- CLAMPERS
("—(1) A person who is an occupier of any premises is guilty of an offence if —

(a) any individual carries out, in relation to vehicles on those premises, any designated activities consisting in activities to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 (immobilisation of vehicles) applies;

(b) the carrying out of those activities involves that individual's engaging in licensable conduct in respect of which he is not the holder of a licence; and

(c) those activities are carried out with the permission of that occupier or for the purposes of, or in connection with, any contract for the supply of services to him.

(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show either —

(a) that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, at the time when the activities were carried out, that the individual in question was not the holder of a licence in respect of those activities; or

(b) that he took all reasonable steps. in relation to the carrying out of those activities, for securing that that individual would not engage in any licensable conduct in respect of which he was not the holder of a licence.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of the carrying out of activities which are comprised in any conduct of an individual in which he is entitled to engage by virtue of section 4.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
("—(1) An individual, partnership or company which employs security operatives to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies (door supervisors, etc for public houses and clubs and comparable venues) shall be liable, in contract and in tort, for the acts and omissions of its security operatives where they inflict personal injury to any person—

(a) at the suit of that person, where that person is or desires to be a guest or customer of the venue,

(b) where that personal injury is inflicted within or in the vicinity of the venue, and

(c) at a time when the security operative is at work.

(2) It shall be the duty of any such individual, partnership or company to maintain, for public inspection, upon reasonable notice and upon the payment of such fee as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe, a list of the individuals to whom paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies, and the dates upon which they worked, and their hours of work.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an individual, partnership or company employs a security operative if he has security operatives on his premises, notwithstanding the fact that those security operatives may be employed or remunerated by another individual, partnership or company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 refers to a matter that was discussed in Committee. I attempted to suggest that those who run clubs and have bouncers—this amendment refers to that part of the Bill—should be able to be held responsible for the bouncers' conduct, should they damage any of the customers—although generally those who fail to become customers are affected—or other members of the public in the course of their activities.
The Minister was not prepared to accept the proposal in Committee because he pointed out that the amendment as previously drafted would have made the employer liable for all actions, including those of a bouncer who when driving home had a crash or when he was operating quite outside the control of the owner or owners of the club. We have therefore redrafted the new clause to include a list of such factors. The provision would then apply only to an incident in which the bouncer was damaging someone in the course of his work. It would not apply when he was on a frolic of his own.
The problem is that when someone injured in such a way attempts to sue, it is found that the bouncer has no money; that it is difficult to discover his name and address or to pursue the matter; and that owners of
22
clubs are not always willing to stand behind the actions of their employees. We are attempting to ensure that they are willing to do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10. It contains an element of my Amendment No. 18A in that it seeks to address what lies behind the actions of individuals. I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend who believes that individual bouncers might commit offences. They might rough people up or throw them down the stairs and could come into violent contact with customers. The owner of the club or the manager of the company could stand aside and say, "It wasn't me; it was these people we hire under contract with a security firm and any damage they do is nothing to do with us". The customer could be put in a difficult situation if he felt he had a case to make.
The amendment gives managers of night clubs and security companies an incentive to ensure that their employees behave themselves according to the law and the regulations relating to their conduct. They cannot be told privately, "Get tough with such and such a group. Make sure they are thrown downstairs vigorously", or whatever the unlawful instruction might be. If such incidents occur and if customers come into contact with bouncers who are not behaving properly, it should not be the case that only that one individual can be sued. Those who are behind him should be sued, too, and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the new clause is a considerable improvement on the previous one. It confines the scope to a limited situation. The owner of the club is liable only for the acts and omissions of his security operatives in personal injury cases: where the person is a customer; where the injury is inflicted within the vicinity of the venue; and at a time when the security operative is at work. Those are well defined and confined circumstances.
As I said in Committee, the issue is one of insurance. Overall, knowing the problems which exist when bouncers inflict injuries on customers and then disappear, there is considerable merit in the suggestion put forward.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment is interesting and has been improved since we discussed the matter in Committee. It places additional requirements on the employers of door supervisors and those who may use door supervisors without themselves employing them. It also places a vicarious liability on those employers or other users for the actions of the door supervisors.
We had a considerable debate on the matter in Committee and I said that I would take time to reflect further. We have examined the issue again, particularly in the light of the need to balance the interests of the public at large against the need not to over-regulate businesses. Having done so, I remain of the view which I set out in the Committee; that in the

23
full context of the provisions of the Bill, the amendment places a disproportionate burden on businesses.
It is already the case that a member of the public who has a complaint against a door supervisor should be able to ascertain the relevant information from the employer. He could also ask the police to help in his inquiries since a personal injury inflicted by a door supervisor is likely to be a criminal matter.
However, one of the main benefits of the regulatory framework established by the Bill will be a substantial improvement in the quality of staff undertaking door supervisor services. Over time, the security industry authority will ratchet up standards of training and conduct as part of its evolving licence criteria. But perhaps the biggest impact will come early on, when the authority judges licence applications on the basis of an enhanced criminal record check, which will provide it with information about spent and unspent convictions, minor convictions and local police intelligence. The incidence of violent door supervisors operating legally at pubs and clubs should be very substantially reduced.
Against that assumption, the Government believe that the additional duties placed on employers by the amendment to keep publicly available records of door supervisors' names and addresses, and the dates and hours of work, is disproportionate.
Although I have reservations about the regulatory burden of the proposal, there would be nothing to stop the security industry authority from making it a condition of the approved contractor's scheme under Clause 14, into which we expect market forces to draw the majority of contractors. Under such an arrangement, the pub or club could tell a member of the public with a complain the name of the firm supplying its door security services and that firm would be able to say who had been despatched to work at the pub or club at the relevant time.
The second aspect of the amendment relates to vicarious liability which, as I said in Committee, raises further questions. Vicarious liability is firmly established at common law as a principle which makes employers liable for the acts and omissions of employees who are acting "in the course of their employment" rather than, as has been said by the courts, "going off on a frolic of their own".
The amendment would appear to make a door supervisor's employer liable in contract and in tort for relevant actions and omissions of his employees. If a door supervisor decided to assault someone while carrying out his duties, the employer would already be liable to pay compensation for the actions. I am not convinced that the amendment adds significantly to the position already established under common law and it creates uncertainty by introducing new rules of vicarious liability to operate alongside the existing common law rules.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that a person or a body is to be regarded as the employer of a security operative just by having one on the premises,
24
even if he is supplied under a contract of services. So a landlord may go to the trouble of employing a reputable company and yet still be liable for misdeeds on the part of the door supervisor. That extension of the vicarious liability principle goes far beyond the needs of common law. In our view, it would impose an unfair and wholly unjust system on those who retain door supervisory staff.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is likely to be a dialogue between the doormen who are supplied on contract and the owner of the night-club? Does he agree that in many circumstances it is feasible that instructions will be given by the owner of the night-club to the doormen? Although they are not employees of the night-club owner, the latter may well say, for example, "This is our policy for tonight", and influence the actions of the doormen, not just their manager.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount is right that it may influence their behaviour on the night, but no doubt the overriding consideration is what is in the contract between the owner of the club and the provider of the service.
Any person who is assaulted by a door supervisor is likely to have redress against that door supervisor's employer. The assault would also probably be a criminal offence—I do not believe that we should dismiss that lightly—with the consequence that any victim would be likely to be entitled to submit a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. We remain unconvinced by the amendment, improved though it may be.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the great advantage of imposing a discipline upon the owner of the night-club to ensure that his operatives do not indulge in unacceptable conduct? Certainly, the clause provides for more than vicarious liability—it is strict liability—for the acts of bouncers who are employed at the club. That may well be a good thing, because it will ensure that at all times the owner of the club maintains considerable oversight of what goes on, knowing that if he allows anything untoward to happen he will be strictly liable for it. In many instances, strict liability has advantages.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I see the noble Lord's point, but in any event the owners of the club must conduct themselves properly. They will have responsibility for what happens on their premises. In any event there is also the question of the contractual arrangements which are in place. I do not believe that this amendment adds anything of weight. The argument is that it extends vicarious liability too far. It will probably place an unnecessary burden where it does not need to rest. I cannot see any advantage in the amendment beyond what is already provided for in the legislation. Although the amendment has been modified, I believe that noble Lords opposite should reflect on what I have said about the nature of vicarious liability. I hope that at this stage they will not

25
pursue the amendment which would be undesirable. I shall carefully study what has been said during the course of the debate, but I am not minded to accept the amendment even in its modified form.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I admit to being very susceptible to arguments about not placing undue or extra burdens on employers and businesses generally. However, the argument comes less satisfactorily from this Government who in this Bill and the one to be debated later today, as well as in other legislation, are constantly creating more burdens and licences and setting up more authorities to supervise different kinds of businesses. I believe that a clause of this character—obviously, I am not wedded to the precise wording of the amendment—would make the liability of the employers clearer than does the common law, and hence it would have a beneficial effect on the behaviour of door supervisors.
The Minister has generously agreed to consider the matter further. We shall also reflect on it. Meanwhile, we must continue to rely on the common law and perhaps, ultimately, the requirement on the new security industry authority both to raise standards and to keep the law under review in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Licensing criteria]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 43, after ("the") insert ("training and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 is a small and, I argue, perfectly formed but useful amendment which responds to some helpful points made in Committee about the relationship between the authority's functions as established in Clause 1 and the detailed expansion of some of those functions in subsequent clauses. Noble Lords opposite variously commented upon the connection—or, as they saw it, the disconnection—in the Bill between the authority's functions in Clause 1(2)(e) to set and approve standards of, among other things, training, and the licensing criteria as set out in Clause 6(3)(b), which allow the authority to include criteria relating to skills in judging licence applications.
One may argue that the reference in Clause 6(3)(b) to "skills" hits the right target, since what the licence applicant is proved to be capable of may be far more relevant in terms of licensing criteria than training that he may happen to have undergone, perhaps badly. However, we regard the points made by noble Lords opposite as useful in fleshing out the description of the criteria that may be applicable by virtue of Clause 6. This amendment adds a reference to "training" in Clause 6(3)(b) to complement the existing reference to "skills" and to make it clear that both concepts can and may be used to inform the authority's determination of
26
its licensing criteria. I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for their good arguments at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences to engage in licensable conduct]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert ("shall carry a photograph of the licence holder and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a simple amendment which refers to the licence to be granted by the authority. We believe that it would be much better if the licence carried a photograph of the licence holder. After all, passes issued to your Lordships and Members of another place include photographs. The same applies to passports, firearms certificates, shotgun certificates, new driving licences and a good number of credit cards. I am sure the Minister will say that this is a matter for the authority, but we believe that this is important. Problems often arise because of identification, particularly in this industry. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable for Parliament to impose on the authority a requirement that a photograph be included. This is a minimal cost in terms of the licence, and it arises in a number of other situations. I hope that the Minister welcomes the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, but that is a rather different consideration. I appreciate the argument that the noble Viscount makes in moving the amendment. He is absolutely right that photographic licences can be seen with increasing frequency. Passes, passports and driving licences now include photographs. This provision is not something that we want to have on the face of the Bill; it is a matter that Parliament traditionally expects to see in the form of regulations. We believe that it is important for this matter to be dealt with in regulation. We do not want to set in stone in a Bill a matter of detail rather than a philosophical issue or something of practical substance. Although we appreciate and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for reasons of practicality and the way in which we construct legislation we ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment. Certainly, I cannot conceive of an effective licensing regime which does not make use of photographs of licence holders. However, this is not the way to deal with the issue; it should be a matter for secondary legislation. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. I appreciate what he has said, but is he proposing that the Government will bring forward regulations that

27
include the necessity to have a photograph on the licence? If that is what I think he is saying, I should be delighted to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not quite saying that. It is likely that that is exactly what we will do, but it is for the regulations to deal with that particular issue. I cannot give the complete assurance that the noble Viscount seeks. However, in these circumstances, I cannot conceive of a licence that will not have a photograph on it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has gone 99 per cent of the way. I am grateful for that. Perhaps between now and Third Reading the Government will consider what is to go in the regulations and write to me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert —

("(9) In exercising the functions prescribed by this Act, the Authority shall act with reasonable care and skill and shall—

(a) be liable at the suit of the person or persons claiming to have sustained loss or damage for any loss or damage sustained as a result of a breach of such duty; and

(b) have it within its discretion to compensate any person or persons claiming to have sustained such loss or damage.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the authority's duty to behave with reasonable care and skill. The essence of the amendment is in paragraphs (a) and (b). They state that a person who has sustained loss or damage can ask for compensation because an authority has acted in some way that it should not, and that the authority could compensate. The Minister may tell me about the appeals procedure and so on. In many cases a dispute is better settled before an appeal. Therefore, I should like to know, if the authority feels it has made a mistake, recognises that it has and does not want to go through the whole appeal procedure, will it be able to say, "We recognise that we have made a mistake and that you have had some damage or loss to your business or earnings. Therefore, we have the power to give you some form of compensation". It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether an authority can do that.
We want as much flexibility as possible because there will be cases where people feel aggrieved. Authorities will not get the matter right in every case. As happens in many other instances, we want a system of—what one might call—negotiation because it would certainly not be right for every form of dispute to go through a complicated appeal mechanism. That would be hugely time-consuming for the authority and would not make sense. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment is similar to one tabled in Committee. During that debate I explained that the duties of the
28
authority and the rights of individuals affected by its decisions would be subject to remedies that already exist, either within the drafting of the Bill or elsewhere in existing statute or common law. The amendment does not add substantively to either the duties of the one or the rights of the other.
I believe that the motivation behind the amendment is to explore what might happen in a case where the authority has licensed someone it should not, and, as a result, the wrongly licensed person uses the opportunity to commit an offence which would probably not have been available to him without his licence.
The security industry authority will, in common with other public bodies, have a general duty to act reasonably, including with appropriate care and skill. The decisions that it makes will be made on the basis of published criteria. That should provide for a transparent decision-making process.
Should any individual consider that he has been treated unfairly, he already has the right to take legal action. For example, individuals who consider themselves adversely affected by a decision of the authority not to grant them a licence to undertake security activities, or by a decision to modify or revoke their licences, will have, in addition to any more general rights of redress, a specific right of appeal to the magistrates' courts against the authority's decision.
The position of a member of the public who alleges an assault undertaken in the course of licensed activities for which the alleged assailant should not have been granted a licence is more complex. The fact that someone is injured by a person holding a licence under the Bill does not mean that the authority should be held liable for the injury. The authority would be liable only if it could be shown to have acted negligently. That would be the position under the existing law, and the amendment as currently drafted is not designed to alter that position.
On the other hand, a suit of negligence may not be available as a remedy if the authority has reached its decision to issue a licence properly on the basis of the information available to it, even if that information is subsequently shown to be inaccurate.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Viscount in support of the amendment, but I remain of the view that I took in Committee. I believe that existing safeguards are adequate. I hope the noble Viscount will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When I sat down I realised that I should have gone on and actually covered the point about an individual suing the authority if a licence holder does some damage. I was probably keen to hear the Minister's reply and get through the process. However, I am very grateful to him for dealing with that point. That has been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Licence conditions]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) conditions concerning the use of guard dogs as defined in the Guard Dogs Act 1975;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another small and perfectly formed additional amendment. It is tabled for the purposes of looking again at the Guard Dogs Act 1975. By modern terms, that is quite ancient legislation and, so far as I know, not particularly actively used. I tabled the amendment as a result of correspondence from members of the public who were concerned that guard dogs should be properly used in connection, in particular, with the activities of manned guarding as set out in Schedule 2(2) to the Bill.
It is interesting to see that Schedule 2(2) states the activities as,
"guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation, against outbreaks of disorder or against damage"
and so on. Those are exactly the kind of activities where guard dogs are frequently used. The amendment seeks to ensure that the authority has control over the way guard dogs are employed to make sure that the licence holder is carrying out operations with proper safeguards. I commend the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should remember the details of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 because I have to say to the noble Lord that—rather depressingly—I was in your Lordships' House at that stage. But some of the intricacies have temporarily slipped my mind; so I shall allow the Minister to deal with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in 1975 I think I was collecting my degree from Sussex University. So my mind was not fixed on the Guard Dogs Act.
Clause 8 sets out the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe the conditions on which a licence must be granted and the power of the authority to impose additional conditions. As has been noted, we previously discussed this matter in Committee. Noble Lords opposite saw the open-ended nature of the list of conditions. It is my recollection that I replied that Clause 8 was an example of what the Government see as the important flexibility of the Bill's framework provisions. The conditions listed in Clause 8 relate to training, registration and insurances of licence holders, the manner in which they carry out their activities, the production and display of licences, the provision to the authority of information, and such other conditions as may be deemed to be entirely necessary.
These licensing conditions apply to all the types of private security activities that are regulated by the Bill; that is, the activities that are set out in Schedule 2. One of these activities is the generic group which Schedule 2 calls "manned guarding", and it is within that group that the activities of private security operatives using guard dogs would fall. It is therefore already the case that the Secretary of State has the power under Clause
30
8 to prescribe any conditions that ought to be attached to licences issued to private security dog handlers by the security industry authority.
Obviously, it is too early for me to indicate whether the Secretary of State and/or the authority would actually want to prescribe any such conditions over and above those already applying by virtue of the Guard Dogs Act 1975. I can, however, assure the House that the authority will be giving careful consideration to the types of conditions it judges ought to be attached to licences in a way which is appropriate to each particular sector of the private security industry, and that, if additional conditions are judged to be necessary in relation to the use of guard dogs, they will be proposed. I hope that, having heard that reassuring explanation, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Minister has satisfied me that the authority will have this kind of problem very much in mind. It is an important safeguard for the public that guard dogs should operate under strict conditions. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Revocation and modification of licences]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 46, at end insert—
("(4) It shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that arrangements are in place—

(a) for the notification by the police to the Authority of any matter appertaining to a licence holder which might be relevant to the modification or revocation of the licence; and

(b) for dealing with complaints by members of the public against any licence holder.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee. I have brought the amendment back on Report because I am not sure whether the Government gave a satisfactory reply in relation to it. Although there are provisions in the Bill for creating criminal offences and for licence holders to be fined or sent to prison, there is nothing in it that enables a court to remove a licence from a person who is a licensed security operative as defined in the Bill. That being the case, it will be for the authority to consider anything that may arise as a result of a conviction, but the authority can do nothing unless it is told of a conviction, a caution or complaints made by members of the public against a specific licence holder. Unless the authority has information, the authority will be unable to act.
In theory, as matters stand, it would be possible for a person who is a licence holder and is employed, for example as a bouncer, to be convicted and for him to continue to hold a licence. No one would tell the authority. Nothing would happen. He could go to another employer who did not know about his conviction, produce his licence with a photograph on it as required under the regulations that we have heard will be imposed, and get another job. That is highly unsatisfactory.
In response to the amendment brought forward in Committee, the Government said that what was proposed was all very detailed and that the issue would eventually be dealt with in regulations. That is not sufficient. I really do think that it is important to place on the authority the duty to obtain the kind of arrangements that are set out in the amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have sympathy with what is proposed in the amendment. Paragraph (a) asks for arrangements to allow the police to notify the authority of relevant matters. Paragraph (b) would ensure that the authority had to set up a complaints procedure which members of the public could use. It might be thought that the industry itself would not necessarily want the authority to deal with complaints. However, the contrary is the case. Only a day or two ago I received a letter from one of the large companies in the industry saying that it is important that the security industry authority should establish an open complaints procedure which is fair, fast, effective and accessible to members of the public and in which the public will have confidence. That is quite right not only as a general point but also because of the Human Rights Act, which requires fair and effective remedies.
I am further told that a similar Bill to this is being considered by the Irish Government. That Bill establishes a system of complaints against licensees by members of the public. In practice, it will often be as a result of complaints about the behaviour of those with licences that the authority will be able to consider properly whether to take away someone's licence or to threaten him with taking it away if his behaviour does not improve. The complaints part of the amendment is important as well as the ability for the police to notify anything that may come to court.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is vital that there should be a proper flow of information between the police, the courts and the authority and that the duty on the authority should be made clear. I suggest that the best place for that is the face of the Bill. I also wonder whether there should not be a duty on police forces to provide that information.
As the amendment is drafted at the moment, the duty is on the authority to ensure that arrangements are in place. I wonder whether, in addition to that, there also needs to be a duty on those who hold the information to divulge it, not withstanding other constraints that might be on them in terms of divulging what might in other circumstances be confidential information.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right. Proper arrangements should be put in place to ensure that we do not go to the enormous trouble of regulating more than 100,000 individuals and yet the public still do not have confidence because they cannot be sure that the information flows correctly from one arm of
32
government to the other. It is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate his commitment to joined-up government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that there is a great deal between us on this issue. It is more a case of how we get to the end-point. In keeping with the framework approach that we are adopting in this legislation, we do not consider that it is necessary to place on the face of the Bill a duty on the authority to establish appropriate arrangements with the police service.
The authority will as a matter of course need to establish highly effective channels of communication with all bodies with which it will need to work. In particular, it will need to work closely with the police and come to a detailed operational understanding with them as to how they exchange relevant information. As we said in Committee, we believe that the precise arrangements are best left to the authority, once established, and the police to determine. Placing an explicit requirement in the Bill to ensure that the arrangements are set up in this case might place us under pressure to make similar explicit reference to the other bodies with which the authority will need to work closely.
I have already indicated my reluctance to see such requirements to consult the industry being included in the Bill. Similar arguments might be made with regard to the Criminal Records Bureau, local authorities and so on. That reluctance does not stem from any lack of concern that the appropriate arrangements should be made. Quite the reverse is the case. I am entirely clear in my mind that they are an integral part of the effectiveness of the authority's operations and that they will happen.
The authority will also wish to establish a complaints procedure against licence holders. In deciding whether to continue, modify or revoke a licence, the views of the public and the customers of licence holders will be of critical importance. More widely, the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation in general will mean that it will need to keep its ear close to the ground so as to hear exactly what is going on. A complaints mechanism—and a wider vehicle for other types of public comment—will make an important contribution to the authority's discharge of all of its responsibilities.
I am clear that what lies behind the noble Lord's amendment will happen. However, for the reasons that I have provided, I am reluctant to incorporate his amendment into the Bill. I hope that this explanation will have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The issues that he has quite properly identified are ones that the authority will need to address once it is up and running. I do not believe that there is any distance between us on that point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I very much welcome the sentiments expressed by the Minister, but I am disappointed with his reply. This is an important

33
issue. The authority could declare that, "Our budget is only so much and we will not set up a complaints procedure. We will not put into place these mechanisms because we do not have enough money in the kitty. The Government have given us only so much". This might come down to budgetary requirements. For that reason, I may well return to this matter on Third Reading. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 7, line 46, at end insert—
("14) The Authority may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for action to be taken under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, in the event that the Authority considers that the removal of licences would not provide, or had not provided, an effective sanction against a body corporate which it has reason to believe is engaged in illegal activity in connection with the provision of security industry services.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted seeks to tackle the problem of regulating the security industry, which provides an extremely valuable service, but has within it elements that cause concern to the Government, to the police, to other bodies and, indeed, to the vast majority of respectable firms operating within the industry. That is to be welcomed. However, the mechanism on which the Government have decided concentrates on the rogue individual—a person with criminal convictions, who may lie on his job application form or perhaps who has a history of stealing—who is then put in charge of guarding cash. The burden of the Bill is to bring a large number of people under the auspices of what will be the security industry authority and for that authority to have the regulatory burden of issuing over 100,000 licences, or perhaps even as many as 300,000 licences. That is a great burden. To issue such a large number of licences and to ensure that all the details are correct on every occasion will be a major task.
With this amendment I am concerned not so much with a rogue individual, but with a rogue firm. I think that the Minister will agree that there have been circumstances where a disreputable security firm has provided a front for other criminal activities. It might be controlled by criminal elements. What action can the security industry authority take against a firm which, fundamentally and organisationally, is corrupt; that is, the corruption does not lie only with the individuals employed by the firm?
The Bill states that licences may be withdrawn from individuals. Thus, licences could be withdrawn from certain front-line employees, from managers and even from the directors of a firm. However, would this be effective or even fair? Circumstances could arise where the real controller of a firm hides behind a "front" of people whom he has put in place as directors or managers. Those people would have their licences withdrawn, but the underworld individual could simply employ more front men to take their places.
I draw a parallel here with the regulation of the finance industry. Not only are the individuals employed by, for example, an investment bank
34
licensed so that they face the penalty of having their licences revoked if they behave improperly, but also the investment bank itself needs to hold a licence to conduct its various activities. If I, as a regulated individual, were to undertake an activity not permitted by the regulations, I could have my licence or registration withdrawn. However, in the event that a bank behaves incorrectly as in, say, a BCCI-type of circumstance in which fundamental problems are revealed as regards the ownership and control of the institution, those problems can be directly addressed by the appropriate authority.
No parallel to that can be drawn here. If a security firm is known to be involved in criminal activities, the individuals employed in that firm can have their licences withdrawn, but it will be difficult for the authority to take proper and responsible action against the firm as a whole. Simply withdrawing the licences from all the employees in a firm is a clumsy way of addressing the problem. It penalises individuals who could be perfectly innocent. I invite the Minister to explain to the House how he proposes that the authority should take action against a rogue firm. Can he tell us how this could work under the auspices of the gaming legislation covering bookmakers? Earlier the Minister drew a parallel with bookmakers. Is it the case that each individual working for a bookmaking firm is licensed or regulated, or is there an overall licence or permit held by the bookmaking firm?
The Minister has been extremely helpful. He met me in the interval between the Committee stage and Report and he has already written to me on this subject. In his letter he stated that:
"The problems which concerned you are not really problems that the SIA is being set up to deal with".
According to the wording of Clause 1, the Minister is correct to say that. However, I suggest that, in the round, he is not correct. I am extremely concerned that the SIA and the regulatory system being put in place will not be able to take firm action against a fundamentally corrupt firm engaged in criminal or dubious activities. If proven cases of criminal activity were revealed, I see that that would be a matter for the police. However, I suggest that this should also be a matter for the authority in reviewing the operation of the company itself, just as the relevant authorities would become involved if the police revealed details of insider trading in the securities industry.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cope sought to ensure that nightclub owners could be sued as a result of the actions of those who operate as bouncers on their behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, then rightly pointed out that that would provide an incentive for the owner of the nightclub to ensure that nothing untoward would take place in his name. Similarly, to rely on the regulatory framework provided by the Bill without any additional safeguards will provide no incentive for a firm to manage its affairs correctly; namely, to observe the equivalent of compliance procedures to ensure that employers act properly. We are left in a position where a couple of employees may behave improperly and

35
have their licences withdrawn—a couple of foot soldiers go down—but no real damage is done to the economic interests of those who run the firm.
The specifics of my amendment are not particularly interesting or amazing. They merely seek to put on the face of the Bill what the Minister described as his "last resort", effectively; that is, that the authority may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for action to be taken under the provisions of, I believe, Section 447 of the Companies Act, which allows the Secretary of State to apply to the court for a company to be wound up in the event that that company is shown to be a danger to the public.
I suspect that the Minister will say that this can be done anyway; that it does not need to be written onto the face of the Bill. At this stage, I am not seeking to up-turn the framework that we have discussed for the provision of regulation of the security industry; I am concerned that the Home Office has not provided a comprehensive explanation of what action would be taken under such circumstances. I invite the Minister to do so. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House and the Government a service by drawing attention to the problem of what to do about rogue companies as well as rogue individuals. I am aware that my noble friend has been in correspondence with and met the Minister and his officials in regard to this matter. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount on raising this issue. His concern is entirely appropriate. I found our meeting most useful and helpful. I apologise if I did not then provide the noble Viscount with a sufficient explanation of the current position in regard to investigating criminality in businesses. If he wishes me to put that explanation on the official record, I am more than happy to do so.
The noble Viscount is concerned that a shady or downright criminal firm might appear to be legitimised by the granting of licences to its members of staff, its managers or its directors; that such a company might continue to engage in illegal activities, perhaps directed by a real controller whose connection with or dominance of the business was not apparent; and that if some lower grade operatives were found out, lost their licences and were prosecuted, they could be replaced and the business could continue as before, as the noble Viscount said.
I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount's concerns, but I should say, first, that I do not believe that it is for the security industry authority to deal with such matters—which, I believe, is the position taken by the noble Viscount earlier—nor do I believe that the Government are washing their hands of the problem.
There are already extensive powers, both under the criminal law in general and the Companies Act 1984, as amended by the Companies Act 1989, in particular,
36
for action to be taken where there are suspicions similar to those which have been raised in your Lordships' House. I have provided the noble Viscount with details of the powers contained within the Companies Act. These include that, on direction by the Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, inspectors can seek information about a company and its directors and decide whether they should seek a winding up of the company in the public interest or the disqualification or prosecution of a director.
Where matters in an investigation suggest that a criminal offence may have been committed, the matter will be referred to the appropriate prosecuting authority—for example, the police or the Serious Fraud Office. Where there is evidence of misconduct by a company's directors, the DTI can ask the courts to disqualify them. This would stop a person acting as director for 15 years—a very powerful instrument, I suggest. When the public is at risk, the Secretary of State may ask the court to stop a company trading with immediate effect. It is surely true that if those powers are unable to deal with a sophisticated operation such as the noble Viscount appears to have in mind, then the security industry authority is very unlikely indeed to mount effective action.
However, the noble Viscount makes a profoundly modest proposal; that is, that the authority should simply be able to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to exercise his powers under the various Companies Acts to investigate and, if necessary, close down problem businesses which the authority's licensing regime cannot address.
As I understand the relationship between this legislation and the Companies Acts legislation, there is absolutely nothing to stop the authority drawing very plainly to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry the activities of a company which it has reason to regard with profound suspicion but against which it cannot act within the terms of its legislated functions. I hope and expect that the DTI will be one of the stakeholders with whom the authority will consult regularly in the course of its operations, as we have debated earlier during the course of the Bill.
Having said that, I do not believe that it is necessary to take the amendment into the Bill. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance to the House and to the noble Viscount to enable him to withdraw his amendment. I believe that that is where we should best leave the matter this afternoon.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He said that my amendment is otiose because the authority can do what is suggested in it without a specific power. I accept that. My amendment was designed to draw the Minister and to discover whether the Government recognised that there was a potential problem.
I believe that there is a serious potential problem. That was highlighted when the Minister said that it was unlikely that the SIA would be in a position to mount effective action in the event of a seriously

37
corrupt firm undertaking security activities. The Minister should be worried about that. If such a situation arose we could be left with the worst of all worlds, where 200,000 or 300,000 people have been regulated and yet still the public cannot have confidence that the regulating authority can do anything about a potentially serious threat to the reputation of the industry where criminal activities can be carried out under the guise of respectability. The Bill could lead to bent firms being given an aura of respectability and the authority being unable to take effective action against them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it is not a very sophisticated operation that is required, as the Minister said? A person who was incapable of obtaining a licence in his own name—perhaps because of his past convictions and record—could easily set up a company with nominee directors who would obtain licences and operate in that way? It is a very wide loophole.
Viscount Goschen: Precisely, my Lords. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for his concise explanation. It does not take much for someone to put forward their brother-in-law or their friend—whom they met perhaps not in prison but in school—as the managing director of a firm and perhaps two or three other friends as managers or directors.
There is the potential for a serious problem. I cannot understand why this regulatory framework should be so different from that of the financial services industry or the book making industry. If the Minister has the information available to explain now how this legislation will work, it will be easier for the House to understand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may return to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, described as a "wide loophole". If the loophole is as wide as the noble Lord suggests and the noble Viscount avers, the modesty of the amendment which the noble Viscount proposes will not be likely to meet it. As I have said to your Lordships, in any event this matter can also be dealt with simply by the SIA communicating with the DTI in the terms which I described earlier. The modest measure which is proposed is provided for already. We can already refer issues to the DTI for investigation.
The noble Viscount asked me to respond to the point about licences for casinos. The noble Viscount also mentioned bookmakers. The gaming industry may he particularly prone to potential criminality—perhaps that is why the noble Viscount mentioned it—because of the large volumes of cash that are handled. However, I do not think that the same concerns apply with regard to security firms. For those reasons we do not think that additional controls beyond the extensive powers in the DTI legislation will be necessary.
There is a parallel here which I have certainly drawn in the past, but we do not see it in quite the precise terms of the noble Viscount. He was right to raise the issue. However, we believe that his concern can be met
38
through the relationship that is likely to exist between the SIA and the DTI as a key stakeholder and regulator of companies. I think that experience will bear out that belief. As I say, the noble Viscount was right to raise his concern but we believe that it can be met. As the noble Viscount said, his proposal is modest. If the loophole is as large as he suggests, I do not believe that his modest proposal would meet it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly agree that my amendment is extremely modest. Strictly speaking it is unnecessary, as the noble Lord has already said that what I seek to do can already be done. I accept that. It was a probing amendment. I apologise to the House for the somewhat lengthy explanation of it. The purpose of bringing it forward was to try to draw from the Minister an explanation of what cards he has up his sleeve to deal with rogue firms. I am in no way convinced that the Minister has a full hand here. He said that the casino industry handles large amounts of cash. However, the guarding industry is probably also involved in the movement of large amounts of cash, and sometimes criminal elements with shotguns try to "stick it up".
I am surprised that the noble Lord has not been able to explain fully why there is a difference between the way in which casinos and bookmakers are regulated and the way that is proposed for the security industry. However, I believe that there will be an opportunity for further dialogue between now and further stages of the Bill. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Appeals in licensing matters]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause—
APPEALS IN LICENSING MATTERS
("—(1) Where

(a) an application for a licence is refused,

(b) a licence is granted subject to conditions imposed under section 7(6), or

(c) a licence is modified or revoked,

the applicant or, as the case may be, the holder of the licence may appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court against the Authority's decision to refuse to grant the licence, to impose those conditions or, as the case may be, to modify or to revoke the licence.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought before the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the decision appealed against was first notified to the appellant by the Authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (I) the appropriate magistrates' court is the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated, as the case may be

(a) the address for the appellant that has been supplied for the purpose of being recorded (if a licence is granted) in the register maintained under section 11: or

(b) the address for the appellant that is for the lime being recorded in that register.

(4) Where a magistrates' court makes a decision on an appeal under subsection (1), an appeal to the Crown Court may be brought against that decision either by the Authority or by the person on whose appeal that decision was made.
(5) A court to which an appeal is brought under this section shall determine the appeal in accordance with the criteria for the time being applicable under section 6.
(6) Where an application for the grant of a licence by way of a renewal is refused or a licence is revoked, the licence to which the application or revocation relates shall be deemed to remain in force—

(a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);

(b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;

(c) for the period from any determination on appeal that a licence should be granted until effect is given to that determination, or it is overturned on a further appeal;

(d) during any such period as the appropriate magistrates' court or the Crown Court may direct, pending an appeal from a determination made on an appeal to that magistrates' court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these grouped amendments are intended to make improvements in the provisions of the Bill relating to appeals from security industry authority and local authority decisions.
In Committee noble Lords opposite tabled a number of amendments designed to make improvements to the drafting of Clause 10, which establishes appeals mechanisms from decisions of the security industry authority to refuse to grant a licence or to modify or revoke one. The main arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Thomas, were that the clause should require, rather than merely permit, the Secretary of State to establish appeals mechanisms; that they should be established by the Lord Chancellor rather than the Secretary of State; that the detail of the appeals tribunals should be set out on the face of the Bill rather than left to secondary legislation; that it would in any case be better to establish a system of appeals to magistrates' courts; and that there should be a right of appeal against decisions to grant a licence, as well as against decisions to refuse, revoke or modify.
I said in reply that I would take away the many points that had been raised and consult further with Members of the Committee. I indicated in my closing remarks on Clause 10 that I believed that the parties were united in wanting to design a simple, effective and cost-effective appeals mechanism. In the light of that I have to tell your Lordships that the Government have given careful consideration to the proposals that were raised in Committee. We have concluded that it would be right to amend and expand the provisions both in Clause 10, which relates to appeals about individual licences, and in Clause 17, concerning appeals about decisions within the approved contractors scheme. Amendments Nos. 19 and 24 amend our proposals for an appeals system by introducing a right of appeal against authority decisions to the appropriate magistrates' court and thereafter to the Crown Court. By "appropriate" magistrates' court we mean the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated the address which the applicant has supplied
40
in connection with his application for licensing as a security operative or approval under the approved contractors scheme. Appeals must be made within 21 days. Where the appeal relates to a renewal of a licence or company approval, the amendments provide that the licence or approval, as the case may be, shall remain in effect while an appeal is pending or under consideration or while effect is given to its outcome.
The amendments do not confer formal rights of appeal on third parties who may disagree with decisions reached. Where an application for a personal licence or company approval has been refused, revoked or modified, the aspirant to the licence or approval may appeal to the magistrates' court. Appeals against a magistrates' court ruling may be made by either the aspirant to the licence or approval, as the case may be, or the security industry authority. The Government have considered the question of the interests of the wider community where a third party considers that the security industry authority has awarded a licence or approved a company when it should not have done so. In these cases the third party is free to draw the authority's attention to what he believes to be the error in the authority's judgment or the piece of information he believes it has overlooked. The authority will need to consider such approaches seriously, and has adequate powers to investigate their veracity and relevance. Where the authority subsequently finds itself minded to agree with the third party's objections, it will have the power to revoke or modify the licence or approval in question, having given the licence or approval holder the opportunity to comment.
It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for appeals in licensing decisions taken by local authorities under devolved arrangements for licensing door supervisors under Clause 12. Amendment No. 21 addresses that point and applies the appeals mechanisms that will be established by new Clause 10, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 19, to decisions taken by local authorities. This means that where a local authority has, under arrangements as devolved to it from the security industry authority, refused, revoked or modified a licence for a door supervisor, the door supervisor has an avenue of appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court in just the same way as he would have had against a decision taken centrally by the security industry authority.
I am grateful for the arguments that were raised in Committee. I believe that these amendments address substantively the concerns that were raised and that the result is a substantial improvement in the Bill and the rights of all of those concerned in the industry. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also think that the amendments improve the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for considering so carefully the arguments that we made in Committee. I am even more grateful to him for agreeing to them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for listening to the arguments which we put forward from these Benches and for coming forward with proposals which are entirely acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Register of licences]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, leave out line 18 and insert—

("( ) the name of the holder of the licence;

( ) an address for the holder of the licence which satisfies the prescribed requirements;

( ) the time when the licence will cease to have effect unless renewed: and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments add to the information that must be published in the registers for individual licence holders and approved contractors—namely, the expiry date of personal licences and company approvals. They also seek to allow the authority to be able to prescribe which address should be published on the register.
During the debate in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested an amendment which would add a requirement for the register of approved companies to show the date on which a company received approval and the date it was due for renewal. As I said in the debate, the Government agree that the publication of the expiry date of the company approval would he a valuable addition. I also said that it would be equally valuable in relation to the register of individual licences established under Clause 11. I undertook to bring forward our own amendments to address these points.
These amendments will add, therefore, a requirement into both Clauses 11 and 13 that the registers, in addition to the information already prescribed in those clauses, should also publish the expiry dates of personal licences and company approvals.
The second effect of the amendments arises from our having considered some concerns that were expressed in Committee about the publication of addresses on the registers. Clauses 11 and 13 at present require that the registers shall publish the names and addresses of the licence holder or approved person as the case may be. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed some fears that the publication of a security operative's address in a publicly accessible register might leave him or her open to pressure from criminals threatening his or her family. This is an important point, and we have taken it seriously. It is another anxiety to be considered within the current atmosphere of concern about animal rights activists. The Bill as currently drafted places no requirement on the register to publish the home addresses of security operatives; indeed, the address of the operative's employer would be more appropriate and useful given the nature of the registers. These amendments therefore clarify that the address to be published in the registers is that which "satisfies the prescribed requirements"—that is, the address that is supplied when a person applies for a licence or a company
42
approval. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the business address of the firm employing the security operative.
It is true that security operatives who work from home would thereby have their home addresses published. However, people working from home must already have made their address available, not least to potential customers. I am not convinced, therefore, that the publication of their place of business—which seems unavoidable if the system of registers is to work effectively—should be a significant concern.
There is a second effect of requiring the register to show the address that "satisfies the prescribed requirements". Other amendments standing in my name today introduce into Clauses 10 and 17—in response to concerns expressed in your Lordships' House—an avenue of appeal from authority decisions to the "appropriate magistrates' court". Those amendments define "appropriate" as being the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which stands the address for which the applicant is or would be registered. The expansion in Clauses 11 and 13 of the address to be published in the registers establishes a more transparent link to the amendments which relate to the appeals to magistrates' courts.
I hope that the amendments will delight and enthuse Members of your Lordships' House. I think that they satisfy concerns raised earlier. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has again had the wisdom to agree with some of the arguments put forward in Committee; and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Licensing at local authority level]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 5, at end insert
("( ) Section (Appeals in licensing matters) shall apply in relation to a decision made by a local authority in accordance with an order under subsection (1) as it applies in relation to a decision of the Authority; and where it so applies it shall have effect as if the references in subsections (2) and (4) of that section to the Authority were references to the local authority that made the decision in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Register of approved contractors]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 9, leave out line 28 and insert—
("( ) the name of that person;
( ) an address for that person which satisfies the prescribed requirements;").
Page 9, line 29, after ("approved;") insert—
("( ) the time when the approval will cease to have effect unless renewed;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals relating to approval]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause—
APPEALS RELATING TO APPROVALS
("—(1) Where—

(a) an application for an approval for the purposes of section 14 is refused,

(b) conditions are included as conditions of such an approval, or

(c) such an approval is modified or withdrawn,

the applicant or, as the case may be, the approved person may appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court against the Authority's decision to refuse to grant the approval, to include those conditions or, as the case may be, to modify or to withdraw the approval.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought before the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the decision appealed against was first notified to the appellant by the Authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the appropriate magistrates' court is the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated, as the case may be—

(a) the address for the appellant that has been supplied for the purpose of being recorded (if an approval is granted) in the register maintained under section 13; or

(b) the address for the appellant that is for the time being recorded in that register.

(4) Where a magistrates' court makes a decision on an appeal under subsection (1), an appeal to the Crown Court may be brought against that decision either by the Authority or by the person on whose appeal that decision was made.
(5) Where an application for the grant of an approval by way of a renewal is refused or an approval is withdrawn, the approval to which the application or withdrawal relates, shall be deemed to remain in force—

(a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);

(b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;

(c) for the period from any determination on appeal that an approval should be granted until effect is given to that determination, or it is overturned on a further appeal;

(d) during any such period as the appropriate magistrates' court or the Crown Court may direct, pending an appeal from a determination made on an appeal to that magistrates' court.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 12, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 to 29.
The grouped amendments standing in my name relate to the security industry authority's powers of entry and inspection as set out in Clause 18. Clause 18 as drafted allows a person authorised in writing by the authority to enter any premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to him to be a regulated person, and to require the production of documents or other information relating to the provision of designated
44
security services. Noble Lords opposite were critical of this clause when it was debated in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out that the power to enter premises appeared to be unfettered and he was very concerned that it appeared to include the right of entry into domestic premises. The noble Lord referred to the safeguards that would accrue if the power were limited to one which was exercisable solely on production of a warrant from a justice of the peace. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked the Government carefully to consider the provisions of Clause 18. The noble Lord saw merit in allowing an inspector to enter business premises in a routine inspection but shared the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about entry into domestic premises. As he often does, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, criticised trenchantly the clause as adding to the number of powers of entry and inspection.
In reply to those criticisms, I indicated that I believed that noble Lords had raised a serious matter. I had reservations about the need for the power of entry to be exercisable solely on production of a warrant, but I was willing to consider excluding from the provisions of Clause 18 premises used solely as domestic premises. I undertook to think seriously about the important issues here.
I have now done so, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 25 is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 29. Amendment No. 26 gives effect to my undertaking in Committee to exclude premises occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling. As I indicated, I was persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lords opposite on this point. The amendments do not introduce a requirement for a warrant in order to enter such private domestic premises. Amendment No. 26 simply takes such premises out of consideration.
That does not mean, however, that private dwellings that are also used as business premises are excluded from inspection. That is what Amendment No. 27 put forward by noble Lords opposite seeks to do. The principle behind that amendment seems to be that an Englishman's home is his castle, even when it is also an office. I am sure that the amendment would introduce a potentially serious weakness in the authority's ability to enforce its licensing regime. The Government argue that individuals undertaking particular trades or professions implicitly bind themselves into the regulatory frameworks which relate to those occupations. That must include the right of the central authority to exercise, within a proper regard for civil liberties, its duly established inspectorial functions. This amendment would give carte blanche to security operatives and managers who wished for criminal or unscrupulous purposes to evade the authority's reach to do so simply by running their business from home. I cannot believe that such a loophole would remain unexploited by those very people we have most reason to hope will be the subject of some of the authority's closest attention—the unprofessional door supervisor company or the rogue wheelclamper.
It was argued in Committee that warrants should be required for entry by the authority into some or all properties owned or occupied by regulated persons. One might argue that if the Government are not willing to exclude from the authority's reach residential properties that are also used for security businesses, they should consider a requirement for the authority to obtain a warrant before seeking to enter business premises which also happen to be used for residential purposes. For reasons I outline in relation to amendments relating to Clause 18, and as I have outlined above, we are not persuaded that a warrant should be required in order to exercise powers of entry into business premises. An authority which regulates a business sector should be able to exercise reasonable powers with regard to the premises on which that business is being conducted.
A door supervisor, for example, or his manager or employer who arranges future bookings from his kitchen table by means of a mobile phone is conducting a business and should be subject to checks by the authority. In order to do so, however, the authority should need to be satisfied that a business is being conducted in that way. There is no question of the occasional business-related phone call from home bringing domestic premises into the ambit of Clause 18 as we now propose to amend it.
The Government continue to believe that a warrant should not be required in order to exercise powers of entry into business premises. We believe that a valid distinction can be drawn between the need for judicial authorisation before the state interferes with citizens' privacy and the legitimate constraints on members of a chosen trade or profession. Individuals in a wide variety of businesses and professions implicitly agree to be bound by the regulatory and other frameworks that apply to that business. In many cases that includes a right of inspection by a central authority that is proportionate to achieving central objectives.
I stress that nothing in the Bill confers powers of entry by force on the authority. Amendment No. 28 introduces additional safeguards that I hope commend themselves to your Lordships. The person authorised by the authority to exercise the power of entry and inspection must do so only at a reasonable hour. What is "reasonable" must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the business undertaken. For example, firms supplying door supervisor services may still be operating in the early hours of the morning, when those services are still being supplied. It may be reasonable for the authority to want to see what is going on at that time. There will equally be many situations in which a request for entry at such an hour would be manifestly unreasonable. The facts of the case must decide the authority's actions and the likelihood of any action being brought against it as a result.
Amendment No. 28 also imposes a number of requirements on how the person exercising the powers shall proceed. He must comply with reasonable requests for him to state the purpose for which the power is being exercised. If requested, he must also show the authorisation that he carries from the
46
security industry authority and produce evidence of his identity. He must also make a record of the date and time of his entry, how long he remained on the premises and his conduct while there. Finally, he must, if requested, provide anyone on the premises at the time with a copy of that record.
Amendment No. 29 introduces a requirement for the security industry authority to prepare and publish guidance on the manner in which authorised persons should exercise their powers and how they should conduct themselves while doing so. The authority must bring that guidance and any updates to it to the attention of those persons likely to be affected by it—that is, persons in the industry who may be liable to inspection. The guidance might contain information relating to what the authority takes to be reasonable hours according to circumstances, any limits on the number of officials allowed to enter or the length of their stay on regulated premises and the training they may receive in relation to their powers. No doubt it will also cover other issues.
The amendments provide valuable safeguards for those who will be regulated by the security industry authority. I believe that the balance of enforcement and civil liberties is now right. I am grateful to those who made their cases so persuasively in Committee. I hope that the noble Lords will not move Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 is an amendment to Amendment No. 26, which is in this group. I am grateful to the Minister for having moved a long way and entirely in the right direction on powers of entry. He has set out a number of additional provisions that make the powers much more reasonable, not least the fact that they are exercisable only at a reasonable hour.
However, I still have a difficulty with the word, "exclusively". As the Minister said, the protection is provided only to premises that are occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling. Of course, in some cases the majority of the premises concerned are used as an office but there happens to be some residential provision as well. Other people conduct a certain amount of their business from their house. Investigators, for example, may live some way away and cover a different area of the country from the main area covered by their company. They may operate their part of the business from their private house. In such a case, to an extent the person with the licence submits himself to the licensing regime to do his business.
However, there may be someone who requires a licence to do his job and does none of it from home, but whose wife conducts an unrelated business from the home. Such domestic premises would not be classified as a private dwelling used exclusively for residential purposes because of the wife's business. Although his home would be protected if she did not work, the fact that she conducted an unrelated business from there would open it up to the powers of entry.

47
That is why I have hesitated over the word, "exclusively". I do not pretend that leaving out the word will result in perfect drafting, because the boundary is complicated, but the point is worthy of the Minister's consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we expressed in Committee. We have now witnessed the strange resurrection of liberal Bassam. He has been demugged on the issue and we are grateful to him for bringing forward a reasonable system for entry and inspection.
However, I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, about the use of the word, "exclusively". I understand what the Minister and those who have drafted the Bill are getting at, but there is a danger that the loss of status of private dwelling by reason of an unrelated business could open up the licence holder to inspection without the need for a warrant. The drafting should be looked at again.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my tribute and thanks to the Minister for having moved so far. However, there is still a significant difference of opinion—not, perhaps, between the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lord Cope and me, but between the Home Office and us. In the administration of the laws, rules and regulations with which our complicated society is inevitably involved, there is a need for entry to premises. I totally accept that. That need will apply in many spheres, but the philosophy of Amendment No. 27 is that it should be by agreement and normally by prior arrangement. There are some welcome phrases along those lines in one of the government amendments.
However, the power to insist on entry in the case of a refusal is a much more serious matter and should be seen as such by the entering authority and the citizen. It should be flagged up as such. If there is to be any insistence on entry in such a case—I am not talking about forcible entry in the physical sense—it should be necessary to use warrants. It should be a step which any honest citizen would seek to avoid.
If an official had legitimate reasons for coming to see me anywhere on business or private premises, I would certainly expect to be as co-operative as possible. I would hope that the time arranged for such a meeting would be mutually convenient. I should be extremely unhappy if it were felt necessary to obtain a warrant in order to enter my premises. Indeed, as the sort of person who wishes our society to work properly, I would consider that to be a considerable reflection on my status. I suggest that, if there were to be any recalcitrance with regard to reasonable entry, that in itself would show that there was an advantage in making a warrant necessary.
Therefore, I support a regime in which entry is expected to be provided. As the Minister said, people who enter that type of business are effectively signing
48
up to appropriate supervision, just as I, as a farmer, am signing up to appropriate supervision in that. One could refer in paranthesis to the current tragedy in relation to foot and mouth disease. From the press reports, it would appear that there was resistance to certain legitimate entry at the location in Northumberland where the disease started. I should have thought that in that particular instance it would have been desirable for warrants to be obtained. No doubt the inquiries will show that to be the case.
Frankly, if it is necessary to obtain a warrant in order to enter premises—I fully accept that situations will arise in which that is so—that in itself is quite important in illustrating non-compliance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to move that much further and to accept at least the spirit of the amendment—perhaps redrafted at Third Reading—in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have been reading the amendments in the name of the Minister and I wish to make a small point in relation to Amendment No. 28. It may be simply that I am not a lawyer and therefore do not understand the lawyer's translations of words. However, the second line of subsection (2B)(b) of Amendment No. 28 refers to "and his conduct". I may be naive but, as I understand it, "conduct" means the way in which someone behaves himself—that is, whether he does so well and honourably. I believe that the Minister may be referring to the actions taken while the person exercising the power is on the premises. I suspect that a clever lawyer in court may be prepared to misconstrue that one word in the Bill in an endeavour to get a mischievous client off the hook. I wonder whether the Minister can either put my mind at rest on that point or put forward an amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point first. I am not sure that I could ever put the noble Lord's mind at rest. I would not seek to do so because his is clearly a mind exercised by important points of detail. That is most important. I believe that the noble Lord is right. Here, we seek to capture the details of what occurred, what transactions took place and what was found. That is what we describe when we talk about "conduct"—that is, the business transacted.
I move on to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He seemed to be making, as I have heard him do in the past, a rather more broad critique of the powers of entry. He was inviting me to sign up to the philosophy behind the—we have used this term previously in these debates—modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which seeks simply to leave out the word "exclusively".
I understand the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in relation to the use of that term in this particular context. He raised the matter of a licence holder being exempted by using his home as his business premises and having that qualified by his partner or his wife also having a business on those

49
premises. Therefore, I certainly undertake to take away the specific issue identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his amendment.
In general terms, I have heard nothing other than support for the amendments which we brought forward to qualify what some saw as the rather draconian approach adopted by the Bill. I do not believe that it is draconian; I consider it to be proportionate. As I said earlier, I believe that people in that line of business will expect to be regulated in this way. We have sought to qualify that through our amendments and to set out the reasonable conduct and behaviour that we expect of those who are involved in enforcement in those situations.
However, I believe that it is important that a range of powers is available for entry. It is right that we should be in a position where the enforcing authorities can carry out proper enforcement, given the potential for mischief and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said earlier, the fact that in some limited circumstances there may well be rogue operators at the heart of this business. Therefore, these powers—let us not dismiss them—are essential. We have simply further qualified them and made them as reasonable as possible without fettering the ability of those involved to be effective in enforcement for the good of the industry as a whole.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 12, line 45, at end insert ("other than premises occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
Line 2, leave out ("exclusively").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 27, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton 11/2/2006 moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) shall do so only at a reasonable hour.
(2B) A person exercising such a power shall—
(a) comply with any reasonable request made (whether before or after entry is gained to the premises) by any person present on the premises to do any one or more of the following—

(i) state the purpose for which the power is being exercised;

(ii) show the authorisation by the Authority for his exercise of the power;

(iii) produce evidence of his identity;

50

(b) make a record of the date and time of his entry, the period for which he remained there and his conduct while there; and

(c) if requested to do so by any person present on the premises at the time of the entry, provide that person with a copy of that record.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF POWER OF ENTRY
("—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance as to the manner in which persons authorised to enter premises under subsection (1) of section 18 should0—

(a) exercise the power conferred by that subsection; and

(b) conduct themselves after entering premises in exercise of that power.

(2) The Authority may from time to time revise the guidance published under this section; and, if it does so, it shall publish the revised guidance.
(3) A requirement under this section for the Authority to publish guidance or revised guidance shall be a requirement to publish it in such manner as appears to the Authority appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Interpretation]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert—
(""relevant accountancy body" means any of the following—

(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

(c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

(d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;

(e) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;

(f) the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 37. During the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed concern that some of the activities undertaken by accountants during the course of their work might mean that they fell within the definition of private investigators, as defined in the Bill, and thus would require a licence. The amendments which I bring forward this afternoon deal with those issues.
As I indicated during the debate, the Government wish to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are targeted on the specialist providers of security services. We have stated that we wish to regulate those providers but do not want the Bill's provisions inadvertently to catch groups which are not relevant to

51
our policy aims. That includes accountants, for whom I have the greatest respect, and those employed in similar occupations.
Since Committee stage, we have held discussions with a variety of specialist bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority, as well as with a number of private companies. Those discussions echoed the concerns expressed in the Chamber in Committee, and we received some helpful advice on how to deal with the those concerns.
The Government accept that the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 in Schedule 2 do not make it adequately clear that we are not seeking to include accountants in the Bill's regulatory framework. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 therefore seek to provide a clear exemption for accountants from the definitions of private investigators. They also provide a clear exemption from the definition of a security consultant, in response to representations from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which expressed the concern that some activities of accountants may also fall into that category.
Finally, Amendment No. 30 adds a definition to Clause 23, the Bill's interpretation clause, explaining what we mean by the term "relevant accountancy body" as that is used in amending Schedule 2. That definition builds on that proposed in the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, moved in Committee, and expands on it by adding in additional bodies.
We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed to us on this matter, and we are grateful for the constructive nature of the discussions we have had. The amendments will ensure that professional accountants are excluded from the Bill's provisions.
The amendments to our amendments, which were moved by noble Lords opposite, seek to extend the exemptions to employees of members of those relevant accounting bodies; for example, trainees, secondees, support staff and other employees who are not members of the accountancy bodies that are listed in Amendment No. 30. We should remind ourselves that we are talking in this context solely about people who hire themselves out under a contract to supply clients with specialist services. Members of the relevant accountancy bodies and their staff who are working "in-house"—that is, for their own company—fall outside the scope of the Bill.
It is not necessarily the case that only members of those relevant accountancy bodies may be hired out under contract to provide services that are relevant to the Bill's provisions. Many of the large well-known accountancy firms have diversified and provide a wide range of services. For example, the publicity material of one of the very largest firms offers expertise in cybercrime, asset recovery, corruption investigations and fraud risk management.
It may well be the case that members of the relevant accountancy bodies as defined by Amendment No. 30 will play a part in some or all of those services. It is also possible that some employees who are not members of those bodies will also play a part. Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 would exempt the latter group from the need for a licence solely on the ground that they were employed by exempted persons. I do not think we should go that far. Employees of accountancy firms who are not themselves members of the relevant accountancy bodies may, if hired out under contract in some of the fields of investigation that I described just now, be undertaking the same type of work as people who legitimately offer their services as private investigators or security consultants but not as accountants. Those groups are rightly required to have a licence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. It would therefore be anomalous for non-accountants in accountancy firms to be exempt from licensing when private investigators and security consultants offering the same or similar services would be caught by the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree to Amendments Nos. 30, 34 and 37 and that noble Lords opposite will, having heard my comments in this afternoon's debate, withdraw Amendments Nos. 35 and 38. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns accountants, and I should declare an interest as a member of the first of the institutes listed in Amendment No. 30.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for listening to what was said by noble Lords in Committee and by the relevant bodies outside the House and for introducing the amendments. They involve the same list of accountancy bodies as was used on an earlier occasion. It is important to have such a provision in the Bill. I hesitate to agree unreservedly to the provision in view of the matter to which the Minister drew attention. My concern is that the amendment may cover not all of the staff in an accountancy practice but only those who are members of one of the listed institutes. Accountants obviously employ people without the qualifications that they have to do all sorts of administrative and other tasks. Some of those will be "in-house" tasks but others will arise when working for clients. I am not sure whether carrying out an audit of a company involves working for a client company under contract; it seems to me that it does, and should be considered as such.
The Minister made reassuring comments on secondees, trainees and students but they do not quite match my reading of the Bill. Pepper v. Hart may help in that respect; the Minister has explained what he believes the Bill will cover. I hope that it is correct that someone who is employed in an accountancy practice for accountancy purposes would not require a licence, and that the authority will interpret the Bill in that way.
I am also worried about the fact that, if an individual is found to require a licence for an activity such as investigating a fraud in the course of an audit or as a forensic accountant, his managers and supervisors and the partners of the whole firm—this

53
consideration may involve the whole international firrn—will also require licences. We know from earlier provisions that managers, directors and partners of a company require a licence when a company's employees do so. Apart from the effect on employees carrying out an investigation, there is a knock-on effect on the partners and directors of a business. That matter requires further reflection.
If the Minister can respond today, that would be fine; I could give the matter further reflection in the light of his comments. I do not believe that the provisions that exclude "in-house" operations are quite as sweeping as the Minister implied because they do not seem to cover staff who frequently work on a client's premises examining the client's books for audit or for other investigatory purposes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the Government's position in this regard. It is right to restrict the exemption to members of the relevant accountancy bodies who carry out activities for the purposes of any accountancy practice. The fact of the matter is, as the Minister made clear, that large firms offer a separate service of private investigation and security consultancy. If they want to do that—they are perfectly entitled to diversify in that way—they should fall within the Bill's provisions. They would be carrying out activities that were not for the purposes of an accountancy practice but for other purposes. The position that the Government have adopted and which the Minister outlined is sensible and right and we shall support it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I want to speak in support of the amendments that were moved by my noble friend Lord Cope. I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and as a former partner of KPMG. The Minister will be familiar with its affairs, having been associated with us briefly. I use the word "us" in the past tense!
The affairs of large accounting firms are very complex and have moved considerably from their early roots—there have been changes in terms of drawing up sets of accounts and auditing those accounts. It is hard to say what the practice of accountancy is. I understand the distinction that the Government sought to draw in this context, but it is difficult to say with any precision what is and what is not accountancy practice because all such activities are carried out in one unified firm. Even the internal divisions of the firm will not give you a guide to what one might call "accountancy what not". Indeed, all-embracing internal divisions such as forensic accountancy can cover a very wide number of activities, some of which noble Lords might think were accountancy and some not. But the firms themselves would think that they were part of their accountancy practices.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to look again at those provisions to ensure that they are practicable. To seek to make a distinction which is not easily reflected in the way in which firms operate in today's world may well cause a number of practical difficulties.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an historic interest in the affairs of KPMG, a company with which I was delighted to be associated for a couple of years. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's contribution in this exchange.
I think we have got it about right. We have taken extremely careful soundings from the various institutions. I should require some further persuasion, more than I have heard during these exchanges, before I gave an undertaking to look again at this matter. As I am very fond of issuing correspondence, I shall invite more persuasive correspondence on this matter between now and Third Reading if noble Lords really want to press the point. I believe that we have it right. The balance is right and appropriate.
We have drawn a clear distinction between different sets of activities, although I take the fundamental point made by the noble Baroness that the world of accountancy and the practices of the large firms in particular are ever-changing and organic in the way that they transmogrify over time. I hope that noble Lords will not take this as too stern a rebuff at this stage but I require more evidence before I am prepared to give the matter further consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Security Industry Authority]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 17, line 5, leave out from first ("of') to end of line 6 and insert ("twelve members").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 30A to 30D relate to Schedule 1 and the composition of the authority. They seek to achieve a number of aims. Amendment No. 30A provides that the authority should have 12 members. We believe that for the authority to be truly independent and impartial, its composition should reflect a proper balance of legitimately interested parties and that, therefore, there should be a reasonable chance of those interested parties obtaining a place on the authority and so a certain number of members is required.
Amendment No. 30B concerns the type of people to serve on the authority. We suggest that no more than two members should be employee representatives; no more than two members should be employer representatives; at least one member should represent consumer groups; and one member should represent the police and criminal justice service. In that way we are trying to ensure that there is a split and that the authority can be generally independent.
Amendment No. 30C provides that the term of office should be for three years, and I should be interested in the Government's comment on that. Amendment No. 30D says that the word "five" should be deleted and that a quorum should be "half" of the authority's members. should be
Here we are seeking to learn more about the Government's thinking on the composition of the authority and how many members there should be. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that those matters are better dealt with in regulations. He may be

55
right. But if so, perhaps he would help the House by telling it the Government's thinking on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, to some extent, we have already had this debate but I want to put on record my unhappiness about and total opposition to this set of amendments which is far too prescriptive. It is impossible to expect the idea of a board with representatives on it to work. I should not like to be faced with the task of trying to get two representatives of the employees whose term will last for three or five years.
The authority of the authority will be dependent upon the appointments which the Secretary of State makes. That is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. But I believe that the idea of having representatives sends completely the wrong message. We have had the discussion about the consultative process. I hope that the Government will consult about what mechanism there will be. But that is the point at which representatives come in. There needs to be flexibility and those representatives can change. It is a diverse industry and we shall need different kinds of representatives. But I believe that to have them as members of the authority would mean that the authority would face an impossible task.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments seek to impose certain specific requirements as to the size, make-up, quorum and terms of office of the authority.
I look first at the size and make-up of the authority. We saw a number of amendments in Committee which sought to specify how many members the authority should have and what interest groups they should represent. I explained then and retain the position now that it would be a mistake to place restrictions on the way in which the Secretary of State may construct the authority for many of the reasons which my noble friend Lord Gladwin has expressed, not least because we require flexibility. I should add also that that is not because the Government have an agenda to crowd the authority with some interest groups to the exclusion of the others but for precisely the opposite reason.
As we spelt out in the White Paper which preceded the Bill, there are a number of interest groups whose presence on the authority will be essential for its effective functioning. Those include the police, local authorities, customers, the industry itself, employees of the industry and others. I have mentioned already, in connection with Amendment No. 2A, that the authority can constitute specialist advisory committees to help in its work, and it is perhaps appropriate to mention that again in this context.
A committee structure is likely to be an additional way in which the voices of important stakeholders can be heard by the authority. But I remain of the view that we do not need to specify the composition of the authority or its committees on the face of the Bill.
56
A related argument is that it would be a mistake to limit the number of members of the authority in the Bill. Our White Paper suggested that a board of about eight people plus a chairman might be appropriate. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested, that there should be no fewer than 10 members. Now the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggests an unequivocal 12. None of those numbers is indisputably wrong or right. There needs to be flexibility to ensure that the number is as many as is needed for the authority's effective functioning, no more and no less.
Having said that, it is logical to look at Amendment No. 30D which would require that a quorum of six members should attend the meeting which determines what the quorum shall be for future meetings of the authority.
It is clear that that assumes an even number of authority members. As I indicated, the Government do not want to become tied on the face of the Bill to a particular number of authority members. Even so, I am somewhat doubtful that the authority will expand to consist of the noble Viscount's projected 12 members. The Bill as drafted sets an initial quorum at five members. That seems about right although, of course, it is not scientific. It is important to remember that that is the quorum for a first orientation meeting of the authority only and that a higher quorum—perhaps even half of the members—may be set for future meetings. In keeping with what we see as the need to preserve the authority's flexibility in operations, we should obviously want to see it reviewing the quorum strength whenever its size was changed.
I turn lastly to Amendment No. 30C which seeks to reduce the term of appointment for an authority member from a maximum of five years to a maximum of three. There is no particularly solemn significance in suggesting a maximum term of five years. It certainly can be argued that a more rapid turnover of authority members, assuming there were no reappointments, might help to keep the authority fresh and bring in regular new thinking and new blood. However, there is also the argument that some experience and continuity in doing the job is important, and that a period of five years is a reasonable period in that it will not allow one to become too stale nor will it be so short as to prevent the accumulation of genuine experience.
I argued on the composition of the authority that the question of "how many members" was not one that had a single numerical answer. That argument may also apply here, although clearly, in contrast to the size of the authority, we have to decide in favour of a specific number. Having received the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, I have become conscious that a term of appointment of five years for authority members would be relatively unusual in terms of non-departmental public bodies for which the Home Office has responsibility.
Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I want to consider the matter further and perhaps return to the matter at Third Reading. In those circumstances,

57
is the noble Viscount able to withdraw, not just that amendment, but also the other amendments in the group?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His explanation gives us a much clearer view of the way in which the Government perceive the authority and who should be on it. In relation to various non-governmental statutory bodies, it is quite often noticeable that the matter of who should be on them is laid down. Sometimes the Home Office argues that it should have people on a body, so such a provision should be in the Bill. Equally, we have now heard the Minister say the opposite. There does not appear to be a general practice in such matters; it appears to depend on how they feel on the day.
I believe that there is a strong argument for flexibility, but we needed to know the Government's thinking. Having said that, there is also a strong argument for saying that the industry must be representative and fair. I am grateful for what the Minister has said on that issue and for considering the five-year point. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30B to 30D not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Activities liable to control under the Act]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 22, line 39, after ("vehicle") insert ("or bicycle").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment because it concerns my noble friend Lord Cope, who, as I am sure your Lordships will have noticed, bicycles to your Lordships' House. On this side of the House we do not have the use of large ministerial cars like noble Lords opposite, so we have to come by the best means available.
While bicycling to the House, my noble friend Lord Cope noticed a sign outside a block of flats saying that any bicycle chained to the railings would be clamped and not released until £10 had been paid to the caretaker's block. Do the Government approve of such behaviour? Do they believe it is right that caretakers should hold bicycles hostage? If they do believe that that is right, surely such a situation should be regulated. If we are to regulate dampers of cars and motorbikes, should we not also regulate those who clamp bicycles? Such dampers would prevent my noble friend attending your Lordships' House on time, which I am sure would be a serious disappointment to noble Lords opposite!
This is an important issue. What is the view of the Government? Do they consider that bicycles should be clamped? Is it legal? Is it legal if it is done on a pavement as opposed to on private land? Can someone clamp a bicycle or can a local authority clamp a bicycle on a pavement? What is the law surrounding this issue? One leg of the Government's transport policy is that people should use healthy ways of getting to work such as cycling as opposed to driving. What principles do
58
the Government consider are appropriate in those circumstances? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, initially I was not sure whether to take this amendment seriously, but I can see that the noble Viscount has raised "an interesting point", as it says in my note. Perhaps it is rather more than that. I was not aware that wheelclamping is used as a means of tackling unwanted parking by cyclists. I guess that the noble Viscount is right to seek clarification.
For the record, while I certainly make good use of the ministerial transport, I would not describe it as an expensive limousine. Equally, I have suffered the rigours of travelling on Connex South Central which is not always a pleasant experience. I use a wide range of other forms of public transport, but I do not use a bicycle.
Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill states that the paragraph applies to,
"immobilisation of a motor vehicle",
and in Clause 23 "motor vehicle" is defined as,
"a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle".
In our view, that excludes bicycles but includes motorbikes, cars and other motor vehicles and trailers such as caravans.
It is true that Section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides for the immobilisation of "vehicles" parked on roads, not "motor vehicles", but we are not aware that the parking of bicycles has ever been a problem which needs to be deterred by wheelclamping. Given the relative lightness and lack of security of a normal bicycle, the owner would probably think twice about parking it irresponsibly in any event.
I believe that the Government are right to oppose legislation that tries to meet a need that does not exist. We have no widespread experience of extensive wheelclamping of bicycles and we do not see this issue as being a major problem. No doubt if in the future it became a major problem, the SIA, having received many protestations, may want to review the position and draw it to our attention. We do not consider at this stage that that is something that the legislation should cover.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could answer two questions. Could the authority add such a matter to its remit without legislation? If so, could the Government, by order, include bicycles within the clamping regime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the questions posed by the noble Viscount. No doubt that is a matter that could be reviewed. Whether it could be brought into the remit of the Act by order I do not know, although I suspect that the answer is on its way! We can consider whether we should return at Third Reading with a proposal for

59
an order-making provision to allow flexibility as to what additional types of vehicle may be covered by the Bill. I hope that that answers the point.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. I am sure that it will give my noble friend Lord Cope enormous reassurance to know that if he is clamped he will be able to go to the Minister with proof and that the Minister will look carefully at his plight and consider whether an order should be made. I believe that there is a serious point in relation to this. If there is flexibility in the Bill to come forward with an order when there is a problem, that would be enormously useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a member of a relevant accountancy body which are carried out by him as such and for the purposes of any accountancy practice carried on—

(a) by him;

(b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;

(c) by any body corporate of which he is a director or member or by which he is employed.").

[Amendment No. 35, an amendment to Amendment No. 34, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 37:
page 24, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a member of a relevant accountancy body which are carried out by him as such and for the purposes of any accountancy practice carried on—

(a) by him;

(b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;

(c) by any body corporate of which he is a director or member or by which he is employed.

[Amendment No. 38, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("are not the services") and insert ("do not consist in or include the carrying out of any of the activities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the definition of "keyholder" in Schedule 2, paragraph 6, in order to make it consistent with the wording in the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 25, leave out lines 7 to 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment modifies the definition of "licensed premises" as it is used in the Bill in relation to door supervisors. It deletes paragraph 8(2)(c) of Schedule 2 which refers to premises in which a function is held in respect of which an occasional permission under the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 is in force.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, tabled and amendment which sought to provide that a temporary exemption from the need for a door supervisor licence could be obtained from the local magistrates' court to alleviate difficulties which might otherwise surround certain types of events. I argued against such an avenue and the noble Lord's amendment was defeated in a Division.
However, we have reflected on the issues underlying the noble Lord's concerns and have concluded that it would, on balance, be desirable to delete from coverage in the Bill events which are the subject of occasional permissions under the 1983 Act. This is distinct from events which require occasional licences under the Licensing Act 1964, which continue to be covered by the provisions of paragraph 8(2)(b).
The type of event which is typically the subject of an occasional permission is, we have concluded, peripheral to the main type of events with the potential to cause public nuisances and which the mainstream of the provisions of the Bill is seeking to address by requiring door supervisors to be licensed. These peripheral events—from the standpoint of our policy objectives—are, for example, school fetes or charity events which happen to provide a beer tent or equivalent as an added incentive for the public to attend. It has never been our policy to equate any form of door stewarding that takes place at such events with pubs and clubs, which are the focus of our provisions relating to door supervisors, and taking them into regulation is not, in our view, necessary.
In reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the fact that we are running a slight risk. There are other kinds of events which may also be the subject of occasional permissions that we will not be able to regulate if we delete the paragraph which is the subject of this amendment. The types of events I have in mind are certain types of football or rugby club events where people may decide to hold a function on unlicensed premises, such as in a local hall, and sell drink from a bar. If the event required an entertainment licence, it would continue to be covered by the Bill. But if not, it would be excluded from the requirement to have any of its in-house door staff licensed. Should the club hire contract door supervisors, these would, of course, need to be licensed by the authority in the normal way envisaged by other parts of the Bill.
I am far from suggesting that rugby club events are inherently more troublesome than school fetes, but we must realise that we can either take both types of

61
events into regulation or leave them out. The Government have concluded that in this case it is better to be criticised for under- regulating than to be criticised for over-regulating. I am sure in my mind that by proposing the amendment we are not significantly weakening the provisions of the Bill as regards door supervisors.
With regard to the types of event I have been discussing, it would, quite separately from the considerations of this Bill, continue to be open to magistrates to attach any condition to an occasional permission that they think proper. Such conditions could, if magistrates thought fit, include the use of licensed door staff.
The removal from regulation of events that are subject to occasional permissions should also remove from concern a large number of events to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was referring in Committee. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by the Minister. I shall study carefully in Hansard what he said—the argument was complicated—but it seemed to cover all the concerns raised in Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

National Minimum Wage
5.55 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the national minimum wage being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, in June last year I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to produce a further report on the national minimum wage by July of this year. In particular, the commission was asked to consider whether there was a case for increasing the rate of the minimum wage.
"In considering any increase, it was required to take into account movements in earnings; the effect on employment; the impact on individual sectors, including small business; and the likely and future impact on the economy. The commission announced at the end of January that this year it would produce its report in two parts.
"The commission had a clear message from employers that the length of notice given of any changes would be critical. Today we are publishing volume one of the Low Pay Commission's third report. This looks solely at the main rate and makes recommendations to have effect on 1st October this year and next. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
"I would like to thank the chairman of the commission, Professor George Bain, and the other members of the commission for the time
62
commitment and detailed consideration they have given in preparing today's report. The strength of the recommendations in the report conies from the detailed analysis and also from the fact that it is a unanimous report, agreed, for example, by the deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union as well as the deputy Director-General of the CBI.
"The report concludes that the minimum wage has been a success, with nearly 1.5 million people benefiting, without any adverse impact on employment or the competitive position of British business. Over 70 per cent of those benefiting from the minimum wage are women. The commission concludes that in narrowing the gender pay gap the minimum wage has had the greatest beneficial effect on women's pay since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act over 30 years ago.
"The minimum wage has also helped close the gap in regional pay differences. Since its introduction, the largest increases in average earnings have been in traditionally low paying parts of the United Kingdom. While the national average increase in earnings for the first year of the minimum wage was 3 per cent, average earnings in the North East rose by almost double that at nearly 5 per cent. In Wales, the increase in earnings was over 4 per cent and in Yorkshire and the Humber 3.5 per cent.
"The minimum wage ensures that people living throughout the United Kingdom share in the country's economic prosperity. Twenty years ago pensioners made up the largest section of those in poverty. Today it is those living in workless working-age households. Simply compensating people for their poverty through benefits is not good enough.
"The task must be to deal with the causes of poverty. The best form of welfare is work. That is why it is crucial to make work pay. The national minimum wage makes a vital contribution towards achieving this objective.
"Of course, there are those who oppose the very concept of a national minimum wage. They said that its introduction was the height of irresponsibility; that it was a cretinous idea; that it would deal a blow to low earners; and that it would cost over 1 million jobs.
"These critics have been proved wrong. Employment has increased by nearly 450,000 since the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999 and by over 1 million since we were elected with a clear pledge to introduce it. The number of jobs in the hotel and catering sector, which includes a high proportion of low-paid jobs, increased by 14,000 between March 1999 and September 2000.
"In recommending a new rate the commission had to satisfy itself about the likely impact of any increase. A rate that was not manageable would hurt the prospects of the very people it was meant to benefit. The commission is confident that there is scope for a significant increase in the rate. The aim

63
has been to make recommendations which are bold enough to make a real difference but prudent enough not to have any adverse impact on employment or the economy.
"The report of the commission is unanimous. It recommends that the adult rate presently £3.70 an hour should increase to £4.10 on 1st October of this year. The Government accept that recommendation. It will mean that someone on the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see his earnings increase by £16 a week. It will mean a £10 a week increase for someone working 25 hours a week. Coupled with the working families' tax credit, this Government are ensuring that work pays.
"The commission also recommends that the adult rate should increase in October next year to £4.20 an hour. In principle, the Government also accept this recommendation, subject to the economic conditions prevailing at the time.
"The commission's report looks in detail at the impact of an increase to £4.10. It finds that the estimated wage bill impact will be modest—lower than the wage bill increase which resulted from the introduction of the minimum wage.
"With regard to inflation, it finds that the minimum wage had no discernible impact on the main measures of inflation. Analysis shows that the rise in the wage bill which follows from the proposed increase to £4.10 adds 0.07 per cent to inflation in the first year and 0.05 per cent in the second. This new rate for the minimum wage will apply across the board: to part-time and full-time workers; to agency staff and those who work from home.
"I understand that there are some who would exclude businesses which employ fewer than 100 people from all legal requirements apart from health and safety. That would mean nearly 8 million people being denied basic decent rights in the workplace. We reject such an approach. That is why the minimum wage will apply to all of those in work whatever the size of organisation that employs them.
"The introduction of the national minimum wage has been one of the great achievements of this government. It has already had a real and much needed impact on the lives of many hard-working people and their families—helping to raise the pay and standard of living of almost 1.5 million people. The minimum wage combines economic efficiency and social justice. Increasing it to £4.10 an hour will take people further out of poverty pay. It is a significant increase which is both affordable and will make a real difference to those who receive it. It brings reality to the phrase 'dignity of work'".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another
64
place about the national minimum wage. I also thank him for letting me have sight of the Statement more than two hours ago.
Last October the national minimum wage was increased by 10p and there was no oral Statement about it in the House. Today, the national minimum wage is to be increased by 40p and there is a Statement. Does the difference in the amount of the increase and the treatment of it in this House have anything to do with an impending general election, or am I just being somewhat cynical?
As from tomorrow, businesses will plan for this increase and adjust their payrolls accordingly, so when we come into office there will certainly be no intention to change it. However, perhaps the Minister can answer a few of our concerns. The British Chamber of Commerce estimates that since this Government have been in power the annual burden of new regulation costs is about £10 billion. Can the Minister confirm that that figure does not include the national minimum wage?
Can the Minister say how this burden, together with the new increase of 11 per cent in the national minimum wage, will affect small businesses and the impact that that will have on jobs and our competitiveness? There could be an effect on small shops, sub-post offices and care homes, to give just a few examples. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware—I refer to it anyway—that care homes receive funding of between 1 and 2 per cent from the Department of Social Security and local councils. How is the uprating of 11 per cent on the one hand and the 1 to 2 per cent funding on the other to be managed? It was said today that an average 20-bed home would have to find an extra £2,600 a year. This will probably be a problem for them. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have given thought to such issues?
Interestingly, about a week ago I heard about a new kind of business which employs house-sitters. When a house-owner is away, people move into the house so that the property is not left empty. The reality is that the house-sitter is glad to live in a comfortable home for a while, and perhaps also feed the cat, and the owner is happy in that he does not have to pay a huge salary for that service. I read an article in a newspaper which stated that that new type of activity, which until then I had been unaware of, might go out of business because the costs would make it impossible to continue. Have the Government given thought to such businesses?
It is true that there has been a decline in unemployment over the past six years. I should be most grateful if the Minister can confirm that unemployment fell more slowly in the first three years of this Government than in the last three years of the previous Conservative government. Can the noble Lord also confirm that it is the Government and not the Low Pay Commission that must be concerned with the economic effects of the increase? I note that the Statement says that the Low Pay Commission has taken all of that into account, but at the end of the day the economic effects must be dealt with by the

65
Government. As this particular increase is above inflation and salary increases, is the Minister absolutely satisfied that it will not have any adverse effect on jobs? Could Her Majesty's Government do anything if there was a downturn in the economy? Is there a failsafe method in case something happens?
Finally, can the Minister confirm the report of the Office for National Statistics that the sharpest rise in taxation has fallen on the poorest one-fifth of households? Since the Labour Government came into power, the tax burden on the poorest 20 per cent of households has risen from 37 to 40 per cent of gross income in 1998–99. I believe that this is a serious matter. If the House is concerned with the lowest paid—I believe that everybody is—it should be concerned equally about the extra tax burden on the poorest households as with the national minimum wage.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches agree with the Statement. No one can deny that manifestly the national minimum wage has been one of the achievements of this Government. This is perhaps the moment when noble Lords on the Tory Opposition Benches should admit that they were wrong. When the national minimum wage legislation passed through this House, they forecast that it would have a dramatic effect on employment and spell disaster for large areas of the economy of this country. The report of the Low Pay Commission, not the Government, manifestly demonstrates that that analysis was wrong. It well behoves politicians of all parties when they are wrong to say so.
Certainly, I am prepared to say that I was wrong in relation to the representations to the Government by these Benches about the regional impact of the national minimum wage. We were very concerned that to introduce an across-the-board rate for the minimum wage which applied equally to central London as to Cornwall would have distorting effects on the economies of those different regions. I am delighted that the Low Pay Commission's report demonstrates that our fears were unnecessary. I am particularly delighted by the indication in the report, which the Minister highlighted, that there have been significant regional increases in income as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. There has been the regional disparity that we feared would not occur.
Having said that, perhaps I can ask the Minister to clarify one or two points. As he knows, and as is clear from these remarks, the Liberal Democrats have fundamentally supported the Government on the introduction of this long-needed provision. First, can I ask him to confirm—I suppose it is a statement of the obvious—that the movement of the minimum rate to £4.10, rising to £4.20, will not bring low-paid employees into the marginal tax rate problem that so bedevilled low-paid employees in the past? In other words, the marginal tax difference between being employed and not being employed was very dramatic
66
in relation to unemployment benefit as against low pay. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government have taken that matter on board.
Secondly, I would welcome some clarification on what will happen in October 2002. We can calculate that a £4.10 increase this year is a significant increase over and above the current rate. I enjoyed the reference of the noble Baroness to the pending general election and whether that might have something to do with the issue.
The Minister indicated that the rate will go up to £4.20 next year if economic circumstances permit. Perhaps he can help us on what those economic circumstances might be. An increase from £4.10 to £4.20 as a percentage is so de minimis that he cannot be contemplating that the increase to £4.20 will not happen. Therefore, is he actually saying that if economic circumstances remain buoyant, the rate will go above £4.20, or is he simply saying that the Treasury will never take the view that a year is short enough in politics to be able to give a definitive answer or a definitive commitment? I cannot see any possible prevailing economic circumstances under which £4.20 would not be a minimum appropriate figure if £4.10 is appropriate one year earlier. I would welcome the Minister's views on that matter.
My final point is one that again is consistent with the line that the Liberal Democrat Benches have taken on the Bill. We were very concerned to ensure that the Low Pay Commission stayed in place. The third report of the Low Pay Commission demonstrates the wisdom of having the commission, which in many ways takes the politics, or certainly the partisan politics, out of these issues. Can he confirm that the Low Pay Commission will remain in place and that we can look forward to many more reports from that body?
6.13 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I emphasise once again that this was a unanimous report from the Low Pay Commission. It has nothing to do with a general election. We received the report, and it seemed right, having taken a decision on the matter, that we should come to the public and this House and say how we were going to treat it. I am sure that if we had left it until after the general election the noble Baroness would, as usual, have said, "Well, of course you were concealing it during the course of the general election so people didn't know the cost to industry". I am sure she will accept that it has nothing to do with a general election whatsoever.
The costs are quite clear. What the British Chamber of Commerce has in its figures is for it to say. All I need to say at this point is that there are no administrative costs involved in this issue at all. The only costs involved are the costs of paying a decent wage to people. We hope that the British Chamber of Commerce will at some point acknowledge that the national minimum wage figures in their Burden's Barometer are based on the draft regulations back in 1998 before the Government dropped certain administrative requirements. If it cares to correct that point, that would be very helpful.

67
Figures of £10 billion have been bandied about. May I emphasise once again that the total administrative costs are about £50 million? The rest is simply the cost of paying additional wages or giving additional holiday pay. If the other parties in this House want to say that they will roll back the national minimum wage or they will change the Working Time Directive, it is their prerogative to do so. But to confuse that with the administrative costs is constantly to try and make something of the administrative costs which is completely inappropriate.
I do not have the answer to what happens with regard to care homes, but I shall write to the noble Baroness to let her know about that particular situation. In answer to a question about the jobs of people who house-sit people's homes for them while they are away, we discussed such subjects when we introduced the national minimum wage. It was said then that all kinds of jobs would disappear. That has not proved to be the case.
So far as concerns this Government's record on unemployment in the past three years compared with the last three years of the previous government, again I do not have the figures. However, I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that they are totally relevant. The argument always was that there would be a sharp rise in unemployment because the national minimum wage existed. The Low Pay Commission has made it very clear that that has not happened.
I do not have the answer to the question on the marginal tax rate and how this minimum wage impacts on it. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on that matter. I agree with him that it is very unlikely that there will be circumstances in which we might not want to go ahead with the £4.20 rate. But it seems right, in giving industry warning of this increase, also to be cautious and prudent and to say that if there are economic changes, it will be looked at again.
I can confirm that the Low Pay Commission will stay in place. Its latest report is a further example of how extremely valuable it is to have an independent body. It has done a great deal of work on this matter and has produced an excellent and very fair report.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this welcome announcement demonstrates that the regular reporting from the Low Pay Commission—a consensus body with representatives of trade unions and employers—has stood the test of time? Although this announcement is not timed to do with any general election, nevertheless, it has been a notable achievement of the Government to get the rate up to £4.00. That was, I remember, at one stage, thought to be a far-fetched campaigning objective of the trade union movement.
Does my noble friend also agree that it is particularly welcome that the emphasis is consistent with the idea that opportunities at work are relevant and a key to dealing with the problem of endemic
68
poverty, both in particular regions of the country and among those under-privileged sections of society and people who have normally taken the most low paid and menial jobs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Low Pay Commission has done a remarkably good job. It has looked at issues that are always of great concern to government; for example, whether it would lead to a rise in unemployment or bear heavily on particular industries with low wages and therefore create unemployment. The Low Pay Commission has done that in a very detailed and fair way and its advice has been extremely helpful.
As the Secretary of State made clear in the Statement, it is fundamental to make work pay for people because that is the best way to deal with poverty. It is important, therefore, that the national minimum wage is not seen as a one-off increase, which is then allowed to wither away. It should be kept in line with the growth in earnings.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for having missed the first part of his Statement: my desk, I am afraid, is in the rather far-flung territory of Abbey Gardens. However, I am reasonably confident that he has not dealt with the point I wished to put to him, as it is an example of where the right and left hands of government are not working entirely well together.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Inland Revenue runs a simplified deduction scheme for employers with one or two employees, but it is available only if they pay less than £160 a week to an employee. This figure is wholly out of date and becoming more so with every movement in the minimum wage; and indeed it has been out of date for some time for those who wish to pay rather more above this level. Will the Minister look at this figure to see whether he can lift the burden of filling in a number of forms which are more appropriate to a supermarket than to small employees in the economy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would be very happy indeed to look at this matter. It has been our intention throughout to minimise problems of administrative work. We will certainly look at the situation.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, having represented low-paid workers for 30 years, I welcome the Government's decision to increase the national minimum wage. However, I am a little disappointed that Her Majesty's Opposition have not also warmly welcomed this development. I think that they should acknowledge today that their prophesies of doom, which they made when the minimum wage was introduced, have not been realised.
The Opposition have asked what will be the economic effect of the increase. We are talking about raising the standards of the most vulnerable workers in this country, who represent 1.3 million out of a labour

69
force of up to 28 million. Seventy per cent of them are women and two-thirds are part-time workers. It would be incredible even to think that by increasing the wages of low-paid workers economic disaster will follow. That reminds me of a point in the 19th century when it was said that if we did not take children out of the mines and the mills there would be economic disaster in this country. It did not occur then, and it will not occur today.
I am well aware that on 1st December 1994 in another place, when the issue of the minimum wage was raised, the right honourable Michael Portillo stated:
"Attempts to increase wages through legislation do not work".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/94; col.1366.]
When I worked on wages councils, low-paid workers benefited tremendously, and I think that the Opposition should support this development.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that that question was directed at me, but I should like to say that it will represent 0.14 per cent of the total wage bill, and the impact on inflation will be very small.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a national minimum wage is not the same as a national minimum standard of living? We are all in favour of a national minimum standard of living, even if actors, hill farmers and many other self-employed people do not achieve that at present. A national minimum standard of living is a desirable objective, but can it be achieved other than by compelling employers to pay certain employees more than what their output is worth to the employer, thereby leading inevitably to their speedy unemployment?
Finally—and this is a different point from that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—what about the preposterously low maximum set-off for accommodation that is provided free by the employer to the employee? At present, that allowance equates to only one-fifth over the country as a whole of the cost to the employer of providing accommodation, perhaps one-quarter in rural areas and up to one-eighth in London. Are there any plans to raise that set-off to a more realistic level?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have been working towards a national minimum standard, and the working families' tax credit is part of that strategy. It is equally important that work should pay in the context of the wages that people receive. There is an interesting relationship: if there is no national minimum wage but the working families' tax credit, then it is likely that wages will not respond as they should do. Both have to form part of a national minimum standard.
I should like to emphasise again that this unanimous report clearly states that it has not led to speedy unemployment, as some people predicted. We have seen a rapid increase in employment, and those fears were unfounded.
70
The accommodation point is exactly the kind of issue that the Low Pay Commission is reviewing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the emphasis placed on the position of women. The introduction of a national minimum wage for low-paid women has always been a priority. When I was on the EOC we expressed continued concern about the ghettos of women's employment. Women were nearly always underpaid, and it became increasingly difficult to do anything about it. As my noble friend rightly says, the minimum national wage is as much of an advance for low-paid women as the original Equal Pay Act.
I am not happy, however, about possible exceptions. The issue of care homes has already been raised. I should like to see the employees in these homes also paid the national minimum wage. Standards in some of these homes have been criticised, but if people are paid at substandard rates, that will contribute to a low level of care, something to which we should all be opposed.
Nevertheless, this is a remarkable step forward, and I am obliged to the Low Pay Commission. which has done a marvellous job. I am very grateful that we now have at least a reasonable standard for very low-paid people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had not understood that an exception was being sought for people employed in care homes but that it was a right hand/left hand government issue about whether the care homes would be compensated and how that would be treated. On that basis, I had intended to obtain further information.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I urge the Minister urgently to remit to the Low Pay Commission the issue of the value of accommodation and the point raised by my noble friend Lady Miller about house sitters. It is my understanding that previously they were not classified as workers, and therefore there was no obligation to pay them the minimum wage, but the change has put the whole little industry in doubt.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, that has not been changed. I shall certainly look into the matter to see whether it has been changed and house sitters are now classified as workers. However, as far as I know, that is not part of the Statement today.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to refer to a matter that arises out of the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. Is there a problem in the Government's eyes with avoidance? I have in mind particularly the possibility that those who are in reality employees may be told that they have to become independent contractors and that what they receive under their contracts will be less than the minimum wage.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, there is no general problem of avoidance. In

71
fact, the extent to which industry has conformed to the national minimum wage is remarkable. It has done so almost always before the actual legislation has come forward. As far as I know, there has been no major attempt at avoidance.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, who could not be pleased to hear the Minister's announcement? After all, there are 1.5 million beneficiaries, the majority of whom are women. There are also the regional benefits, to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred. I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. He may have covered the point but I did not catch it. What is the position of young workers—those aged 18 to 21, those aged 16 to 18 and those on the magnificent New Deal, with which Labour has been so successful?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are dealing with the first part of the report of the Low Pay Commission. Volume 2 of the report is expected in May. That will cover the whole question of the rate for young workers and any other regulatory changes that are felt appropriate.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
6.32 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Requirement of registration for motor salvage operators]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after "vehicles" insert "or any trailer or caravan".
The noble Viscount said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. It is my intention to be very brief because I raised the subject matter of this amendment at Second Reading, as did the noble Baroness.
While it is right and proper to deal with the illegal acquisition and disposal of motor vehicles and their parts, there is a very lucrative trade in trailers and caravans and, as I said at Second Reading, some of the component parts of these trailers are very expensive and sophisticated. Consequently, I think that both trailers and caravans should added to the general description of motor vehicles.
Before coming to your Lordships' House this morning, I happened to watch a small portion of "Crimewatch Daily", a fairly new television programme concentrating on various criminal
72
offences. In today's episode, there was a haulage contractor who had had one of his extremely valuable trailers stolen. The director being interviewed acknowledged that the value was substantial and that the very large trailer could be dismantled in two to three hours by those who stole the trailer. This is a perfect example of the scenario which my amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I put my name to the amendment on the basis that this is a vehicle crime Bill. However, from my reading of it, the Bill appears to concentrate on the theft of motor cars. Motor cycles and trailers are not properly covered, a point to which I shall return later. I support the noble Viscount.
Viscount Astor: I am rather worried about the amendment. I quite understand the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about large trailers that are pulled by large trucks and are worth large sums of money. They are valuable and if they are stolen it is a considerable problem. However, I do not believe that the provision should be extended to any trailer or caravan, as suggested by the amendment.
I have a trailer at home that I use to take rubbish to the local council tip. If someone offered me £20 for it, I would probably sell it on the spot. It is worth nothing.
Viscount Simon: In the noble Viscount's example, the trailer is not being stolen. He is offering it for sale.
Viscount Astor: But if such trailers were included in the Bill, all the rules and regulations under Clause 1(2) would apply. It is patently silly for such trailers to be included in the Bill. It is patently silly that old caravans should be included. They do not have identifiable numbers. How would you know where one has come from? I imagine that large trailers pulled by trucks have on them the maker's number, but that is probably not a nationally recognised number. The trailer may have been made in this country or it may have been made on the Continent, whether inside or outside the EU. While I sympathise with the noble Viscount about large trucks, to extend the Bill in the way suggested would be wrong and would not make sense.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope raised the issue of number plates on caravans and trailers which the Minister did not address when he replied to the debate. I ask him to address it today, as we are discussing trailers. As we know, number plates fall off the back of trailers. If Members of the Committee are as bad as I am at backing up their trailer, they will usually back it into something and one of the letters of the number plate will fall off. Trailers need lights, indicators and a legible number plate.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope was concerned that there should be no restriction on number plates so that if one owned a trailer one could go into a garage or shop selling number plates and buy a number plate for one's trailer. One would not want to be in the position of being unable to use the trailer. The Minister did not address that point. It would be

73
helpful if he could use this opportunity to do so. However, I cannot support the amendment as what it proposes goes far too wide.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 1 would bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part I of the Bill. Part I is primarily concerned with preventing ringing, where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle and an insurance fraud takes place. We have had representations from the police to suggest that there are serious problems, but they are ones which mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations from the police to suggest that the same problem applies to trailers and caravans.
As Members of the Committee will know, this part of the Bill introduces regulations. We feel that the regulations are more than adequate to tackle the problem of ringing and insurance fraud. However, we do not wish to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where, frankly, there does not appear to be a problem, or certainly not a problem of a significant size or order. We have not consulted the police or industry about the inclusion of trailers and caravans and we would not wish to introduce regulations until we had undertaken a full consultation exercise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about number plates on trailers. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Whitty did not cover the point at Second Reading. What I can say to the noble Viscount is that legislation on motor vehicles as regards the regulations will also apply to trailers. I recognise that this may disappoint the noble Viscount, but that is how the legislation will work.
Viscount Astor: I rise to speak briefly in order to enable the Minister to gather a little more information. It would be helpful if he could explain what would happen if I had a trailer which needed a new number plate. What steps would I have to take? Would I need to show the registration documents relating to my car? How is this to work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I can answer that point. Primary legislation is already in place to enable registration to extend to trailers. In this Bill we shall make some adjustments to ensure that the new provisions regarding vehicle registration plates can be extended to trailer registration plates. That probably means that the noble Viscount might well have to follow procedures similar to those followed in regard to motor vehicles.
I should like to reflect on the point put by the noble Viscount. I am not sure that I have been able to provide him with an adequate response this evening. Perhaps he will allow me to take the point away and return at a later stage.
Viscount Simon: Unlike the Minister, who said that he had not consulted the police, I have consulted the police. It was on their advice that I have put forward
74
the proposal that trailers should be included. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that caravans should be included here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that no identification numbers are used on the component parts. A considerable number of large trailers now have microscopic identity numbers painted on to various component parts, along the lines of a VIN number. If they are retrieved, they can be identified as having come from a certain truck. The noble Viscount also said that his £20 trailer is fairly irrelevant. However, how does one separate small trailers from large trailers? The law cannot cover one type of trailer, but ignore other types. Furthermore, for a number of people, if even a small trailer towed on the back of their car was stolen, they would be very unhappy, as would the owners of caravans.
I thank my noble friend for his response. I shall study what he has said and I hope that we shall be able to have further discussions to see whether this matter should be pursued at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registers of motor salvage operators]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The register shall be in such form as any requirements may prescribe."
The noble Viscount said: This short and simple amendment seeks to remove the local authority's discretion to add to the contents of the register for its area. The register will therefore be produced in a centrally prescribed format. We believe this to be important in order to prevent over-zealous local authorities from increasing the burdens on small businesses. Furthermore, it will avoid confusion in the interchange of data between local authorities and other agencies, including the police and central government.
This will be an entirely new area of regulation. It seems sensible to provide that, throughout the country, the same rules will be applied. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The effect of this amendment would be to impose a common format for the register for all local authorities. We do not think that that will be necessary. Local authorities keep many records and it may be that they would like to make this register consistent with others so that they will be easily recognised and understood by their employees. In addition, they may be able to make use of information being kept for other purposes and include a reference to that in the register, rather than repeating the content.
It is true that we may feel that it would be useful for all local authorities to keep some parts of the register in the same format, in particular if those parts contain information which would be shared with other agencies. That is why we have included a provision to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe certain

75
requirements. We shall discuss the format of the registers with local authorities and, in conjunction with the Local Government Association, we shall provide joint guidance. We feel that this will help to ensure that the format of the registers will not vary widely between local authorities.
I hope that this meets the intention behind the noble Viscount's amendment and that he will feel able to withdraw it. We have in place provisions to enable us to get to grips with any variations that might otherwise occur.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I shall consider carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out line 34 and insert—
"fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 34, 36 and 37. All these amendments relate to fees and what is "reasonable". We all know that what is reasonable for one person might not be reasonable for another. Amendment No. 3 seeks to tighten the legislation here by stating:
"fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only".
Unless such a form of words is included, the opportunity for other costs to be added would be too great. All of us know that in these stringent times, local authorities tend to charge what they can. What they regard as "reasonable" may on occasion be what will satisfy their budgets. The amendment seeks to introduce an element of transparency which is not present in the Bill. Amendment No. 4 seeks to achieve the same end in subsection (10).
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 introduce the same form of tightening of the language in Clause 3(1)(b) and (2)(a) by introducing where relevant the words,
"necessary to recover the costs of processing … the application".
Similar to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, these amendments seek to ring-fence the fees so that they remain reasonable.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 relate to Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill concerning the imposition of requirements as regards registration plates. Again, the amendments seek to narrow down the definition to ensure that the costs recovered relate only to the request.
All the amendments pursue the general principle of ensuring that charges are restricted to cover exactly what they are supposed to cover and are not extended to other areas. Furthermore, they should remain "reasonable" and reflect the amount of work undertaken. We believe that the test of reasonableness is not merely to state that aim, but to define much more clearly what the charges will be for. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have much sympathy with my noble friend's amendments. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend has said. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would require the local authority to charge for inspection and copies of the register, but only a sum equivalent to the cost of meeting the request for inspection or copies. The fee could not be less, nor could it be waived, and the amendments would remove all flexibility—perhaps an unintended consequence of the noble Viscount's desire for transparency.
Clause 2 as drafted provides that the fee, if charged, cannot be set at a level higher than would be "reasonable". The ultra vires rule prevents government from raising more than costs through fees. In practice, the clause will allow the local authority the flexibility to vary or waive fees according to the circumstances of the applicant and its own circumstances.
Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority to charge for registration the amount necessary, if any, to recover the costs of processing applications only. No recovery of the costs of reviewing or cancelling registrations would be made, which could leave the authority severely out of pocket.
Amendment No. 7 would have the effect of requiring the authority to set any charge at the level necessary to recover the costs of cancelling registrations and maintaining the register. Clause 3 as drafted provides that the fee cannot be more than the "reasonable" costs incurred for administering the registration scheme, but could be less. It therefore creates greater flexibility and is more appropriate than either Amendment No. 6 or Amendment No. 7.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 would have a similar effect on Clauses 18 and 19, which relate to number plate suppliers. As they stand, the clauses allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee for the disclosure of information from the register and the registration of a supplier. The level set must cover the cost of the request or application. However, the clauses do not make it mandatory that a fee must be charged. A power to charge a fee does not provide the Secretary of State with the power to trade—a very important point upon which the noble Viscount may care to reflect. Therefore it would be ultra vires to charge a fee which exceeds the cost of administering the request or application. This means that the prescribed fee will be set at a level to recover reasonable administrative costs only. It can go no further.
Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of the registration fee, it is anticipated that the costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets necessarily would have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. Further consultation with the industry is needed before making final decisions. We

77
take the view that it would be a mistake to remove the flexibility afforded by the fee-charging power in advance of those consultations.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 are not necessary as the clauses already allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this part of the Bill. For the reasons already stated, Amendment No. 37 is not necessary and subsection (2) should stand to require the payment of the prescribed fee at the time of registration. With those explanations, I trust that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Viscount Astor: The Minister's answers were helpful, particularly in regard to the latter amendments, and have put my mind at rest. I shall of course study carefully what he said. I noted with interest that he said my amendments would prevent local authorities from charging less. The chances of a local authority charging less are pretty remote; I doubt whether the flexibility goes that way. It may be, of course, that, in his experience of local government, the Minister found that authorities did charge less for certain services. I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments; I shall study his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for registration and renewal of registration]:
Viscount Astor moved Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 44, after "prescribed;" insert—
"( ) shall be accompanied by a notification of the outcome of any application for registration by that person in that particular area, or in any other area of a local authority, in the preceding six years;"
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment which deals with applications for registration and renewal of registration. It is designed to ensure that a person seeking registration provides the local authority with the outcome of any previous application.
As I understand it, Clause 10 provides sanctions for the making of false statements but, at the moment, without seeing the prescribed form, we do not know whether applicants will be required to provide information of previous applications. It may be that my amendment is unnecessary but, until we receive some indication or confirmation from the Government of what applicants will be asked, the situation is unclear. The six-year period was chosen to cover two three-year periods. I should be grateful for an explanation, which may put my mind at rest. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 5 would require applications for registration to be accompanied by notification of the outcome of any earlier such applications over the previous six years. In our view, it is unnecessary for the Bill to be amended
78
in this way; it would make for inflexibility if that were the case. The noble Viscount has assured the Committee that this is a probing amendment and I am sure that he is not trying to inflict inflexibility upon us. Clause 3(1)(a) already provides for applications to be made in accordance with any such requirements that may be prescribed.
I am happy to confirm that there will be full consultation over the content of any regulations before they are made. We are more than happy to take on board the noble Viscount's point. Matters of detail such as those to which he has drawn attention in moving the amendment will be addressed at that point. We shall pick up the issue and I am confident that we can bring forward suggestions to cover his understandable concern.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Minister mentioned a period of six years. If it is a new registration, how can evidence from six years back be given when it has not even started?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not my amendment; it is the noble Viscount's amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord should ask his noble friend that question.
Viscount Astor: Perish the thought that I should answer. I shall leave the answers to the Government. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, after "area" insert—
"( ) notify the police and receive any representations that they may have occasion to make; and"
The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading, I referred to some of our worries in regard to increasing the regulatory burden. I also explained that because of the rising tide of vehicle crime we were happy to accept some degree of regulation in the Bill. However, I am worried that, while bringing in a new regulatory regime and the associated bureaucracy, Part I of the Bill is rather weak in some respects. We may end up with the worst of both worlds; that is, some new regulation, but regulation which is not tough enough to do the job. It is against that background that I have tabled a number of amendments to Part I of the Bill and put my name to others.
As it stands, Clause 3 simply requires the local authority to create and keep a register. It makes a presumption quite rightly that an applicant will be registered unless the local authority decides that he or she is not a fit and proper person. However, it is not at all clear from the Bill how the local authority is to arrive at that judgment. While I am usually in favour of a high degree of local autonomy, I am rather concerned that in this case there ought to be

79
consistency right across the country. In that regard I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
It is also important that information is available across local authority boundaries. It strikes me that police records are probably the best way to achieve that. My Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 14 which follows on from it, seek to strengthen the Bill by ensuring that when a local authority is compiling the register it will notify the police of any applications it has received and will also take note of any comments the police have made on an applicant.
I am sure that it usually is the case that local authorities and local police work closely together and would consult. However, I should be happier in this case to see something on the face of the Bill. That approach would be entirely consistent with other kinds of local authority registers where it is common to conduct police checks before someone is placed on a register. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: On behalf of the motor cycle industry, I support my noble friend Lady Scott. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned caravans and trailers. However, under the Bill as drafted motor cycles in particular have been somewhat diminished in importance. Some criminals make a good living from stealing motor cycles. I declare an interest in that I was for 10 years the chairman of the MotorCycle Industry Theft Action Group. Over that period we have seen the rise and fall of the statistics of motor cycle theft. At the moment they are rising. We have not only the traditional kinds of motor cycles which are so popular in this country—sports bikes mainly—but we also now have many scooters and small machines which are popular as a means of commuting.
Recently criminals have had a field day with the smaller vehicles due to their owners' ignorance of the necessity properly to protect them. The police, and in particular the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles squad, with whom I have had a close association over the years, have done a great deal of detailed and important work in this whole area. They have liaised with local police vehicle squads and also with Interpol.
As criminals make such a good living from stealing motor bikes and are relatively immune from prosecution because of the technicalities involved, they are anxious to keep ahead of the game. They do so in a sophisticated manner, even to the point of infiltrating companies developing new technology.
I support the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott; namely, that local authorities may not be aware—as, indeed, many motor cyclists are not aware—of the important work that the police have done and the amount of technology that has been brought to bear in this area. The help of the police will be invaluable to local authorities when they are making these decisions. I support absolutely what my noble friend has said. It is vitally important that local
80
authorities take note of the expertise which has been built up by the police and that that should be recognised on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: I make one brief point. There is, of course, a major difference between a motor cycle and a trailer in that a motor cycle has number plates and it is licensed. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made about motor cycles deserves careful consideration on the part of the Government. However, it is an entirely different matter from trailers which are not licensed and do not have number plates.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I may be entirely wrong but having listened to the Private Security Industry Bill from another place from where I am standing at the moment there seemed to be some relationship between the police and local authorities in that Bill. I wonder whether that could be reflected in this Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his persistent representations on behalf of the leather-clad variant of commuting transport. He is certainly to be congratulated on the imaginative way in which he always introduces these matters at important stages of legislative consideration.
I pick up a point that is not immediately obvious; namely, that since the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there has been much closer cooperation at a local level between the police and local authorities. They work closely together. This legislation in part is designed to encourage that and to ensure that we have a war of attrition against vehicle crime. That is the background to the situation.
Amendment No. 8 as drafted reduces the flexibility of the Bill. It would require a local authority to notify the police of all applications for registration and renewal of registration of motor salvage operators. When considering applications we would expect local authorities to consult the police as a matter of routine as stakeholders, as it were, in the exercise of rooting out criminality in this area. It is our intention to have discussions with the Local Government Association so that we can include this measure in jointly agreed guidance on implementing the provisions of the Bill. As we see it, there is no justification for a statutory requirement.
Amendment No. 14 is not needed. It is not necessary to specify who should make representations. The local authority can receive representations from the police under the clause as it presently stands. Therefore, I think that the point is already covered. As we see it, there is no need to make further provision in that respect.
In response to another point which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised, I can tell him that motor cycles are covered under the definition of a motor vehicle under Clause 16(1). I think that that is probably understood. NCIS has a large project designed to tackle motor cycle crime which is an indication of how seriously we in the Government take the issue of motor cycle crime in general. In response

81
to the point about the content of regulations, we shall be happy to place the regulations in draft on the Internet. We shall consult fully with businesses and other stakeholders. We shall be delighted to receive comments and in particular comments from the important lobby which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, represents.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am a little disappointed but not surprised. It seems to me that if local authorities are to consult the police as a matter of routine, it would not do any harm to make that clear on the face of the Bill. However, I shall not press the point this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 14, after "applicant" insert ", or any person employed by him in the business or associated with him in the conduct of the business,"
The noble Baroness said: In line with my earlier comments about strengthening Part 1 of the Bill, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. I refer to a situation where some kind of conviction might lead a local authority not to register an applicant. I believe that at the moment someone in that position could use an associate to make the application on his or her behalf. It is a case of people being "rung" rather than vehicles. I seek to prevent that.
My Amendment No. 13, which is grouped with the amendments to which I speak, seeks to ensure that particular categories of offence will be considered a bar to registration. The term "fit and proper" on the face of the Bill is rather vague and ill-defined. I understand that it will be left to the Secretary of State to define at a future date. I would prefer to be a little more specific on the face of the Bill and include a provision for people associated with an applicant to be included in the measure. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I support the general tone of Amendments Nos. 9 to 13. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, are very different. It is good to note that the Opposition parties cannot agree on the right wording. It is important to make the category of an applicant and any person employed as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their discussions with the police.
Should reference to work on motor vehicles, including bicycles, include the parts? It is important to include the parts in the definition. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, refers to "parts" in the second but not the first part of Amendment No. 13. I am not sure why. My noble friend will no doubt explain that the provision is unnecessary or the matter is covered elsewhere. However, it is important to make the powers as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their tasks.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord said that it was surprising to have two such different amendments put
82
forward by the Opposition. What is surprising is that the amendments have been grouped together; they are somewhat different provisions.
The issue was discussed in great detail in the Commons Standing Committee. No doubt the Minister has studied the debate carefully. It will not help us to repeat the arguments. We are talking about the best way to achieve the principle underlying the amendments. The central point of our amendment is that the Bill allows employers to evade the new law by employing unsuitable people even though the employers may be judged suitable for registration by the authority. The Government need to take account of the issue.
During debates in Standing Committee, the Government did not satisfy our concerns. I am sure that the Minister has considered the issue during the passage of the Bill to this House. I look forward to the noble Lord's response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, accepting this group of amendments would mean that local authorities would have to determine not only whether directors of companies or members of limited liability partnerships were fit and proper to operate in the motor salvage industry but also all their employees and business associates—an extensive exercise which we feel would be an almost impossible administrative task. If a fit and proper test had to be carried out on all employees and associates, it would create a huge burden on local authorities and businesses. For instance, what would happen when employees leave a company and new people start? Would it mean that local authorities would continually update their information?
We believe that it is necessary for directors of motor salvage companies and members of motor salvage limited liability partnerships to have a "fit and proper" test. There is evidence of criminal activity within this industry. That is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a "fit and proper" test. But directors are responsible for the companies within their industry and not their employees or associates. The same applies to members of limited liability partnerships. The effect of the amendments would be to add criteria to which the local authority must have regard when applying the "fit and proper" test when deciding whether to register an applicant. We do not feel that this is necessary. Local authorities will not be operating alone when deciding whether someone is fit and proper. More importantly, we shall be developing joint guidance with the Local Government Association to help local authorities to decide what should be taken into account before registering an applicant.
Under normal administrative law principles they should already take into account all relevant offences and matters, whether or not expressly specified in the Bill. In addition, if during the consultation period following its enactment, it is decided that some particular offences should be taken into account in every case—that is, it is decided that they will always

83
be relevant for the "fit and proper test"—we have the power to do so through regulations by virtue of Clause 3(4)(b).
We do not feel that it is essential. We believe that the burden would be administratively excessive. In any event, it is possible for us to add specific offences at a later stage through regulation.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do in relation to Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may respond briefly on Amendment No. 10. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I shall study carefully what he said. I shall not move my amendments in this group.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: The purpose of the amendment was not to impose on local authorities the burden of having to check every employee, down to the person who makes the tea. If a local authority has information about one of the employees, my amendment seeks to provide that it should be able to take that into account when applying the "fit and proper" test.
The Minister has not accepted my other amendments. The amendments would be important with regard to working more closely with the police. If the police were aware that employees of a company had a record for vehicle theft, the local authority would then be able to take that into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Cancellation of registration]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 36, leave out "28 days" and insert "56 days without good cause or reason"
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 relates to the cancellation by a local authority of a person's registration. That can occur if a person has not carried on business for 28 days. That seemed a rather short period. A person involved in such a business might be ill and away for a month. Business may be slack; he may not have been active in business for 28 days. To have his registration cancelled automatically at that time seems harsh. The amendment proposes:
"56 days without good cause or reason".
Sometimes there will be a good reason, in which case the local authority does not need to cancel the registration.
It is suggested that we should discuss Amendment No. 40 with this amendment. On page 12 of the Bill there is a similar provision with respect to registration
84
plate suppliers. Again, after 28 days the registration is to be cancelled. There is no magic in 56 days but 28 days seems to us somewhat short. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I put my name to Amendment No. 40, although I also agree with many of the sentiments expressed about motor salvage. I was particularly concerned about the short period of 28 days for those issuing registration plates. Apart from the fact that that period could easily be accounted for by holidays or sickness, in rural areas it is entirely possible that a garage may not issue a registration plate over 28 days.
To show that our contacts on these Benches extend beyond those wearing leather, I have also had discussions with the caravaning fraternity, who tell me that during the quiet winter months many outlets do not sell a caravan and therefore fall outside the 28 days for supplying a registration plate. If they lost their registration, someone who bought a caravan the following month and wanted to register it might have to go a long distance to do so.
I do not understand why such a short period has been specified, how it will work in practice or what bureaucracy will be required to chase up the issue. Will people be sent a 15-page form on day 29 that they then have to fill in? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to understand the issue better.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I, too, support the amendments, mainly for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Caravans are very seasonal and cars are not sold all year round in rural areas, unlike in towns. There could be long periods when someone in the north of Scotland, for example, is not producing any number plates because nobody is buying any cars.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 4 provides that a local authority may cancel a registration if it is satisfied that a business has ceased trading as a motor salvage operator for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 15 would extend that period to 56 days. Clause 21 has a similar effect for number plate suppliers and allows the Secretary of State to cancel a registration if he is satisfied that the business has ceased trading as a number plate supplier for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 40 would extend that period to 56 days.
We consider 28 days to be a sufficient period. This is not a punitive measure. I do not understand where that view comes from. It is only a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. The provision is permissive. That is another important consideration. If a person had good reason for not trading for 28 days, the local authority or the Secretary of State would be likely to take that into account and would not exercise the power of cancellation. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the business has ceased to trade. Before cancelling the registration, the Secretary of State must also serve notice on the person concerned and give him the opportunity to make representations. That will guard against cancellations based on misinformation.

85
As an additional safeguard, there is an appeal procedure under Clauses 6 and 23. In most cases, the Secretary of State or the local authority will learn of a cessation of business from the suppliers themselves. Suppliers are required to give notice of a cessation of business under Clauses 11 and 27. Furthermore, the use of 28 days is entirely consistent with the period for notification in Clauses 11 and 27.
Having heard those observations, the noble Lord ought to feel confident in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I appreciate that there are some relieving provisions, if I can so describe them. The measure is permissive and there is an appeal mechanism. I am not sure that the Government have justified the choice of 28 days. That seems a short period, particularly for registration plate suppliers. However, I am not prepared to press the issue at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Right to make representations]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 16, leave out "14" and insert "28 days nor more than 42"
The noble Lord said: It will be sensible to consider Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 with this amendment. They all relate to what happens when a local authority refuses to grant someone a licence. It has to serve a notice saying that it is not going to grant the licence and giving its reasons. It then has to give the individual concerned time to make representations before the final decision is taken. I have summarised the provisions, but I think that that is broadly accurate.
The Bill provides 14 days for a person to make representations in favour of being given a licence. Amendment No. 16 would change that to not less than 28 days from the day on which the notice is served.
Amendment No. 17 concerns a slightly later stage in the process, when the local authority has to allow what is vaguely described as "a reasonable period" for representations. We have tried to tighten up the timetable by specifying the same period as in Amendment No. 16—not less than 28 days and not more than 42. If the local authority subsequently proceeds with its proposed refusal or cancellation, it must serve a notice on the person concerned informing him of its decision.
The local authority should not have an infinite time to make up its mind. This is quite late in the process, after the representations have already gone backwards and forwards several times. Amendment No. 18 would limit that period to seven days, to give the local authority a spur to make its decision promptly and put the chap out of his misery if it is going to insist on cancelling his registration.
Cancellation is particularly important, because it is an axe hanging over the chap's whole business. Cancelling his registration will put him out of business. It is slightly different from not granting registration in
86
the first place. In the case of a cancellation, the local authority will be closing down a continuing business. It should not be allowed to keep him hanging on too long while it makes its final decision.
Amendment No. 19 relates to how long someone whose registration has been refused or cancelled should have to appeal. The Bill suggests 21 days, which seems very short. We have proposed 28 days for representations, so we believe that the same period should be available in which to decide whether to appeal. There could be legal matters involved. The person concerned could need to take advice before deciding. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has summarised accurately the effects of Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 deals with refusals and cancellations. Clause 6 deals with appeals. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 aim to extend the period in which a motor salvage operator may make representations from 14 days to between 28 and 42 days. Amendment No. 18 aims to ensure that local authorities notify the salvage operator of their intent to continue with their decision to refuse or cancel registration as a motor salvage operator within seven days of their decision. Amendment No. 19 seeks to extend from 21 to 28 days the period within which an appeal may be brought to a magistrates' court against a refusal to register or renew registration or a decision to cancel registration.
With regard to the time limits set out in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 5, we believe that 14 days is sufficient. It must be borne in mind that this is not a punitive measure but simply a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. However, if a representation is not made during that period, it is possible to make appeals under Clause 6.
The Government do not consider it necessary to impose a time-scale for service of notice of a decision to proceed with a proposed refusal or cancellation. We expect local authorities to be prompt with their decision and notification, and certainly we expect them to do so within a reasonable period of time. In addition, if notification is delayed, it must be taken into account that salvage operators will have a chance to appeal under Clause 6.
We consider that in all those circumstances 21 days is a reasonable period in which to bring an appeal. Before refusing or cancelling, a local authority is required under Clause 5 to serve notice of its intention on the person concerned and to allow him at least 14 days to indicate whether or not he wishes to make representations. If he indicates that he does, the authority must then allow him a reasonable period in which to do so.
In practice, at least 35 days will have elapsed between the notification of intention to refuse or cancel and the expiry of the period permitted for an appeal. In those circumstances, I believe that the time limits that we propose are entirely reasonable and

87
more or less in line with other similar processes and procedures. For those reasons, I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I did not detect much in the way of argument in that reply; merely a statement that the Government consider that the time limits in the Bill are reasonable. However, that is the nature of the discussion on this matter. There is no way in which to decide objectively what is the right period of time. We shall reflect on what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage should not begin again before 8.30 p.m. Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords who are to take part in the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we have allocated the dinner hour for this debate—that is, one hour. It would be for the convenience of noble Lords who are to take part in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill if that debate could be concluded within the hour.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Chinook ZD 576
7.33 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to move to resolve, That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that the Liaison Committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the apparent confusion about the wording of the Motion, which is of course as it appears on the Order Paper and not on the speakers' list. However, I hope that my intention is clear. In the words of the Companion, I am asking the House to agree to this resolution as a formal expression of the decision of the House that an ad hoc Select Committee should be set up without delay.
Perhaps I may begin by making clear at once that this Motion does not imply criticism of Ministers either of this Government or of their predecessors. The accident to which the Motion refers took place under a Conservative government. A succession of Ministers, both of that Government and of the present one, have dealt with it in a perfectly normal way on advice from their officials in the Ministry of Defence. Of course,
88
official advice to Ministers is normally a confidential matter. Incidentally, I would be the first to agree that service discipline should normally be a matter for the services alone. However, as will be obvious as this story unfolds, there is absolutely nothing normal about this sequence of events.
It began at approximately twenty minutes to six on the evening of 2nd June 1994 when Chinook helicopter ZD 576 took off from the Royal Air Force station at Aldergrove in Northern Ireland. The crew of the aircraft were two experienced special forces officers Flight-Lieutenant Tapper, the captain, and Flight-Lieutenant Cook, the co-pilot—and two Royal Air Force crewmen. There were 25 civilian and military passengers, most belonging to the Northern Ireland intelligence community. Their destination was Fort George in Scotland. However, at about 6 p.m. the helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre.
That is all that is known as fact because all four crew and all 25 passengers were killed, and the aircraft carried no accident data recorder or cockpit voice recorder—the items known popularly as black boxes. Therefore, anything else about the incident is speculation or subjective judgment, except one thing. There is one other fact which is of vital importance and which I ask your Lordships to bear in mind throughout this brief account. It is as follows. At the time of the accident, Royal Air Force regulations contained the following sentence:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".
I repeat: "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Incidentally, since the crash of that helicopter, that has been altered and boards of inquiry are no longer able to make any apportionment of blame. Noble Lords may regard that change in RAF regulations as significant.
On 3rd June, the following day, a Royal Air Force board of inquiry assembled to inquire into the accident by order of Air Vice Marshal Day, the Air Officer Commanding No. 1 Group—an officer who will figure prominently in this story. After examining more than 20 witnesses, the board of inquiry came to the conclusion that on the available evidence it would be incorrect to criticise either of the pilots for human failings.
That finding was, on the orders of Air Vice Marshal Day, reviewed by two senior RAF officers—the relevant station commanders at Odiham and Aldergrove. Group Captain Crawford at Odiham concluded that,
"in assessing human failings, the evidence is insufficient to be specific".
Group Captain Wedge at Aldergrove commented that,
"the exact train of events can never be determined with absolute certainty".
In other words, neither the board of inquiry nor the two senior reviewing officers was able to say that there was no doubt whatever about the causes of the accident.
However, when the proceedings reached Air Vice Marshal Day, he declined to accept the findings of the board of inquiry which he had convened. He remarked:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
He made that remark at the beginning of his comments. Nevertheless, on the same evidence that was available to the original board of inquiry, he concluded that both Flight-Lieutenant Tapper and Flight-Lieutenant Cook were,
"negligent to a gross degree".
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command, Sir William Wratten, agreed with Air Vice Marshal Day, although he began his summing up with another significant sentence. He said:
"Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR—
in other words, the two black boxes—
"there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
To me, if language means anything at all, "a degree of speculation" implies an element of doubt.
Those conclusions were based on the subjective judgments that these two senior Royal Air Force officers were quite entitled to reach. In their position—they were reviewing the board of inquiry—they were entitled to reach those conclusions. However, subsequent developments suggest that there is a distinct possibility that they may have reached wrong conclusions, especially given the requirement that there should be absolutely no doubt whatever about the causes of the accident.
The first of those developments was the setting up in Scotland of a fatal accident inquiry in 1996 under the direction of Sir Stephen Young, an experienced Scottish judge. After taking 16 days of evidence and taking into account all the evidence that was available to the RAF board of inquiry, Sir Stephen dismissed the air marshals' findings and concluded that the cause of the accident could not be established.
Meanwhile, the families of the dead pilots had mounted a campaign to clear the pilots' names, and in April last year three senior members of the flight operations group of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Captains MacDonald, Hadlow and Kohn, compiled a detailed report—an independent report—on the crash. Those three experienced aviation experts, one of whom, incidentally, was a former service helicopter pilot, concluded that the case was,
"certainly not a case in which there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
They went on to say that this episode,
"must inevitably involve the jealously guarded honour of the armed forces".
That is a very serious statement.
In July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, a former Lord Advocate, examined all of the evidence independently and concluded that the two air marshals may have misdirected themselves in overruling the
90
findings of the original board of inquiry and that in that case their verdict could not stand and should be revoked or at least suspended pending a reopened inquiry.
In November last year, the Public Accounts Committee, an influential all-party committee in the other place, published its 45th report. On the subject of the crash it concluded:
"We do not understand how, given the absence of the definitive information that black boxes could have provided, the Board of Inquiry and the Department can have no doubt whatsoever that crew negligence caused ZD 576 to crash".
Incidentally, the report went on to comment that the preferences of the Ministry of Defence for the results of its own proceedings over those of the fatal accident inquiry constituted "unwarrantable arrogance". The Ministry of Defence has not yet replied to that report.
Finally, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the accident and who accepted the verdict of the air marshals, said recently that if he had known at the time what he knows now, he would never have accepted the verdict.
What is known now that was not known then? A great deal. There have been serious doubts about some of the computer software equipment on board the aircraft. I will not weary your Lordships with all of the technological details except to say those problems were serious enough to cause flight trials on the Mk II helicopter—the type involved in the crash—to be suspended on 1st June 1994, which was the day before the crash. Various other events have come to light since 1994, but this is neither the time nor place to catalogue them in detail. They will certainly emerge in evidence before any Select Committee that your Lordships may decide to set up. Meanwhile, throughout the whole of that period, numerous approaches have been made to the Ministry of Defence asking it to review the verdict of gross negligence in the light of all of the evidence, and either to set it aside or to reopen the inquiry. Every approach has been rejected, usually on the pretext that "there is no new evidence". All the evidence is already available—it is the interpretation of that evidence that is in question.
My aim today is to remind your Lordships once again—it may become boring but it is necessary to say this—of the requirement that is set out clearly in the RAF regulations at that time that deceased aircrew should not be found guilty of negligence unless there was no possible doubt whatever about the causes of an accident; and to point out that a number of distinguished and experienced people, including judges, aviation and computer experts, former Ministers and politicians of all parties have the gravest doubts. It seems to me that only two air marshals and their colleagues in the Ministry of Defence apparently have no doubt whatever, and it is on their subjective judgment that two outstanding special forces pilots have been found guilty of making a joint decision—the decision must have been made by both of the pilots—to risk their own lives and those of their passengers and have been deemed to be guilty of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, described in your

91
Lordships' House on 2nd June 1998 as the exact equivalent to manslaughter—and that without any legal representation and no right of appeal.
It is for that reason that I seek the establishment by the Liaison Committee of this House of an ad hoc Select Committee. Of course, if the Minister, when she replies, would undertake on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to reopen the inquiry, I would at once withdraw my Motion. If, however, she cannot do so, I shall not be surprised. I should have much sympathy with her because she will be speaking from the same official brief that has been provided to every Minister, including the Prime Minister, who has had to answer questions on this matter.
For my part, I can give the following undertaking. If a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, having examined all the evidence, concludes that the verdict of the air marshals is fair and just, that will be the end of the matter so far as I and the families of the pilots are concerned. I have their permission to say that. On the other hand, if the Select Committee that is set up finds that the verdict was unsafe and unsound, we expect the air marshals and the Ministry of Defence to accept that decision. That would be no reflection on the integrity or professional reputation of any of the RAF officers concerned. Anyone can make a mistake in all sincerity and with the best intentions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, I inform your Lordships that when I respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, I shall make it clear that I shall not ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It may avoid the need for a good deal of detailed argument. I find that a very constructive step forward.
Moved to resolve, That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that the Liaison Committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.—(Lord Chalfont.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose persistence and tenacity in pursuing this matter deserve to pay off. In view of the Minister's intervention, it seems that it has done so. I am sure that all who have an interest in it are extremely grateful to the Minister for her comments.
Like all noble Lords who have followed this matter, I have studied the speeches, debates and ministerial answers in both Houses and the reports and press comment. That has left me with a profound sense of unease. I understand the position that the Minister
92
adopted in previous replies to debates of this nature and that adopted by the distinguished Air Marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day.
The two pilots, who were self-authorised—that is, cleared to determine their own flight route—were flying at an extremely low level under visual flight rules which required them to keep in sight of the surface. They chose to fly towards the Mull of Kintyre, where they knew that the weather conditions were bad, and they went straight towards high terrain. Only at the last minute did they appear to climb slowly, turning away right at the end, just before the crash.
That really is quite extraordinary. I find it so extraordinary that it really is hard to believe. There must be some explanation for it. Was it pilot error, pilot negligence? Surely not in this case.
Let us consider this for a moment. These were two skilled and highly experienced pilots who had been cleared for special forces operations. They were well aware of the particularly sensitive nature of the precious human cargo they were carrying. Yet, with otherwise clear skies, they apparently chose to fly straight at and into a bank of low cloud concealing steeply rising terrain at more than 1,400 feet above sea level. It just does not add up.
It is even more astonishing when one recalls that one of the pilots, shortly before that flight, had expressed his strong anxieties to his father, asking him to look after his young family should anything happen. Why did he do that? Why did he have a premonition of disaster? What was it about that aircraft that gave rise to such concerns?
Evidently there had been a number of problems affecting the Chinooks in 1994, prior to that. May not some of them have been connected with the software used in the full authority digital control? It had already been suspected of initiating what is known as "uncommanded flight control movements" in other instances; for example, sudden bursts or reductions of speed. It has been noted that in this case the Chinook was flying at great speed.
The honourable Member for Tatton, in a debate in the other place on 27th June, reported that according to the Ministry of Defence there were 6 UFCMs involving Chinooks in 1994, five in 1995, six in 1996, five in 1997, seven in 1998 and six in 1999. That is 35 incidents in all, in six of which the cause was never found. As he said, there is a steady pattern which suggests something disturbing and mysterious.
Given those facts, there are good grounds for a further and wholly objective examination of that tragic incident, including why it was that the day before the crash on the Mull of Kintyre the aeroplane and armament research establishment at Boscombe Down, the Ministry of Defence's own airworthiness assessors, had grounded non-operational Chinooks. It was the Air Marshal Sir William Wratten himself who overruled the Boscombe Down decision commenting that the grounding did,
"nothing to engender air crew confidence in the aircraft".

93
It certainly did not. Sadly, it would seem that at that time, in 1994, some lack of confidence was more than justified.
So if the finding of negligence cannot be set aside to end the matter there, then there are still too many questions to which no satisfactory answers have yet been given. As Sir William Wratten wrote in the Sunday Times on 18th June last year:
"Why they [that is, the two pilots] elected to ignore the safe options to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know".
Why indeed? We must try to find out and the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord will help us to do that.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have spoken in your Lordships' House several times about my confidence in the findings of the board of inquiry into this tragic accident. The board was properly constituted. It undertook a full investigation with the aid of the Air Accident Investigation Branch. The Chinook was being flown below safety height and into cloud. No technical evidence was found of any relevant flight malfunction, let alone one which might overwhelm the pilots' ability to manoeuvre into safe flight and discharge their primary duty of care for their passengers and aircraft.
The board of inquiry is not a court of law. Its overriding purpose is to establish what happened, particularly when so many lives were lost, and to learn lessons to help to avoid such a disaster in the future. The search for evidence is therefore very thorough. The professional aviation judgment—and that is the key judgment in this sad case—on the evidence found was a rational and reasonable one. In the absence of new and unconsidered evidence, it should stand.
Those who had the heavy responsibility to decide on negligence have not been persuaded that they were wrong, despite all the media and parliamentary scrutiny. A great deal of emotion and some confusion has clouded the fundamental issue of pilot responsibilities.
The Motion this evening is about the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to consider yet again all the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook. But the circumstances have been most thoroughly considered and reconsidered over the past six years.
In this House four noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert and the Minister—have stood at that Government Dispatch Box and have given their support for the integrity of the board and its findings. Six Ministry of Defence Ministers have stood at the Government Dispatch Box in the other place and have equally strongly given their support. Do we ignore them all? Of course, they will have been briefed by the senior members of the board and by the Chief of Air Staff. But they will also have had the advantage of the most thorough consideration of the board's findings by their civilian secretariats. They will have had the opportunity to study the board's report far more
94
thoroughly than has any other noble Lord who has ever spoken on this topic. That combination of 10 well-briefed senior Members of both Houses equals, if not betters, any ad hoc Select Committee in examining and understanding all the circumstances of that tragic accident.
Against that background, is it reasonable for the House to support yet a further examination by an ad hoc Select Committee as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? I welcome the noble Lord's late change of wording which better recognises the reality of the House's procedures.
The House recently agreed to set up an ad hoc committee to consider the many complex arguments surrounding stem cell research. To do so, all the resources supporting one of the sessional committees, a science and technology sub-committee, had to be transferred. The Liaison Committee has had a number of other bids for Select Committees which cannot be met at all in the short term and some may be met in the longer term only if additional resources were to be approved and provided.
Noble Lords may agree that recent events such as the foot and mouth epidemic, criticisms of modern farming methods and food production or train accidents, to name but three, should also be candidates for inquiries in your Lordships' House. All have attracted great public concern and involved considerable loss of life and livelihood.
However, I do not advocate inquiring into any of those matters. I merely draw attention to difficulties that the Liaison Committee and the House must face in the allocation of available resources. I, for one, would question whether this tragedy, important as it is to the families of those involved, merits the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee in your Lordships' House to consider what has been so thoroughly and extensively considered over the past six years.
8 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, it is now widely known that on the 2nd June 1994 Chinook ZD576 left RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to fly to Fort George, Inverness with a crew of four and 25 civilian and military personnel. The Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre and there were no survivors. In the subsequent inquiry the two experienced pilots were found guilty of gross negligence in having failed to choose an appropriate rate of climb to overfly the mull.
I have never suggested that, on the basis of the evidence, the pilots cannot possibly be guilty of having caused the crash by gross negligence. However, the rules for a finding of negligence are formidable for there must be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is a higher standard of proof than for a normal court where proof of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt.
I have thought long and hard about the reasons that I should put before your Lordships as to why a Select Committee should be appointed, always accepting that a new inquiry, to which the Ministry of Defence is unwilling to agree, would be preferable.

95
I have read and studied more than 300 pages of evidence including that of the full RAF board of inquiry, the Fatal Accident Inquiry, the Computer Age Report, the Tench report on Accident Investigation Procedures, to mention just some of the reports. In addition there have been numerous Parliamentary Questions, newspaper articles, TV programmes and meetings with officials of the MoD and Ministers. In that latter connection, I especially want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for her agreement to numerous meetings and for her unfailing patience in dealing, at times, with what may have seemed unusually persistent questions.
I can, of course, spell out for your Lordships many examples of why I believe that there must be some doubt about the verdict. In 1997, three years after the accident, the same type of Chinook helicopter was involved in an incredible near miss in the USA. In flight it turned upside down and hurtled towards the ground while the crew desperately struggled to right the aircraft. About 250 feet above the ground it righted itself and was landed safely. That provided the investigators with a perfect opportunity to find the cause of a near-fatal accident. The investigation found no definite cause, but a possible suspected hydraulic contamination.
That demonstrates clearly that the absence of proof of malfunction does not of itself prove that there could not be a malfunction, as there clearly was in that case. In relation to the Mull of Kintyre accident, it may help to give a brief description of what happened. The helicopter was flying at about 400 feet on its first sector towards the lighthouse on the Mull of Kintyre. The planned route was to make a left turn before reaching the mull. About one mile from the mull, the pilots changed the way point to head for a new direction, namely, Corran. The way point change can be described in layman's terms as an indicator of intended change of direction. The helicopter did not turn, but continued to fly directly at the mull from a height of 400 feet, climbing gently. Only three seconds before the crash did it attempt a rapid climb. To overfly the mull safely the helicopter should have been at a height of 2,500 feet and not the 400 feet at which it approached the mull, nor the 800 feet at which it crashed into the mull.
If the purpose of over-flying the mull was to achieve a more direct route to Inverness in order to save time, as has been suggested, that was operationally impossible because of icing limitations on the height at which the helicopter would need to fly.
In this case the RAF board of inquiry concluded that it would be incorrect to criticise the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Tapper, for human failings based on the evidence available. It also concluded that there were no human failings with respect to pilot Flight Lieutenant Cook. So one may be somewhat surprised that the reviewing officers overturned the board's finding and found both pilots guilty of gross negligence.
96
I ask your Lordships to consider the evidence of just one of the reviewing officers, namely Group Captain P A Crawford, the Station Commander of RAF Odiham. I shall begin with his conclusion. He stated:
"There is no indication of a major technical malfunction. Flight Lieutenant Tapper as captain of an aircraft in peace time had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. Whilst there may arguably be some mitigating circumstances I am regrettably drawn to the conclusion that he failed in his duty".
Bearing in mind that there must be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", let us consider some of the evidence given in Group Captain Crawford's report. Regarding the attempted overflying of the mull, he states that the pilots would have had to use a speed and power combination that is unrecognisable for a Chinook; that such actions would go against all the crew's instincts and training; and would be the antithesis of the professionalism and careful planning that had gone before. He goes on to say that, after consulting other senior Chinook operators, he found the suggestion that the crew believed that they could overfly the mull incredible.
Regarding the suggestion by the board that the crew could have placed inordinate reliance on GPS accuracy, he found that concept as stretching credibility too far.
Regarding distraction, he accepts that that could have been a factor, but does not accept the implication that the decision-making process was complex and vulnerable to distraction. The crew had straightforward choices. I shall abbreviate what he said: when approaching high ground in poor weather the decision, which would have been ingrained in this crew, and indeed in all helicopter crews since basic training, would be to slow down, even stop, or turn away from high ground.
Regarding technical malfunctions, he stated that at this stage of the Chinook MK 2's service, spurious engine failure captions lasting, on average, seven to eight seconds, were an increasingly frequent occurrence. He goes on to say that they are now well understood, but at the time they were not. Had such an indication occurred, it would have caused the crew considerable concern, particularly as they were over the water with no obvious area for an emergency landing. Such a warning would have required an urgent and very careful check of engine instruments and FRCs. FRCs are flight reference cards which may be used in emergencies. At the time of the accident another witness, Squadron Leader David Thomas Morgan, was asked:
"What unforeseen malfunctions have occurred on the Chinook HC2 since its introduction to service?"
He replied:
"The unforeseen malfunctions on the Chinook HC2 of a flight critical nature have mainly been associated with the engine control system FADEC. They have resulted in undemanded engine shutdown, engine run up, spurious engine failure captions and misleading and confusing cockpit engine indications".
Finally, he was asked:
"Were these malfunctions covered by drills in the Chinook HC2 Flight Reference Cards (FRC)?"

97
He replied:
"No, the Chinook HC2 FRC were based primarily on the Chinook D model which is not fitted with FADEC"—
in other words, an earlier model—
"Drills relating to FADEC were based on the best information available on how the system would respond during certain malfunctions".
Finally, with regard to human failings, it is my understanding that gross negligence must come within that description, so it is of the utmost importance to pay regard to what Group Captain Crawford had to say on this subject. He stated:
"in assessing human failings the evidence is insufficient to be specific".
I do not know whether your Lordships share my concern, but Group Captain Crawford's findings of gross negligence by the two pilots, for which there has to be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", does not, in my opinion, fit the serious expressions of doubt set out in his report.
Therefore, I urge your Lordships and the Government to support the appointment of a Select Committee until such time as the MoD agrees to reopen the inquiry.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a short and simple submission; one which I believe to be wholly sound. The Air Marshals, in finding the deceased guilty of gross negligence—that is tantamount to a finding of manslaughter—without being able to present their defence, a point commented on by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman at an earlier stage in the debates, acted without jurisdiction. Accordingly, their verdict must be set aside ex debito justiciae, which means, "because justice demands it". It is as simple as that.
The grounds upon which I base my submission can be shortly stated. First, boards of inquiry are held in private. Secondly, there is no right of representation on behalf of the accused or their personal representatives. In such circumstances, one would not expect a board of inquiry to have jurisdiction to attribute blame in reporting the causes of an accident. In fact, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley said that the overriding concern of a board of inquiry is to discover what happened.
Such indeed is the present day position. However, at the time of the accident there was jurisdiction but it was heavily circumscribed by an onus of proof which exceeded that in a criminal case; namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RAF Flight Safety Manual, AP3207, provided—and these are vital words—that only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatever should a deceased airman be found guilty of negligence.
On that test, there must therefore be absolute certainty. Only in such very limited circumstances is there jurisdiction to find negligence. Here is the very limited power which the Air Marshals had. Only where there was absolute certainty could they make that finding. However, there is no need for us to adopt the
98
fascinating task of analysing those words because the Air Marshals never got near to satisfying the ordinary criminal onus of proof.
Perhaps I may quote from the report and the words of Air Vice-Marshal Day, which I recently came by through the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. These are the vital words of his decision:
"The Board and the Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation, in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules".
I stress the following words:
"In my judgement, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight".
Clearly, it is being said that none of the factors or scenarios is of sufficient strength to provide a likely explanation. That does two things: first, it puts the onus upon the deceased, which is wrong; and, secondly, it deals in probabilities. It does not deal with reasonable doubt and it does not deal with the certainty which the words of the manual require.
Later in his observations the Air Marshal stated:
"Therefore, while aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased aircrew, I am nevertheless forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree".
The phrase "while aware of the difficulty" is a clear understatement of the task that faced him. The difficulty of finding certainty is not a difficulty; I respectfully submit that it is an impossibility.
Towards the end of the observations, the Air Vice-Marshal stated:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
If it is "incomprehensible", then he does not understand how the accident happened. And if he does not understand how, he is not in a position to exercise the very limited jurisdiction which has been given to him. Those are my submissions.
It is interesting to note that when the matter first came before this House on 22nd May 1997 I raised the difficulty in the debate. I said:
"Via the Library, I managed to achieve a summary of what was in the full report. I was told that I could not see the full report because it was not available to the public. I noted that the … very heavy onus is not referred to at all. The summary states:
'The Inquiry therefore concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the high ground"'.
I concluded my intervention by saying:
"I hope that when replying the Minister will devote some time to demonstrate to us to what extent the very high test in regard to the onus of proof is reflected in the decisions and is reflected, in particular, in the views of the two very senior officers who, on review, appear to have departed quite clearly from what was the initial finding".—[Official Report, 22/5/97; cols. 552–53.]
That hope was expressed in vain.
Being obstinate by nature, I returned to the charge in June 1998. On that occasion noble Lords did not hold a debate but considered a Starred Question. On

99
that occasion noble Lords had the advantage of a contribution from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. On that occasion I asked the Minister:
"My Lords, is the Minister aware that the relevant RAF regulation states that in only those cases in which there is absolutely no doubt should the deceased air crew be found negligent? Is the Minister satisfied that that very heavy onus was borne in mind by those who found negligence; or is a possible explanation that they reached their conclusion on the basis that it was highly probable that it was negligence".—[Official Report, 02/6/98; col. 179.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, replied:
"My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that precisely those considerations were in the minds of the distinguished Air Force officers who came to the painful conclusion to which they felt compelled to come".
In what I have read out I cannot find anything to suggest that those precise,
"considerations were in the minds of the distinguished Air Force officers".
Accordingly, I tabled a Motion to ask that the decision be set aside, but my noble friend Lord Chalfont beat me to it and, accordingly, I awaited this debate. I firmly support my noble friend. To exercise power without having it is an abuse of power, and that is what has happened in this case. I strongly support my noble friend's application.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as I have done on many earlier occasions, this time I shall concentrate on only one issue which I have regarded as central ever since I raised this matter in May 1997. I refer to the vital need to have cockpit voice and flight data recorders—black boxes—in all Chinooks. Had there been one in ZD576, two experienced and splendid young pilots would not have been held grossly negligent. I say that with confidence because over the past four years the mounting evidence pointing to a technical fault has become impossible to set aside without further consideration. A black box would have recovered that evidence.
When I raised this matter in May 1997 the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, told the House that cockpit voice and flight data recorders were being installed in all Chinooks. I asked again in November 1999 and the response from his successor was that it was a matter of regret that the programme was somewhat behind but it was under way. Progress has been lamentably slow. Flight trials of a new version of the black box, Humus, had been completed by February 2000 and four of the 40 aircraft involved had been so equipped by June 2000. In October the Ministry hoped to complete the programme by August 2001, but then the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who has been scrupulous in keeping me informed, wrote to say that an urgent operational requirement had arisen which required the same facilities as had been earmarked for Humus. Therefore, although one more Chinook would be modified by December 2000, the other 36 would have to wait until early 2002.
100
Surely, only a serious shortage of resources and perhaps skills can explain, though not justify, the continued delay, which is not only dangerous but leaves the RAF open to further unexplained ZD576 incidents. None of the Mark 2 Chinooks recently used in Sierra Leone and Kosovo and currently in Northern Ireland has been fitted with a black box yet they are operating in potentially dangerous areas. According to an Answer that I received in October 2000, the Mark 2a was procured in 1995 at a unit cost of 20.2 million US dollars. That excluded the engine, which was provided by the MoD from existing stocks. The replacement cost of a Chinook engine as of October 2000 was 2.1 million US dollars. I do not know what it costs to train a pilot, but it will be a significant sum. It is impossible to cost the damage to morale which must result from a verdict of gross negligence passed on the pilots of Chinook ZD576 on the grounds that no other explanation can be found. Each black box costs £326,000. Set against the other figures that I have quoted, surely the economics speak for themselves.
I recognise that only the services can judge what priority they must give when two operational requirements conflict. Presumably, lack of manpower and money, not least a shortage of operational aircraft, means that aircraft cannot be taken out of service to undergo modification. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister accepts that urgent priority should be given to the completion of the black box programme for all 40 aircraft. It is pitiful that four years after we were told it was being done nearly the whole fleet remains vulnerable. We can surely not afford to risk another ZD576. We owe it to those two pilots, and to all their fellows, that in future everything should be done to enable the true cause of an accident to be established, if that is at all possible.
I hope that the admirable Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will be accepted and that a Select Committee will be set up. It is encouraging that the Minister has indicated her willingness to see the Motion passed. I can think of few subjects more worthy of a Select Committee's consideration than this issue which touches the reputation of the armed services and our care for those who serve in them.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have always felt uneasy about the finding of gross negligence. As has been said time and time again, to cause death by gross negligence is the crime of manslaughter. The evidence of gross negligence on the part of the pilots is wholly circumstantial; there is no direct evidence. Gross negligence can only be an inference from the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the question is whether it is right to make a finding equivalent to the crime of manslaughter when the accused are unable to tell their story. I do not believe that it is just, unless the facts are so compelling that no other cause is a conceivable possibility. Examination by a Select Committee would help to answer that question.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise simply to say that yesterday afternoon I looked over at the lighthouse on the Mull of Kintyre from my little cottage in Country Antrim. On a number of occasions I have gone out of my way to visit the crash site and to see the memorial stone erected there. On each visit I have spoken to people who live in the surrounding area. I have spoken repeatedly to the lighthouse keeper, who is still there. I see the lighthouse flashing into my home.
Every time I have gone there I have become more and more convinced—not only from listening to those who live in the vicinity, the people and the policemen who were there immediately after the terrible tragedy, but from seeing not only yesterday, the day before and the day before that, and almost every weekend and every day when the House is in recess, how the clouds and the fog can create different impressions almost within minutes. At 10 minutes past three in the afternoon I have seen the Mull of Kintyre clear and visible; at 20 minutes past three I have seen it completely blanked out by fog and cloud.
There may have been a malfunction in the helicopter, but the fact that weather conditions can change from minute to minute should be taken into consideration as well. Even if there were no malfunctions in the helicopter, I would agree that the pilots could have been deflected from their flight by the weather variations at that time.
This House has on many occasions set up Select Committees. They have come up with conclusions that have been a credit to this House. I wish deeply to thank the Minister for her indication this evening that she will not oppose the request that has been made. I am quite certain that the findings of a Select Committee will do a great deal completely to exonerate those two young pilots.
I knew many of the 28 policemen who were killed on that flight. I believe that it was totally and absolutely wrong for the Ministry of Defence or anyone else to lay the blame for their deaths on the shoulders of those two young pilots.
Again I thank the Minister for not opposing the request. I believe that this is a great step forward in the campaign supported most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The noble Lord has shown great tenacity in keeping this case in the public eye. I have no doubt that when and if the Select Committee reaches a conclusion, it will be to exonerate those two young pilots.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I too must not detain the House. I apologise that my name is not on the list. I was not sure that I could be present. From these Benches, I also want to welcome the Minister's acceptance of the need for a further inquiry. There clearly is reasonable doubt here, and that justifies further inquiry.
I simply add that the argument that this House does not have the resources for a further Select Committee is the weakest argument against one. If there is an
102
argument for another Select Committee, then the resources need to be provided. Clearly, there is room for some further discussion as to the exact nature of the inquiry for which this Motion calls. But in this House, which is remarkably inexpensive for a second Chamber, that should not be held as a reason not to have one. I very much hope, therefore, that we will move to a Select Committee or another inquiry which will satisfy all sides that justice has been seen to be done.
8.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for returning to this issue once again, but now applying rather more pressure on the Government. In responding, I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest.
I can see the advantage of taking this business during the dinner hour. However, with the importance of the Motion, I am constrained to respond fully. I had not planned for a timed debate and neither did certain other noble Lords.
We have had a good debate, but obviously it has not been enjoyable for anyone either inside or outside your Lordships' House.
This is one of the most difficult issues that I have had to deal with during my short time in your Lordships' House. First, there is the issue of whether we should become involved in reviewing the decision of the Armed Forces' disciplinary machinery. Our Armed Forces are under full political and parliamentary control. They are proud of that. Indeed, they are active in preaching the need for that overseas. Noble Lords will be aware that we shall shortly be debating the armed forces Bill—the quinquennial review.
However, it is clear that we must exercise great caution before delving too deeply into our parliamentary tool kit, and especially as some of the tools are so sharp. To question the finding of a military inquiry is a serious matter. On the other hand, there are few noble Lords better placed to decide to do so than the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He has pursued the matter with measured and responsible steps and with a suitable period between each one. It would clearly be preferable for the inquiry to be opened up again by the MoD in response to concerns from Parliament. So I have no difficulty with the noble Lord's course of action, especially since he has amended his Motion.
The noble Lord has implied no criticism of either Ministers or the staff and neither do I. The second problem for me is whether or not there is a problem to be addressed. I will not repeat all the arguments, technical or otherwise, that we have heard tonight. The Ministers, in both this and the previous administration, have relied on the principal argument that the two pilots broke the visual flying rules and were therefore grossly negligent. I am no aviator but I can understand the basis of the rules. What I cannot understand is why both pilots would simultaneously take leave of their senses and break VFR when they were within a minute or two's flying time from the Mull and flying far too low.

103
Furthermore, we have no evidence that there were not free and frank discussions in the cockpit as to what they were doing. If there was serious dissent from one of the pilots, how could he be held to be grossly negligent? That point concerns me greatly. I hope that the Minister can offer a reply to it.
I have another worry. We have heard tonight about possible serious faults with the aircraft's avionics. There is always the possibility that the aircraft suddenly developed a mind of its own and the pilots, while valiantly trying to overcome that problem, broke VFR and then crashed into the Mull. Nevertheless, the pilots are still found guilty of gross negligence.
The third problem for me is that a review might still find that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has carefully considered that possibility and advised the relatives accordingly.
I have concerns regarding the RAF inquiry procedures. I am worried that some personalities and organisations are, possibly of necessity, put in an invidious position. But I am not sure that it is helpful to name names. They have to determine the technical standards against which an aircraft will be procured; whether it meets those standards; whether it is otherwise acceptable; and, then, if something goes wrong, whether there was an equipment failure.
As for the issue of data recording equipment, there is a balance to be struck between cost and security issues on one hand and the risk of not knowing exactly what went wrong, in the event of an accident, on the other. It is a little surprising not to have had a full fit of such equipment from the start. Apart from anything else, it would be a useful deterrent against unauthorised flying practices. However, having voluntarily taken the risk of having a lack of information, I believe that it is questionable to find the pilots guilty of gross negligence in these tragic circumstances.
Some noble Lords have raised the issue of why so many vital personnel were carried on one aircraft. Using that well-developed art called hindsight, it might appear to have been unwise, but I doubt very much that it was a factor in the accident.
The last time we debated this matter, the view taken by the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind was raised. I spoke to Sir Malcolm this morning. He was grateful for the opportunity that he had been given to refresh his memory at MoD and spent half a day doing so. He is adamant that he was not aware of the technical malfunctions of Chinook when he was involved in this matter as Secretary of State. He was told that they were not thought at the time to be relevant to his decision, but they are central to our concerns tonight.
For the reasons we have discussed tonight, I was minded to support the noble Lord's original Motion. However, I did not believe that the time was right to make that decision this evening and thought that the Minister should have time to reflect on our deliberations. There are well known constraints on the
104
ability of noble Lords to support further committees, and the views of the Liaison Committee would be helpful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that if noble Lords decide that there should be a select committee, we will find the necessary resources.
As I have indicated, however, it would be preferable for the MoD to open the inquiry itself. In addition, noble Lords will soon be debating the Armed Forces Bill, and the issue of boards of inquiry will be in scope, as it were. During the passage of the Bill a number of other matters will have to be decided by noble Lords.
I very much welcome the intervention of the Minister at the end of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont's speech.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for moving the Motion, and all noble Lords for their participation in the debate, which has been very balanced and constructive.
It is a debate about the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994. All noble Lords have reiterated that this was a tragic and heartrending accident, following which the RAF board of inquiry reached perhaps the most difficult judgment possible: that both pilots had been grossly negligent in flying their aircraft into cloud-covered high ground. No Minister, standing where I stand now, could fail to be aware of the strength of feeling that this judgment generated. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been unswerving in his wish to make certain that there has been no injustice in that judgment, and that no stone is left unturned in examining all the circumstances of that tragic flight. I pay tribute to him for the steadfast way in which he has approached the campaign and for the obvious sincerity and measured way that he has again advanced his case this evening.
I also admire the families, who have been so committed in defending the loved ones they have lost.
There has been much said and written about the accident, and many hypotheses have been advanced to explain the crash. These mainly centre on a possible technical failure causing loss of control, although the RAF board of inquiry found no evidence of any technical malfunction. The pilots chose to carry out the flight under visual rather than instrument flight rules. This meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton reminded us, that they had to keep clear of the cloud at all times, and keep the surface in sight. But, as they had been warned, there was very low cloud and very poor visibility over the mull. The Mull of Kintyre is 1,463 feet above sea level. A witness reported that at two nautical miles from the mull the aircraft was flying at between 200 and 400 feet. At 0.95 nautical miles, or just twenty seconds from impact, the crew made a manual change to their on-board navigation computer. At that point, the pilots must have been in control of their aircraft and known how close they

105
were to the mull. Given the deteriorating weather and the strict visibility requirements under visual flight rules, they should by this time already have chosen an alternative course. Immediately, they could and should have either turned away from the mull, or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact, the aircraft's height was still only 468 feet, as recorded on the tactical air navigation system. The pilots would have seen this information clearly, but at that point the aircraft was still climbing only gently. At four and a half seconds before impact, the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and climbed a further 150 feet in those final seconds. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, the aircraft crashed in cloud at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots, or 174 mph.
Those are the circumstances of the flight, and it is important that we remind ourselves of those. The essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilots flew a serviceable aircraft at speed, and at low level, into cloud-covered high ground, which they had been warned to expect.
So much has been said and written about it over the last six and a half years. We all feel great sympathy for the families of the dead pilots, and we entirely understand their wish to clear their loved ones' names. However, as I stressed the last time we debated the issue, we must also remember with sympathy and understanding the relatives of the others who so tragically lost their lives. For them also, the accident is relived every time we debate it or it appears again on the television or in the press. They also deserve our sympathy and sensitivity.
The circumstances of this crash, the conclusions of the hoard, and the supporting evidence have been reviewed many times. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, the Ministry of Defence has looked at every piece of possible new evidence. He reminded us that since 1997 the circumstances of this accident have been subject to a full debate in this House, and five Oral Questions. In another place, Ministers have answered an Adjournment Debate, and three Oral Questions. There have been over two hundred Written Questions about the accident and a similar number of parliamentary inquiries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I discussed the issue in meetings and informally. I know that he understands that Ministers are well seized of the need to determine the case sympathetically and with understanding, but always based on the evidence that the relevant information has to offer.
The Defence Committee of the other place thoroughly and comprehensively investigated the lessons to be learned from the crash. It published a report, which concluded that there was no compelling evidence to support the claims of fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook Mark 2 helicopter or its components.
106
The Select Committee on Public Accounts in the other place has also looked recently at certain technical aspects allegedly surrounding the accident. The Ministry of Defence will respond formally to their report very soon.
I should like to emphasise that we have been consistently willing not only to examine any new material, but also to respond fully, with our appraisal of it. I regret that we have not yet come back to the noble Lord with our analysis of the information and material that he sent us at the end of August last year. I hope that we will be able to do so very soon. The noble Lord should not read anything into this delay. It is simply that we are conducting a very thorough and careful analysis of his submission and inquiries, and we must get all the information together before responding to the noble Lord.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say August of last year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed I did.
My purpose in reviewing all that has happened is to emphasise the close examination that has already been made of the case. It is true that opinions differ and hypotheses also differ, but at no point has anyone come up with any genuinely new evidence that would cause us to reopen the board of inquiry.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner,, has made some very trenchant criticisms this evening. Much comment has been made, and continues to be made, about the standard of proof required to sustain the judgment reached through a board of inquiry process. The inquiry was very thorough, as indeed have been all the subsequent departmental reviews which have followed the many and various submissions and letters on this accident. In making their final determination, the reviewing officers, both of whom are very experienced aviators, exercised their professional judgment. They did so in the full knowledge of the import and the impact on all those involved of their judgment, which was taken only after the fullest consideration of all the evidence. They were required to look at this tragic case in the most objective and impartial manner and that is what they did. The fact that others may disagree with that judgment does not make it wrong.
No government should overturn the results of a properly constituted board of inquiry because others disagree with the findings. The passage of time, and the view of hindsight, might make this to some a tempting proposition. However, this is not a political issue. It is an issue to be decided on the evidence. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, nods his head at that point. I remind him that the board of inquiry sat for seven months. It then deliberated for around a year before it issued its report, a report which covered four volumes together with the supporting annexes. There is a huge amount of evidence on which that judgment was based. A Select Committee, if it is indeed set up, will have a very great job before it.

107
If it is the feeling of the House that the course proposed by the noble Lord is desirable, your Lordships will wish to be clear about the principles under which any committee may operate. I am sure that your Lordships will not wish to provide a vehicle for some of, if I may say so, the more sensationalist members of the media; nor wish to see an attempt to overturn the board of inquiry report as a way of attacking the integrity of the two senior officers involved. These officers were required to consider their judgment against the stringent demands of the burden of proof which then existed for such cases. They took their decision on the basis of the facts and their detailed professional understanding, as senior RAF officers, of the very high standards under which RAF aircrew are required to operate.
A number of points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, had many questions which he said had received no satisfactory response. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, reiterated his misgivings, which we have indeed discussed on a number of occasions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was mainly concerned about the requirement of proof by the manual in reaching a conclusion about negligence. That was to some extent echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who expressed concern about the pilots not being represented on the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, reiterated her concerns over the lack of black boxes, a point about which I have been keeping the noble Baroness informed, as she was kind enough to say. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reiterated his heartfelt concern about what really happened in the uncertain and difficult circumstances of that day. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, added his voice to our deliberations.
If your Lordships so decide, perhaps I may suggest that all these matters are ones that a Select Committee might look at. But I make one point. The air marshals will then be able to explain properly, in their own words, to the Select Committee why they reached the conclusions that they did, something they have not been able to do properly before.
It would be wrong to re-run the board of inquiry. It is important that all the views are carefully listened to and very carefully balanced. I must say that that has not always been what has happened in the past, although I know that the House today has been very balanced in the way that it has approached the issue.
Yes, the Government have reservations about the noble Lord's proposal, not least because of the thorough way in which the accident has already been investigated. I believe that successive Ministers have been fully and honestly briefed on all aspects of this case. I believe that Ministers of both parties have been honest in their dealings with this House and with another place. Nothing has been or is being hidden. That is because we believe that there is nothing to hide. It follows that we will, of course, co-operate fully with any committee that your Lordships may decide to establish.
108
Finally, I am very grateful for the courteous and understanding way in which your Lordships have contributed to our debate this evening. It is an incredibly difficult subject. Every time we debate it in your Lordships' House I know that all noble Lords who are closely concerned with the issue are at pains to be detailed, cogent and sympathetic in what they are saying, but judgments must always be based on the evidence that we have before us. I should like to put firmly on the record my sincere and heartfelt sympathies for the families of all who lost their lives in this tragic accident.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she confirm that if, by any chance, a new inquiry were to be opened, under the present rules it would not be possible to find against deceased persons?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as has already been said by other noble Lords, since the findings of the board of investigation were made, the rules have indeed been changed. It is not now the case that findings of gross negligence are possible against those who have died in such accidents.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I agree with the Minister that it has been most valuable and constructive. I thank especially the Minister, both for her handling of her reply to the debate and for the very early indication that the Government will not oppose the Motion.
The noble Baroness said that the issue had been dealt with many times through a series of questions and debates answered by a series of Ministers and therefore suggested that we had covered the ground as fully as we can. The point is that all those Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who answered all those questions and all those debates were all talking from the same official brief. So it is not surprising that we have not had any different answers.
However, I shall not go into any of that at this point because it can all be left to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for saying that absence or shortage of resources is the least of all the arguments against the setting up of the Select Committee. As the Motion says, in accordance with the procedure of the House, the final decision is for the whole House to take. If the House decides, as I hope it now will, to set up a Select Committee to examine this issue, a Select Committee there will be; and if resources are needed, the resources should be found. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl for making that point.
The integrity of the two air marshals or of anyone else involved is not at issue. Never at any time in the years that I have been helping to conduct this campaign have I cast any doubt on anyone's integrity; nor do I so do today. The air marshals were entitled, as part of a normal board of inquiry procedure in the

109
Royal Air Force, to come to the conclusion they came to. They think that they were right; I think that they were wrong. That is what I hope the Select Committee will decide.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
8.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Keeping of records]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 36, after "keeping" insert ", and submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,".
The noble Lord said: We come now to the question of the keeping of records by those individuals who will be licensed under the Bill as motor salvage operators. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the keeping of records by registered persons of the vehicles that they handle. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to insist on registered persons notifying the DVLA of the destruction of motor vehicles.
There is sometimes a long period between a vehicle being taken off the road—either following an accident or when it has broken down—and the vehicle being destroyed. It is not always a quick process. Outside more or less any sizeable town, somewhere or other there is a breaker's yard with large numbers of old vehicles piled up. They are there for a reason; they are cannibalised and, over time, different parts are reused as opportunities arise. However, those cars, or parts of them, can also be used as the basis for creating illegal vehicles, which is the main concern of the Bill.
In those circumstances, we thought it wise to suggest that the regulations might provide for submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of vehicle records by the keepers. Often those records will be in electronic form and thus submitting them should be extremely easy. If they were submitted to the DVLA, then should the police want to check on a particular vehicle which has been involved in a crash and has been taken off the road but had not yet been destroyed, it would not be difficult for them to trace in which salvage yard the vehicle was supposed to be. As things stand, unless those records are submitted to the DVLA, then other than by visiting every salvage yard in their vicinity, it will be impossible for the police to trace the vehicle.
That covers the sole purpose of this suggestion. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment. The main benefit to be derived from this proposal would be to allow a police investigation of a suspect vehicle to identify that it had entered the salvage chain of supply and, if so where.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The effect of this amendment would be to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all salvage operators to send their records to the DVLA. However, under the Bill, it will be the local authorities that will have the responsibility for maintaining registers of motor salvage operators, not the DVLA. As the noble Lord pointed out, the central objective of the Bill is to prevent the crime of ringing, whereby the identity of a stolen car is disguised with that of a legitimate vehicle. It is clear from the police and other bodies that ringing is a serious problem and that a significant level of crime is involved. Because of that criminal element, we have opted for a scheme that will be monitored and enforced locally.
Local authorities are in the best position to operate the scheme. If we adopted the amendment and the records had to be sent to the DVLA, that would in itself impose on both local authorities and the DVLA an administrative burden which we do not believe is necessary, since it would not help significantly to reduce crime. In order to combat ringing, the DVLA needs to know only about vehicles which have been destroyed. The other information—that which will be collected under Part 1—is of no direct assistance in that process. While it might be appropriate to inform the DVLA if the information would assist in fighting this crime, it is not appropriate to impose the requirement on local authorities and salvage operators.
I should also point out that at no point in our consultation did we consult business, local authorities or the DVLA on the prospect of the additional burden of supplying to the DVLA all the records kept by registered persons. I feel that this would bring in a new element which has not been discussed with the industry or the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before my noble friend responds, the HPI has said that a small benefit would be that the DVLA could then pass this information to organisations such as HPI so that the public can be put on notice about the possible condition and ringing implications should they subsequently be offered an exchange vehicle for sale.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Towards the end of his remarks, the Minister used one argument which is totally unacceptable. He stated that the Government have not consulted on this proposal and therefore it should not be pursued. With respect, that is not an acceptable argument in your Lordships' House, because practically every amendment put forward concerns a matter on which the Government have not consulted. If the amendment were accepted, it would only permit the Secretary of State to make regulations. Ample time would be available in which to consult on the content of those regulations. If, at the end of the consultation period, the Secretary of State felt that a great deal of objection had been registered, at that

111
point he would be able to decide not to proceed with the proposal. On this occasion, therefore, I do not feel that the Minister has put forward an acceptable argument.
However, the Minister's early remarks in response to the amendment went to the nub of the argument. In the light of his remarks, although I shall think a little further on it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I declared my interest at Second Reading so I shall not declare it again tonight. However, I should tell the Committee that, in the 30 years that I have been in your Lordships' House, this is the first time that I have taken part in the Committee stage of a Bill. Furthermore, I have never proposed a Bill. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I make a boo-boo on my amendments.
In moving Amendment No. 21, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 53 and 55. I can assure noble Lords that these are purely probing amendments. The reason for tabling this group of amendments is to invite the Government to offer guidelines to all the agencies that will be associated with the enforcement of the Bill. I doubt whether they will understand the text of the entire Bill. Indeed, I suspect that I, along with other noble Lords, am in the same position.
In Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, offences are recognised and the scale of penalties recorded, but it is not, in my view, always clear who should be prosecuted. Will it be the company itself, the directors of the company or individuals who can be clearly implicated in a particular offence? By my reckoning, offences are recorded in 15 clauses. In all cases it would be helpful if the Government could respond to address my concern as outlined.
I sat on the Woolsack during the proceedings of the Private Security Industry Bill. I noticed that Clause 21 addresses the criminal liability of directors as follows:
"Where an offence under any provision of this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate,",
and so on—I will not go on. Would it be possible to put something like that into the Bill to make it clear to people outside who, like myself, cannot read Bills properly or find them difficult? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment. There is confusion in the Bill between what happens when an individual, a sole trader, a partnership or a group of individuals are to be registered under the Bill and when a company is to be registered. This point runs through several clauses, including Clause 13, on which we intended to raise similar concerns later. It is difficult to know who will be held responsible within a company for carrying out the obligations which will have to be carried out by
112
individual traders, a partnership or a sole trader. In particular, who will be held liable and who will have committed an offence if something is not done in a proper manner? Similar considerations arise with Clause 13.
As to this clause, after dredging up what little legal education I had in the course of gaining my qualification as an accountant, I can say that in those days "person" clearly included "body corporate". I do not think that it is the precise amendment moved by my noble friend that is required but an explanation of how on earth one will deal with bodies corporate if they are thought to have committed an offence. Who will get into trouble?
Lord Whitty: The point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Brougham and Vaux, goes somewhat wider than the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, the amendment simply explains that "person" includes "a body corporate". As the accountancy training of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, clearly taught him, "a body corporate" is included within the term "person". Were we to spell that out in the Bill, a different implication would be placed on a whole body of English law where "a person" actually subsumes the term "a body corporate".
As to the issue of directors' responsibilities when the body corporate is the "person" in question, under these clauses we would prosecute the company. In addition, Clause 39 allows for the prosecution of directors and officers of that company. The amendment relating to the spelling out of "including a body corporate" is contrary to legislative practice. It may be incomprehensible to lay persons—and even to such followers of legislation as the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux—but, nevertheless, that is the position. I suspect that the education in accountancy of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pre-dated the Interpretation Act 1978, but Schedule 1 to that Act consolidates that position in legislation as guidance for us all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I said that it was a probing amendment and I shall not pursue it. However, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cope for his remarks. I should also like to thank the Minister for putting on record what the term means so that people as ignorant as myself can understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Notification of destruction of motor vehicles]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert "or trailers"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I realise that I could be accused of being bizarre, as it were. On the face of it, the Minister could

113
accuse me of putting forward a contradictory view on this amendment after listening to my argument on Amendment No. 1, where I argued against trailers.
However, while I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about his wide definition of "trailers", he made a reasonable point in relation to large trailers as opposed to small trailers, caravans and so on. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. The Government might consider that process. If they found a way of defining and identifying large trailers—which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was concerned about—they could make regulations at a future date with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In replying to this debate I could use the same speaking notes as I used earlier. They look remarkably similar and therefore I shall not use them. The noble Viscount referred to registration plates and towing vehicles. The present arrangements are that the towed vehicle has the same registration plate as the vehicle that is towing it.
The point that the noble Viscount made does not come within the scope of the legislation. It is a matter to which we are giving careful consideration. There are plans to register testable—that is, large—trailers. This is currently being discussed. We shall not have the opportunity to deal with the matter under this legislation. However, the noble Viscount makes a good point. There are trailers and there are trailers. We are confident that by dealing with the issue in terms of weight we may come up with a workable solution. We may have to address that matter by introducing a register. My reply does not precisely meet the issue which the noble Viscount seeks to address but I believe that it meets it in most respects. I hope that he will accept that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: The Minister and I are moving in the same direction and perhaps towards the same goal. Clause 8 states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles".
The amendment seeks to add the words "or trailers". If one adds the words "or trailers" or perhaps "and/or trailers", that gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to include them in the future if he so desires if there is a sensible way of categorising them by weight or by some other factor. Presumably we have to come up with some mechanism in the Bill so that if in the future the Secretary of State wishes to include trailers he could do so. I believe I am right in saying that one would have to amend Clause 8 to include the words "and/or trailers" to allow the Secretary of State to do that. I do not want to press the point now but I hope that the Minister might consider it between now and Report and that we can debate the issue again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We shall consider the issue. I believe that it is covered. However, I shall certainly consider the issue. If I can help the noble Viscount before we reach Report I shall write to him.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. We are thinking along the same lines and between us I believe that we have gone halfway to address the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Rights to enter and inspect premises]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert "; or

(c) any other premises that a constable has, with reasonable cause, to suspect to be used by a motor salvage operator in connection with motor salvage"

The noble Viscount said: It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the Bill as formulated deals with legally operated premises and allows a constable to enter and inspect registered premises. However, the Bill fails to deal with premises that, for whatever reason, are outside the system but still carry on the business of a motor salvage operator. It must be recognised that there will be those who choose to ignore the requirement to register. Yes, they can be reported for the offence, but why bother to register in the knowledge that any prosecution will take at least six months to be processed and that, in that time, the CPS can be convinced that the company has registered and will drop the case?
Therefore, all premises that are believed to be used for motor salvage must be subject to the same scrutiny, whether registered or not. Why should a police officer bother to visit the lawful premises when he cannot, with reasonable cause to suspect, visit the unlawful? This amendment therefore seeks to correct this anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, makes a good point. I am content with his arguments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The proposed amendment is already covered under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9. The subsections enable a constable, after obtaining a warrant, to enter premises suspected of carrying on business as a salvage operator. To confer the right of entry in order to carry out inspections without a warrant at premises suspected of carrying out business as a motor salvage operator would be heavy-handed and unacceptable.
To uncover evidence of involvement in the motor salvage trade may well involve a search of the premises. Unregistered or suspected businesses are entitled to the same protection as businesses in general. A general search of this nature should be undertaken only with the authority of a magistrate.

115
We do not need the provision. We think that we are covered. We believe that the course proposed in the noble Viscount's amendment is unnecessarily savage. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: While I am sure that many salvage companies are respectable, will there not be one or two rogues who might need a heavy hand? Are we still covered?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The degree of roguery is hardly the issue. I have argued that we are covered in these circumstances.
Viscount Simon: I question one word used by the Minister. Why is the provision "heavy handed". What does my noble friend propose as an alternative?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The clause already enables a constable to enter premises where there is a suspicion. We think that the noble Viscount's proposed course could well be described as heavy handed. However, the important point is that we are covered. That is the critical issue.
Viscount Simon: I am delighted to hear that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offence of making false statements]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 1, after "recklessly" insert "or negligently"
The noble Viscount said: The Minister knows that I am not a lawyer. However, I understand that there has been a considerable amount of litigation over the years on the definitions of "recklessly" and "negligently". The amendment is designed to promote a discussion about what the Government want to do with the legislation. "Recklessness" is usually defined in relation to a statement as,
"a state of mind which does not care whether the statement is true or false".
I am advised that in Supply Stores v. Cloote and Regina v. Staines—I am sure that those cases will roll off the tip of the Minister's tongue—it was held that a deception, in order to be reckless within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968, had to be more than merely careless or negligent. There had to be indifference as to whether a statement was true or false. A negligent misstatement of fact is by comparison one made honestly but carelessly. "Negligence" means generally the breach of an obligation imposed by law to take reasonable care or exercise a reasonable degree of skill, but not any stricter duty, in carrying out any particular task.
I believe that the proposed amendment would increase the scope of the legislation. Its purpose is to promote a debate on the legislation. It is a probing amendment. It is an area where there has been
116
difficulty as regards interpretation. The Minister's comments during the passage of the Bill could help the courts to interpret it when it becomes law.
I hope that that is not too convoluted an explanation of my amendment. Neither the Minister nor I is a lawyer and we have struggled to understand all the aspects of the Bill, but the definition of "recklessly" is important. I shall listen closely to his response. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise that I made an error this morning. Over tea and toast with my partner, who is a lawyer, I should have exchanged some observations about the meaning of "recklessly" as an alternative to "negligently". Next time I shall make sure that I bring Archbold or some other such legal volume.
The amendments would make it a criminal offence for a person negligently to make a statement that was false in a material particular when he applied for registration or renewal of registration as a motor salvage operator or as a registration plate supplier. That would be heavy-handed and inappropriate. That is why the provision applies only to knowingly or recklessly making a false statement.
The offence is aimed at deterring those applicants who deliberately or recklessly provide false information, not those who do so innocently, although negligently. That is the distinction. It is a question of an applicant being slightly wild in the way in which he provides information rather than doing so innocently but tending towards negligence.
I am not a lawyer and I have tried not to give a lawyer's explanation. Perhaps I should have sought legal advice earlier in the day.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has answered half the question. There was slightly more to the difference between negligence and recklessness, but I am sure that he might get his legal advisers to consider the issue. If there is something that he and I have missed out in our short exchange, perhaps they will be kind enough to write to me before Report. That would at least clear up the issue in my mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Notification requirements]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 27, leave out "level 3" and insert "the statutory maximum"
The noble Viscount said: This is purely a tidying amendment. I do not see why the penalty for false statements should be different from that in other statutes. In recent statutes, false statements have attracted a statutory maximum penalty. This Bill should be in line with other statutes and should not set the penalty at level 3. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Explanatory Notes say:
"Clause 11 requires the person registered or applying to be registered to notify the local authority of any changes affecting the accuracy of information provided. Failure to do so will be an offence, although there is a due diligence defence".
That seems to be in line with what the noble Viscount is asking.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The level is quite important. On the standard scale, the statutory maximum would be a fine of level 5 or £5,000. We believe that that is too draconian for failing to notify changes. Such a fine would put the offence on the same level as carrying on a business as a salvage operator while being unregistered. We believe that operating an unregistered business is the most serious offence. If we were not to tackle it, that would allow a person to carry on operating regardless of any regulations. That is why we have allocated such a high fine.
This amendment would also create an inconsistency in notification of changes under Part II of the Bill. Therefore, we need a proportionate response in order to induce and encourage and not one which we believe would be excessive. I invite my noble friend to consider that in those circumstances a fine of £5,000 would be excessive. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Simon: I can understand my noble friend's response and, to a certain extent, I agree with it. However, I am trying to say that in a similar situation in all other statutes such an offence attracts the maximum fine. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert—

""destruction" means making changes to a vehicle which prevent it from being used on the road in future;"

The noble Earl said: The Bill refers to the destruction of a vehicle. However, I believe that perhaps the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of the vehicle itself. Members of the Committee may not be aware that in some cases vehicles stand in a vehicle salvage yard for many years while components are removed from them. Eventually, no salvageable parts are left. The body in the case of a car or van, and the chassis in the case of a lorry, is then sent away as scrap metal.
I believe that it is important to make provision in the Bill with regard to the destruction of the identity. I refer in principle to the vehicle identification marked on the chassis or the body; that is, the stamping of the vehicle identification number and, most importantly, the VIN plate riveted to the body. Of course, the number plate is irrelevant because, although it is useful for keeping records, it is easy to manufacture. We shall come to that point in later clauses.
Can the Minister say how the Bill affects the destruction of the identity of a vehicle? In the Home Office consultation paper, that seemed to be an important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 27 seeks to insert a definition of "destruction" in the interpretation section of Part 1. That relates to Clause 8, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles.
We consider "destruction" to be an ordinary term with a clear meaning. As such, it requires no further or additional definition. Defining it in the way that is proposed could cause confusion; for example, would removing the wheels of a car, perhaps taking off a wing mirror, removing hub caps or any such similar action fall within this definition? The amendment refers to changes which might make a vehicle unroadworthy in the future.
That definition will probably cause confusion—at first sight it could certainly do so. We do not want vehicles that are not literally destroyed to be notified to the DVLA. I begin to see the issue with which the noble Earl is concerned but the amendment does not come anywhere near grappling with it. The problem with which he is concerned and to which the amendment is directed is probably—I am speculating here—best dealt with in other ways. I shall think about the matter further. I do not think that the amendment's definition of "destruction" takes us towards a solution. I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment, which could touch on some important issues.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Minister is being kind this evening; this is a non-controversial Bill and we are trying to get it right. However, he referred to the removal of four wheels from a car. If that is not destruction, I do not know what is.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The term "destruction" has an obvious meaning. Although it might not be helpful to include that in the Bill, does the Minister accept that the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of a vehicle? He seemed to be content about the possibility that a vehicle in a vehicle salvage yard with a complete identity could be bought by another person. It is important to remember that some vehicles have come to grief as a result of a vehicle accident and have been notified as a total write off. DVLA will have a record of that; we will know that it is a problem vehicle. Equally, however, although some vehicles have been written off, perhaps as a result of a fire, there is nothing in the DVLA's records confirming that. We need to be extremely careful and ensure that the identity of a written-off vehicle about which no records exist is destroyed at the earliest possible opportunity. Does the Minister accept the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle in a scrapyard at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly accept the noble Earl's point. However—I am trying to be helpful here—the amendment's definition of "destruction" does not grapple with the problem that he has identified. We can probably grapple with that problem in other ways. As I said earlier, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising the matter. Clearly, there are difficulties in this regard. However, I do not think that the amendment solves the problem.
Earl Attlee: I have tabled quite a few amendments and I accept that this amendment does not precisely do what I had intended. I shall return to this matter—the destruction of a vehicle's identity—at a later stage of the Bill's passage through the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 26, leave out from "1(2)" to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the phrase, "motor salvage yard" and its interpretation in the Bill. The Bill specifically excludes any premises in which only parts of vehicles are kept. I am worried about that exclusion. The theft of cars in order to break them up into spares is not a significant contributor to vehicle crime, although it is significant with regard to the theft of motorcycles, because breakers buy parts from vehicles that have been stolen or because people buy whole stolen vehicles and break them up. That is not a theoretical problem. Only 14 per cent of the 25,000 motorcycles that are stolen each year are recovered, compared with 56 per cent of stolen cars. That graphically demonstrates the fact that the fate of most stolen powered two-wheelers is to be broken up.
I understand that the Government have specifically excluded spare parts because they have not consulted on that measure as part of the preliminaries to the Bill. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the fact that something has not been specifically consulted on does not mean that we should not consider it here. That would be significantly infringing our rights as a House.
I should appreciate some clarification from the Government as to why they have made that exclusion. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: The noble Baroness has raised an important point, although I am not sure that she has gone about it in the best possible way. It seems to me that the word "salvageable" is suspect. It may be more accurate to use the words "salvaged components" because "salvageable" components could cover a whole range of things with no intention, necessarily, to resell them. "Salvaged" could relate to a dealer who deals in recovered engines. I believe that the noble Baroness is barking up the right tree and I support the way that she is going but it may be better to use the word "salvaged".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was thinking that we might move towards "savaged" components! The
120
effect of the definition of "motor salvage yard" as drafted is plainly to require motor salvage operators to register premises where they carry on their business and to give the police a right of access without a warrant.
Where a parts store is located in a different local authority area from the one where the motor salvage business is registered, the Bill does not require the motor salvage business to register the parts store and consequently pay a fee and the police have no right of access without a warrant.
We do not consider this amendment to be justified. The police already have the power to enter parts stores which are located in the same local authority area as the registered business by virtue of Clause 9(1)(b). If the police have concerns that a parts store in another local authority area where the business is not registered is being used as cover for dismantling vehicles, it is open to them to seek a warrant in the usual way to gain entry and make investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the issue of matters on which there had been no consultation and which were being brought forward for discussion at this stage of the Bill. Of course, we are all at liberty to raise and discuss those issues in your Lordships' House. But with this piece of legislation, we are trying to establish regulation by consent. Thus far, we have published our plans and consulted on them. If we start to bring forward extraneous measures on which we have not sought to establish consensus, we are in some difficulties. But that does not preclude us from discussing those issues. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am rather disappointed and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Falkland will share that disappointment, as will his leather-clad friends, some of whom ride bicycles. I may return to this issue and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his support. Although I fully accept that the Government have not consulted on this proposal, the motorcycle fraternity is very concerned and has made representations about it. I believe that those views should be taken into account.
We may return to this matter at a later stage and I should be very grateful for the help of those Members of the Committee on the Benches alongside me. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 38, after "access;" insert—

""trailer" means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle;"

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30 standing in my name. The amendments are somewhat similar to Amendment No. 1, on which I was shouted down by my noble friend on the Front Bench. That drew attention to the financial gains to be made from

121
the salvage of trailers and caravans. Amendment No. 29 seeks to define the word "trailer" and Amendment No. 30 seeks to add the words "trailer or caravan" to Clause 16.
As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 1, there is a lucrative trade in the parts of trailers and caravans. For that reason I want to include these provisions on the face of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that I know what the Minister's reply will be in advance. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I seem to have become the trailer expert on this side of the House for this stage of the Bill. There may be a requirement for a definition of the word "trailer", but Amendment No. 29 appears to be entirely in the wrong place. It refers to the part dealing with roads, and trailers do not really have anything to do with roads. I do not understand how that would work. It does not appear to make any sense at all, but maybe I have misunderstood.
However, I believe that Amendment No. 30 raises an issue on which I have one question for the Minister. Should the Secretary of State decide to add trailers, as we discussed on an earlier amendment, it seems to me that there would have to be a change to Clause 8(1), which would need to refer to the destruction of motor vehicles or trailers. If it were to be inserted there, would we require a definition of "trailers"? If so, would Clause 16, where the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has, in my view, rightly inserted it, be the place for such a definition? However, I do not believe that this is the right definition. Perhaps the Minister will consider that between now and Report stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was going to try to consider the matter between now and the time at which a response is provided, but I shall do my best with what I have.
The effect of these amendments will be to define trailers and to bring trailers and caravans within the description of "written-off vehicle". As the noble
122
Viscount, Lord Simon, said, this is similar to the amendment discussed earlier that will bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill. Let us remind ourselves what this part is trying to achieve. Part 1 is concerned with preventing "ringing", where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle, and consequently an insurance fraud is committed. We have had representations from the police to suggest that these are serious problems, as I said earlier, but ones that mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations that suggest that this problem exists in relation to trailers and caravans.
We do not want to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where we do not believe that the problem is as significant. This is not something on which we have consulted the police or industry. For that reason, I do not believe that we want to introduce legislation of this sort and certainly we would not want to introduce it until we had some detailed consultation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raises an issue to which I shall not be able to provide a response this evening but I shall try to do so before we reach Report stage.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Simon will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  Entry Clearance Application Arrangements
  Entry Clearance Application Arrangements
  Asylum Seekers in Emergency Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers in Emergency Accommodation
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Criminal Records Bureau Registered Bodies
  Criminal Records Bureau Registered Bodies
  Immigration Advisory Service: Funding
  Immigration Advisory Service: Funding
  Illegal Sexual Services: Arrests
  Illegal Sexual Services: Arrests
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Miss Zainas Hussain Nazir Hammad
  Miss Zainas Hussain Nazir Hammad
  Abnormal Loads: Communication with Escort
  Abnormal Loads: Communication with Escort
  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Implementation
  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Implementation
  Prison Overcrowding
  Prison Overcrowding
  Title IV of EC Treaty
  Title IV of EC Treaty
  Proceeds of Crime: Draft Bill
  Proceeds of Crime: Draft Bill
  UK/China Human Rights Dialogue
  UK/China Human Rights Dialogue
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Depleted Uranium: Records of Use
  Depleted Uranium: Records of Use
  BFPO Addresses: Creditworthiness Checks
  BFPO Addresses: Creditworthiness Checks
  European Rapid Reaction Force: Command and Planning Structures
  European Rapid Reaction Force: Command and Planning Structures
  Slaughterhouse Inspection Charges
  Slaughterhouse Inspection Charges
  Air Pollution: Research Funding
  Air Pollution: Research Funding
  Sheep Dip Exposure Pilot Study
  Sheep Dip Exposure Pilot Study
  Lord Chancellor's Fundraising Dinner
  Lord Chancellor's Fundraising Dinner
  Postal Tariff Differentials
  Postal Tariff Differentials
  Employee Information and Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Employee Information and Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Parthenon Sculptures
  Parthenon Sculptures
  British Museum Portico
  British Museum Portico
  Possession Warrants on Residential Properties
  Possession Warrants on Residential Properties
  BSE Costs to CAP
  BSE Costs to CAP