Sitting of 7 March 2001

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

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss environmental factors affecting the Dee estuary. [151048]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions on environmental issues with the First Minister, and I have regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for the Environment. In the vast majority of cross-border environmental cases, decisions that affect Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, in discussion with the lead Whitehall Department and the Environment Agency, where appropriate.
    Mr. Chapman: The Dee estuary is unitary in its economy and its environment. Given that, and the fact that my constituents work on Deeside and are concerned about cement kilns and dredging around Mostyn, does my hon. Friend think that sufficient resources are devoted to the Dee estuary strategy? Does he see any scope for drawing on the world-renowned expertise of the Mersey basin campaign in preparing and implementing the strategy?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend represents one side of the Dee estuary—in England. I represent part of the other side, in Wales, so we share a common border; all that separates us is the River Dee. The Dee estuary strategy is already achieving a great deal on existing resources, bringing together in partnership more than 90 organisations to work towards integrated management of the Dee. Both the Dee estuary strategy and the Mersey basin campaign are part of the Irish sea coast partnership, and I have no doubt that there are excellent opportunities for the exchange of best practice in developing integrated management and sustainable use of those important environmental resources. As we share the River Dee, I assure my hon. Friend that we will not let it down.

    Employment (North Wales)
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about employment levels in north Wales. [151049]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. Recent labour market statistics show that employment in Wales from October to December 2000 was 1,261,000—a rise of 17,000 over the year.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging response. Is he aware that unemployment in my constituency is at its lowest for many years, and that since—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could the House come to order? Otherwise it is unfair on the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).
    Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend also aware that, since 1997, an average of 500 new jobs have been created for each constituency in north Wales? Will he venture an opinion as to why that encouraging state of affairs exists?
    Mr. Hanson: In Clwyd, West, unemployment when the Conservative party left office was 1,539, and it is now 1,125. I venture an opinion that that is due to low inflation, strong manufacturing support and investment in our public services. The years of unemployment under the Conservatives have gone.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman come down to earth a little? How many more job losses in the manufacturing sector will it take for him to realise the massively damaging effect of the Government's economic policies in north Wales and elsewhere? Does he realise, for example, that since his Government came to power, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost? When will he stop being Millbank's mouthpiece in Wales and start fighting for our interests?
    Mr. Hanson: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that on 1 May 1997, 2,585 people were unemployed in Ynys Môn and now the figure is 1,900—still too many, but 600 fewer. I notice that he did not mention the investment in Mostyn docks in my constituency and the 85 new jobs created there, the investment of £100 million in Toyota on Deeside, or the small business unit in Denbighshire. I notice that he did not mention objective 1 funding, which his party said we would never secure, but the Labour Government have delivered for Wales. There is still much to do and difficult issues to tackle, but separation and independence are not the answer for Wales.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend think that the comments about English incomers

    277
    by Seimon Glyn, a councillor in north-west Wales, which were racist in the extreme, will damage investment and the likelihood of creating jobs in the area?
    Mr. Hanson: For hon. Members who have not heard about the remarks of Seimon Glyn, a Plaid Cymru councillor, he said that incomers to Wales were a drain on the resources of Wales. That means that many businesses, small and large, founded by people from England, will be threatened. I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), as the leader of his party, will call on Seimon Glyn to withdraw those remarks. He might be interested to know that Mr. Glyn is the chairman of Gwynedd housing committee—what a disgrace for him to hold that position with such views.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I want to come in on this point, as it is important. The British Chambers of Commerce has estimated that there are 4,000 small business in north Wales, which employ about 20,000 people. Many of those businesses will have been started by people from throughout the world, including from England. Will the Under—Secretary confirm that his Government's policy towards such entrepreneurs will be positive and welcoming, unlike that of Seimon Glyn—and Plaid Cymru—who seems to want to control English entrants into Wales? Will he also confirm that, like the Conservative party, his party will have no truck with such a narrow and nationalist policy, which would devastate job creation in north Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: Some important issues have been raised regarding rural housing and employment, but the approach of the nationalist party in discriminating against English people—that is what it is doing—who are bringing employment opportunities to Wales is nothing short of a disgrace. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that Wales is against racism, that all people who come to Wales contribute to the economy and that all are welcome to live and work there.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend accept that foot and mouth disease has wide-ranging consequences beyond the livestock industry? It has threatened jobs of those in the hotel and catering industry, in countryside pursuits, such as mountain guides, in the haulage industry and in other non-farming professions. Will he confirm that he is seriously considering the threat to such jobs and incomes in my constituency?
    Mr. Hanson: The Government's first task has been to secure the end of foot and mouth disease and to contain it locally. Of course, there are areas where the disease has severe consequences for the local economy. I have agreed to meet next week a delegation from my hon. Friend's constituency to discuss the effects. I shall be happy to consider those issues and to receive representations on what the Government can examine with regard to their consequences.

    BSK Plant (Llanidloes)
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: What discussions he has had with the Secretary for Economic
    278
    Development of the National Assembly for Wales to secure the future employment of the employees at the former BSK plant in Llanidloes. [151050]
    The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Secretary, and I hold regular meetings with Assembly Ministers, in which we discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales.
    Mr. Öpik: The closure in Llanidloes will mean that one in four members of the town's work force will be out of a job. In that context, will the Under-Secretary consider visiting Llanidloes to discuss employment, and commit himself to working with me and the Assembly's Secretary for Economic Development to do all that we can to replace those jobs and keep mid-Wales working?
    Mr. Hanson: The news at Llanidloes was devastating for the BSK work force. I share and understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who will be aware that every effort is being made through the Employment Service to find alternative work for those affected by redundancy. That includes ensuring that they receive the training that they need to secure other employment. Following the announcement, the team from the Assembly and the Welsh Development Agency is to meet regarding the problems. The Deputy First Minister has also visited the area.
    I shall be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's request for a visit, but I remind him that his constituency will still have the lo west unemployment in Wales—a rate of some 2 per cent. I do not underestimate the difficulties that are faced, however, and I shall consider the issues that he raised.
    Mr. Chris Ruane: We have already had a question on the impact of racist comments made about investment by Seimon Glyn. What impact does my hon. Friend believe that Anne Robinson's racist comments will have on the image of Wales and its ability to attract investment?
    Mr. Hanson: I presume that Anne Robinson's comments about Wales, which I understand were made on a forthcoming programme, were intended to be humorous. I can only say to Anne Robinson that she will have her point of view and that many of us in Wales will ultimately think that she is the weakest link.
    Mr. Dafydd Willey: As I have family roots in the Llanidloes area, does the Under-Secretary accept from me that the loss of the jobs from Llanidloes could be as devastating as the loss of the steel jobs from the steel-making communities? In those circumstances, what approaches have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that operating aids are available for stimulating new job opportunities in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in constant contact with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and colleagues from other Departments, about the impact of Corus job losses on Wales. Obviously,

    279
    we are waiting for Corus' final decisions, and there are on-going discussions in government about a range of issues regarding any ultimate financial package. I hope, as I am sure he does, that Corus will reconsider its decision to announce the closures and that in due course, following representations from the company and the work force, the proposals will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What representations has the Minister trade to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor about business friendly policies, especially towards manufacturing in Wales, where more than 4,000 jobs have been lost this year alone? The climate change levy will deal manufacturing another heavy blow. Farming is in deep crisis, and the countryside needs help, not a further body blow from the Government. It is important for someone with a strong voice around the Cabinet table to argue for Wales. The Secretary of State refuses to fight for a strong position. Is not that another reason why Labour will lose the next general election? The people of Wales will turn their backs on Labour just as the Secretary of State turns his back on them.
    Mr. Hanson: First, Labour has no intention of losing the general election—in Wales or else where. As someone whose party has no Members of Parliament in Wales, the hon. Gentleman can tell us a lot about losing elections. Long-term unemployment is the lowest ever in Wales, where there is massive job creation.
    The hon. Gentleman knows through numerous discussions on the subject that there are no plans for changes to the Secretary of State's position, which is part of the devolution settlement. The hon. Gentleman has made a U-turn today by announcing his party's plans for a part-time Secretary of State for Wales, tagged on to some other Department.

    Rural Affairs
    Mr. James Gray: What discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the co-ordination of rural affairs across Government. [151051]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I regularly meet the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss a wide range of issues that require co-ordination across the UK Government, including key issues for rural affairs.
    Mr. Gray: I take it from the Secretary of State's rather evasive and illusive answer that he has not attended meetings of the Committee that the Cabinet established under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to study rural matters in particular. British agriculture was facing its worst oasis ever before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Should not the Secretary of State at least have the decency to attend those Cabinet Office meetings?
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who said,
    "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."
    280
    Will the Secretary of State repudiate those comments?
    Mr. Murphy: The Wales Office and the National Assembly take the crisis in the countryside seriously. I constantly meet my Cabinet colleagues, and the First Minister and the Minister for Rural Affairs at the Welsh Assembly. Labour Members represent more rural seats than all the other parties put together—in Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: With reference to the foot and mouth outbreak, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Powys county council, which has made special efforts to set up helplines, and the police and Assembly Members on assisting the farming community in its hour of need? Will he also join me in pressing for the resolution of animal welfare problems? Farmers are often wrongly accused of not looking after their animals properly. They are currently desperate to move pregnant ewes. Yesterday, I had to negotiate with the police the movement of sheep which had no water. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has agreed to ensure that tack ewes are returned to their farms shortly. Will the Secretary of State make every effort to ensure that such matters are resolved quickly? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, we must have quiet in the Chamber.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that there is co-operation at all levels of government in Wales to try to ensure that we end the foot and mouth crisis. It is appalling for us all, but I know that Powys county council works closely with the Assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We all hope and pray that the crisis will soon be over.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Carwyn Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs in the Welsh Assembly, on his work with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It means that we have the most competent and efficient provision for agriculture. It is promising that the spread of the disease has recently slowed down. Our approach contrasts with the way in which the previous Government dealt with BSE.
    Mr. Murphy: 1 take my hon. Friend's point, and I agree that co-operation between the National Assembly, Carwyn Jones—the Minister for Rural Affairs—and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been first class. That has been acknowledged by NFU Cymru, which fully supports the Government's policy and action.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given the deepening crisis in agriculture and in the rural economy generally, the closure of post offices and rural businesses, and the problems affecting rural schools and rural transport, is it not time to have some form of standing conference to examine all the problems occurring in rural Wales? Is it not time for a joined-up approach to the problem?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I shall certainly ensure that our colleagues in

    281
    the National Assembly hear of that proposal. As he knows, the Assembly has a development plan for rural Wales, which is a vehicle for adopting the joined-up approach to which he so rightly referred.
    Mr. Robert Walter: Is not it intriguing, Mr. Speaker, that, despite the Secretary of State's protestations about Labour representing rural Wales, the only Labour Member to catch your eye on this question has been the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)? I wonder where those rural Members are.
    The House is acutely aware of the terrible problems facing farming in Wales as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, the co-ordination of rural affairs in Wales is particularly difficult, first because the Secretary of State does not sit on the Rural Affairs Group of the Cabinet, and secondly because the Assembly has responsibility for rural affairs.
    As we approach the general election, can the House and the people of Wales be assured that the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make it clear to the First Secretary and to the Minister for Rural Affairs in Wales that the public resources of the National Assembly will not be used for political purposes during the campaign? What safeguards have the Secretary of State or the Cabinet Office put in place in relation to that?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to admonish Welsh Members of Parliament, of whatever party, because he represents North Dorset. Doing so was a bit rich.
    On making representations to our colleagues in the Assembly, it is pretty obvious to everyone that the Assembly and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are taking the present crisis extremely seriously. It is by no means over, and it affects us all in Wales.

    Job Losses
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What discussion he has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the release of additional resources to the National Assembly for Wales to deal with recent job losses. [151052]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about a range of issues affecting Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for that revealing answer. In the light of the 20,000 jobs lost in manufacturing, the 6,000 jobs lost in the past two years in the rural economy and the 300-odd jobs lost this week through the closure of abattoirs due to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, what further talks will he have to ascertain compensation for consequential job losses in the agriculture industry due to foot and mouth? Also, how can we re-market Wales as a tourist destination once the foot and mouth restrictions are lifted? We must get Wales back on the tourist map.
    Mr. Murphy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's points, but, as he is aware the first and most important thing is to ensure that we end the crisis. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the compensation arrangements that are already in place, and I am sure that the points that he raised will have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the most important thing is to ensure that the crisis is overcome in the first place.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I re-emphasis se to my right hon. Friend how disastrous and nightmarish it will be if the proposed closures in the steel industry go ahead? If Corus continues to ignore all our pleas, will my right hon. Friend assure us that, besides resources being made available, there will be some new, imaginative thinking in the National Assembly and Whitehall to deal with the crisis that will hit our communities?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, with the National Assembly, we are thinking carefully about the measures that we would take in that event. As he is aware, we await the results of discussions between Corus and the trade unions on alternative proposals for the Corus plants. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House again. There is too much noise in the Chamber, which is unfair to those who are ht re for Question Time.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that many manufacturing concerns are about to lay off people because of the haphazard and insensitive way in which the climate change levy is to be introduced? Does he not accept that that will place another heavy burden on British manufacturing industry, which will make it less competitive and, sadly, lead to it disposing of labour?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Under-Secretary's earlier remarks on the climate change levy. Although I accept that there have been job losses in Wales over the past few months, particularly in manufacturing, I do not accept that they are the result of anything to do with the climate change levy. I believe that the economy in Wales is changing and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, 17,000 extra jobs have been created in Wales in recent times—because of that change.
    Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to secure even more job-creating investment in Wales is to ensure that we have a first-class international airport serving the Welsh business community? The way to achieve that is to provide a new access road—a dual carriageway—to that airport. Is he aware that an airport symposium organised by the business community will take place in Vale of Glamorgan on 31 March? Will he assure me that he will listen very carefully to its views?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I assure my hon. Friend that we shall listen very carefully to that symposium. I pay tribute to him as he is an assiduous fighter for the airport in his constituency.

    Intermediate Care Standards
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding implementing new standards for intermediate care. [151054]
    The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I often discus health and social services issues with the Assembly's First Minister and health Minister.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister extend those discussions to include the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and ask him why one piece of legislation has given rise to two different sets of standards? What price the postcode lottery now?
    Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Care Standards Act 2000 set up two separate systems in England and Wales. That is devolution, although I know that he has great difficulty coming to terms with it. We considered the circumstances in Wales and in England and we have established regulatory patterns. He must start to learn to live with devolution.

    Waiting Lists
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What discussions he has had with the Prime Minister with regard to the progress of the Government's target for reducing waiting lists in Wales. [151055]
    The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the Prime Minister and other Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues, including health. The Government's provision of extra resources has enabled the Assembly to allocate to the national health service in Wales £1.3 billion extra for the next three years.
    Dr. Lewis: That answer is revealing because of its omissions. Is not it a fact that the n amber of patients in Wales waiting more than 18 months for operations has risen from 1,400 in 1997 to nearly 5,000 and that the number of people waiting to get on to the waiting list for their first consultation has risen from 6,000 in 1997 to 48,000, which is an increase of more than 700 per cent? Would not the Secretary of State do better if he put that on his list of matters to discuss with the Prime Minister and the Welsh First Secretary? That is a disgraceful record.
    Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman knows that more people are being treated in the NHS in Wales than ever before and that there will be £1.3 billion extra expenditure over the next three years on the NHS in Wales. People in Wales face a choice at the next election: to have that expenditure put into the health service to tackle the issues that he has mentioned or to face Conservative party cuts
    284
    in expenditure across the board, including the health service. I have no doubt what they will choose when the time comes.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Would it not have been more appropriate for the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to praise the hard work of NHS staff at all levels in Wales, and to praise the Government for investing additional resources enabling more than 1,000 more people in Wales to be treated each week than was the case under the Tories? Is it not a sign of confidence that so many people are now going to the NHS to receive the treatment that they deserve?
    Mr. Hanson: As my hon. Friend says, the national health service in Wales is treating more people than ever before. I say to him, and indeed to all my hon. Friends, that the choice is still there: do we invest that £1.3 billion in the NHS over the next three years, or do we reduce it as the Conservative party proposes to do? I have no doubt that people in Wales want a strong health service. That will happen with £1.3 billion of expenditure; it will not happen if the Conservative party cuts the amount.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the nudge that he gave our new community hospital on the Isle of Sheppey.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the on-going overhaul of the computer systems in the Department of Social Security, any plans to offer pensioners an opt-in or an opt-out would mean increasing the number of DSS staff by 3,000, and that it would take computer software engineers two to three years to reconfigure 10 million pensions at a cost of £1 billion?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do what we have done, which is pay the winter allowance to pensioners. We shall give free television licences to the over-75s. We are giving extra help with the basic state pension, which will come in shortly.
    If we were to go down the route proposed by some, and end up offering some incredibly bureaucratic and costly choice, it would mean not merely £100 million wasted on bureaucracy but some 3,000 extra civil servants. It is no doubt for that reason that in recent Conservative party

    285
    literature the party chairman suggested that instead of using the word "Conservatives", the party might decide to use the word "we".
    Mr. William Hague: How much extra tax will pension funds be paying this year as a result of the Chancellor's abolition of dividend tax credits in his first Budget?
    The Prime Minister: The value of pension funds has gone up dramatically as a result of the success of the economy. The abolition of payable tax credits was done for the reasons that we stated at the time. It is the right reform, and as a result of the buoyancy of the stock market the value of people's pension funds has gone up.
    Mr. Hague: The stock market has fallen by 11 per cent. since September, so the Prime Minister cannot say that this year's tax is being paid out of an increase in the stock market.
    The Government published estimates of the cost of pension funds for the first three years of the tax. Last year, it was £5.4 billion. Does not the fact that the Prime Minister will not give a figure for this year suggest that the figure is even larger this year? If he will not give that figure, will he give the figure—already published in Government documents—for the total amount paid in tax by pension funds in the first three years?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, the value of pension funds has gone up considerably as a result of the buoyancy of the stock market. Secondly, we have cut the rate of corporation tax—a tax which, of course, affects the businesses in which pension funds invest. Thirdly, just so that the right hon. Gentleman knows, the actual proportion of tax paid by businesses—the proportion of corporation tax receipts—has fallen, not risen, under this Government.
    Mr. Hague: Let us get back to the actual subject. The figure is £11.7 billion: that is the amount of additional taxation taken out of pension funds. It teaches us all we need to know about the Government and the honesty of their Budget that, on Budget day, the Prime Minister cannot be relied on to read out the Government's own figures relating to one of the biggest tax rises in history.
    The total that pension fund holders have paid out over the last four years is estimated to be £17 billion. If the Prime Minister disagrees with that estimate, what does he think the figure is?
    The Prime Minister: As I have just said to the right hon. Gentleman, because the value of pension funds has gone up, the value to pensioners has gone up.
    In its "green Budget" report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that
    "if the Government implements all of the measures for consultation announced in November's pre-Budget report, there will have been no change in government revenues resulting from Budget announcements over the Parliament".
    It goes on to say that by contrast, when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in office,
    "Budget measures announced during the 1992 to 1997 Parliament meant that revenues by the end of that Parliament were £19.6 billion higher".
    286
    We would take the right hon. Gentleman a lot more seriously if he told us that he was going to reverse all the reforms that we hae introduced, but he does not. Instead, he is committed to a cut in investment—which is the worst thing that we could have for public services—and irresponsible tax and spending policies that would cause mortgages to increase and take us back to boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister wants to know whether we would reverse that measure. We will restore dividend tax credits to 630,000 people who have lost those tax credits and are too poor to pay income tax. So, now let us have some answers from him. It is a good thing that it is the Chancellor and not the Prime Minister who is giving the Budget—we might even get some figures out of the organ grinder that we do not get from the monkey. We cannot get him to give a figure.
    Since the Prime Minister wants to quote about it, is he aware that, the last time that he gave that answer, a firm of accountants wrote to him and said:
    "I suppose the Treasury tried to tell you that stripping £40 billion out of pension funds over a 10-year period…would have no impact on pension funds: this is fair game for a Treasury seeking to mislead the prime minister, although many would be surprised that you bought into it."
    Will the Prime Minister now accept that a large new tax on pension funds has to be paid for either in reduced pensions or in increased contributions?
    The Prime Minister: Undoubtedly many accountants write to Governments from time to time. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the key issue is whether the value pension funds and their stock has increased. That is the point that he will not deal with. However, as we an in a debate about parties' pension policies, I should quote the remarks that the shadow Chancellor made this weekend in Harrogate—[Interruption.] I think that we are entitled to have an exchange about the different pension policies. He said:
    "Well you're perfectly right—that if people choose to take the option to move out of Laying into the national insurance fund, then there would not be as much money to pay current pensioners—so we have to fill the pump. And we can do that by a variety of ways, for a start by selling gilts".
    What that means is that we would end up either not paying pensioners the money that they are owed out of the national insurance fund—which is the very fund into which they paid—or with increased borrowing. It would be either unfair to pensioners or exactly what we have warned about all the way through—as the Conservatives' sums do not add up, they would be back to boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is not only economical with the truth, but less than truthful about economics. He has raided pension funds to a greater extent than Robert Maxwell or anyone ever in history, but seems to think that that has no impact on pension funds. One speech on the environment and he thinks that money grows on trees—ignoring the fact that of 200 pension funds surveyed on the matter, 11 had cancelled their benefit improvements, 55 had increased their contribution rates and seven had had to change the whole nature of the scheme. Is not the truth that funds that belong to millions of pensioners are being taken by the Chancellor in stealth

    287
    taxes, and that any claim that the Government have today to being a tax-cutting Government should be treated with total contempt?
    The Prime Minister: If we are comparing economic records, we should first point out that inflation under this Government has been within the 2.5 per cent. margin, but that it averaged 6 per cent. under the Government of whom he was part. Mortgages and interest rates have averaged 6 per cent. under us, but were 10 or 11 per cent. under him. We all remember the days of 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives. Today, there are a million more jobs in the economy and just over 1 million unemployed.
    So, I think that if we compare the record on the economy under this new Labour Government and the record on the economy under the Conservatives, it does not compare very favourably for them That is no doubt why, at the weekend, the previous Deputy Prime Minister said:
    "I have been in a dilemma, but I have resolved it in my own mind…I am going to vote Conservative. 1 ye been a Conservative too long to do anything else."
    If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do to persuade people to vote Conservative, it only shows what a mess he has made of his party.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend review urgently a serious and growing animal welfare problem that is paralysing the countryside? The foot and mouth outbreak means that farmers are not allowed to move healthy animals down public highways, with the result that one of my farmers in Shropshire will have to slaughter 400 piglets in the next couple of days because the barn in which they are being kept is overcrowded. The piglets need to be moved to farrowing outbuildings only 100 yd down the road. With the right precautions, would not it be possible to save those healthy animals?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very reasonable point. We are looking urgently to determine what further changes we can make. My hon. Friend will know that about 250 of the 390 abattoirs in the UK have now been licensed to slaughter animals under arrangement. The difficulty for us is to get the balance right between putting in place the measures necessary to make sure that the disease cannot spread, and not going over the top and limiting justifiable movements of animals. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informs me that he has a meeting with the National Farmers Union later this afternoon, at which those very issues will be discussed. I hope very much that we can announce further relaxations of the restrictions in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following on from that question, and our exchanges last week, may I say that I very much welcome the fact that the Government have been able to take steps in the direction of allowing the controlled movement of
    288
    animals for slaughter? That is giving a genuine degree of hope to the very hard-pressed farming community in our country. However, I have a couple of specific questions—
    Mr. Eric Forth: Gently, gently.
    Mr. Kennedy: When it sees these exchanges, the farming community will notice that the Conservatives are not interested in serious discussion of the problem.
    Does the Prime Minister have any plans yet for widening the scheme? Given what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) properly and sensibly said when he asked his question, will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the controlled transport of some ewes to suitable lambing sites? That is a real problem, not least for farmers in the hill livestock sector.
    The Prime Minister: In addition to this afternoon's meeting to which I referred, there is a meeting on Friday specifically to discuss that matter. I understand that we shall move on next week to look at the possibility of permitting some longer-distance movements in unaffected areas. For instance, that will allow sheep that have overwintered in the lowlands to return to the hills. It will also help with the specific problem of the ewes that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    At the last outbreak of the disease in 1967, measures were relaxed too quickly, and the disease broke out again. It would be a false comfort to all parts of the farming community to relax restrictions before we are ready. So far, however, all the cases that have been identified can be traced back to the same source. That is a hopeful sign, although it is too early to be absolutely certain. The measures that we have put in place so far have worked. Obviously, we will look at how we can relax them as soon as possible, as we are aware of the heartache and the financial difficulty being experienced by farmers.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Hon. Members of all parties hope that we get through this crisis sooner rather than later. The Prime Minister has called for an open and serious debate about the nature of sustainable agriculture in this country. When we get over the immediate crisis, will he be open minded enough to acknowledge the need for that debate to be conducted with representatives of the entire agriculture community and those involved in the wider farming and food-chain community? Does he agree that the debate should also be conducted on an all-party basis?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the discussions on that will continue. I emphasise that it is not as if these discussions have not been taking place as a result of the measures that were announced last June. There has been a debate about the right structure for the farming community in the future. In addition, the rural development regulation, which will amount to more than £3 billion worth of spending over the next seven years, will mean big changes in the way that we farm in this country. I am pleased to see the first signs in Europe that the debate is going wider than these shores. Without

    289
    fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, it will be difficult to give our farming community the future that it deserves.
    Mr. Phil Woolas: May I, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), express our profound sorrow at the tragic killing in Oldham on Monday evening of WPC Alison Armitage? WPC Armitage, who only two weeks ago had taken part in a successful operation to apprehend suspected armed robbers, was to be commended for her actions. She was one of the bravest and finest officers in the police force. The sense of shock in Oldham is deep and tangible. I am sure that the whole House will want to express its sympathy. Will the Prime Minister do all that he can to support the brave work of the police and to ensure that justice is done?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the memory of WPC Alison Armitage, who was tragically killed while on duty on Monday. I understand that she was an outstanding young officer who lived for her job, and was greatly respected and regarded throughout the force. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends and, of course, we hope that those responsible are brought to justice as soon as possible.
    Mr. Graham Brady: What steps has the Prime Minister taken to guarantee the safety, the lives and the property of British citizens in Zimbabwe who are currently under threat?
    The Prime Minister: We have taken what measures we can in respect of the Government in Zimbabwe, including reductions in our aid, the withdrawal of military training facilities and, of course, the representations that we make. We keep in very close touch with British citizens in Zimbabwe. Easily the best thing that can happen is that the Government of Zimbabwe live up to their responsibility to treat their own citizens properly.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that have been caused by teacher shortages, particularly in maths and science subjects? Those shortages have been evident for at least 20 years. [Interruption.] Will he ensure that there is an adequate supply of well-qualified teachers so that our children can reach the highest standards?
    The Prime Minister: Given the shouting from Conservative Members, I will give them the figures. The number of applicants for postgraduate teacher training places is up by 19 per cent. on this time last year. Applications for shortage subjects have seen the largest increases: maths applications are up by 14 per cent.; science applications are up by 27 per cent., including a 24 per cent. rise for physics; and modern foreign languages applications are up by 7 per cent. That reverses eight successive years of falling recruitment to teacher training.
    Overall, there are 7,500 more teachers than there were four years ago. Yes, we need more, but no one should forget that when we came to office, the number of places
    290
    had been cut, the investment per pupil had been cut, and it is only now that the damage done by the Conservative party has been put right.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The outbreak of foot and mouth has left a lot of farmers and their families with no income whatever. They have to look after their animals and do not qualify for any kind of income support or benefit. In the meantime, a local self-publicist in Melton Mowbray has been driving around to try and find a local infected farm so that he can be photographed there. He has done the same in the local cattle market next to the abattoir and has invited photographers to take pictures of him putting up "Keep Out" signs near infected farms. Will the Prime Minister compensate the former and unreservedly condemn the latter?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know of the particular case in Melton Mowbray that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but if that is happening, of course it is wrong.
    Farmers are entitled to benefits and are entitled to claim them. It is partly for those reasons that we agreed to draw down the agrimonetary compensation. I point out to Opposition Member who were shouting at me a moment ago that we had clone nothing, that in relation to agrimonetary compensation, which is of course reimbursed by the British taxpayer, we have drawn down more than £600 million over the past few years. When the Conservatives were in power, they drew down precisely nothing.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to reform local government finance.
    The Prime Minister: The local government finance Green Paper, published last September, set out options for reform, including how we distribute revenue grant to local authorities, their capital finance regime and local taxation. A White Paper setting out decisions on the way forward will be published later this year.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The issue is important for my constituents in Bury, North, who want to see a funding formula based on agreed measures of need arid not on historical accident. Will the White Paper appear early in the next Parliament; and does "early" mean in the first 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer to that last question. However, I can tell him that we understand very well the strength of feeling. As he knows, it is an immensely complex and difficult area so it is right that reforms are carefully considered, but in any event, it is worth pointing out that, particularly as a result of the extra money that we are putting into education and social services as part of the health plan, all local authorities will have received a very considerable increase in funding. We are aware,

    291
    however, of the complaints of unfairness in different parts of the country; that is the reason, first, for the Green Paper and then for the White Paper that will follow.
    Mr. John Butterfill: When the Prime Minister looks at the reform of local government finance, will he look into why towns such as my constituency of Bournemouth receive a lower than average increase in standard spending assessment year after year—3.8 per cent. this year—whereas our rival resorts, such as Labour-controlled Brighton, get nearly 6 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: On any basis, of course, the money that we are giving local authorities is considerably more than was given under the previous Conservative Government. I understand the complaints about the fairness of the existing system. That is the system we inherited; it was in place for many, many years, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is precisely why we are reviewing it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is aware of the vast number of applications from former mine workers and widows of miners for compensation under the emphysema and bronchitis regulations. We are concerned about the delay in paying that compensation and about the causes of the delay. The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is working hard to speed up the process. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House what action he intends to propose to ensure that those compensation claims will be paid speedily and without excessive delay?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, this problem affects many constituencies—indeed, it affects my own constituency. The difficulty has been that the payment of money has, by law, to be checked in each individual case. That is what has held up the process. However, as a result of what has happened, some £350 million has been paid out in miners' compensation; that continues to rise—about £1 million a day is being paid out. Together with the settlement for 100,000 former miners on their pension claims, that is a considerable indication that we are trying our hardest to bring some hope and help to those in former mining communities. I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to join me in saying that it is only because the Government introduced those measures that the issue of compensation and its speed arises at all.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Prime Minister knows that the first sitting of a UK youth parliament took place recently. About 250 young people worked extremely hard over a weekend to prepare a manifesto. Will the Prime Minister do those young people the honour of meeting some of them to discuss some of their very sensible proposals for the future?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those who took part in the youth parliament. I am not sure that I can give them here and now the absolute assurance that I will meet
    292
    them, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has offered to do so, but if I have the time I will do so myself.
    Dr. George Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school in the village of Middleton is delivering improved education, despite the fact that half the pupils are in temporary or mobile accommodation and the other half are in a building that is overcrowded and needs much investment? Has the Prime Minister got a message for Middleton and the many schools like it, of which, despite our considerable efforts, there are far too many in Norfolk and elsewhere because of the Conservative party's 18 years of neglect? Has he a message that I can take back tonight?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, under the new deal for schools, some 17,000 schools have benefited, and as a result of what was announced in January this year, there will be an £8 billion investment from the new deal and the Government's extra investment for schools over the next three years. That means an actual benefit for schools in Norfolk of over £30 million from the new deal for schools. The one thing that we know, unless its policy has changed in the past couple of days or so—which is always possible—is that the Conservative party is committed to scrapping the new deal. That is right, is it not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] My hon. Friend asks for a message for people in Norfolk: people in Norfolk will have £30 million going into their schools to renovate their buildings if they stick with the Labour party, and they will lose that money if they go with the Conservative party.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Prime Minister has often spoken of his admiration for his former teacher, Mr. Eric Anderson—a former rector of Lincoln college, Oxford and now the provost of Eton. Does he therefore agree with his former teacher, who says that the criticisms made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the admissions policy at Oxford, in which he claimed that it is biased against women and pupils from state comprehensive schools, were deeply unfair, unjustified and offensive to the many dons at Oxford who try their best to be fair to all the candidates who apply?
    The Prime Minister: It is a bit below the belt to be asked about the comments of my old housemaster, but I have to say that I am just informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that the admissions from state schools are up, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would welcome the additional money that we are giving to help that process—or, at least, she would welcome it if it were not part of the cuts that the Conservative party is committed to introducing.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 110,000 people have benefited from the minimum wage in my region, while unemployment in my region is at a 20-year low? However, does he remember receiving a piece of advice in March 1998 from a very influential source, saying that the minimum wage is the height of irresponsibility? In the light of that advice, will he please

    293
    help my memory by informing us who that might have been? Does he now consider that the minimum wage was a bad idea, given that advice?
    The Prime Minister: It plainly was not that influential a source of advice, since we proceeded with the minimum wage. It is worth pointing out what those in the Conservative party said. The shadow Chancellor said:
    "I think the Minimum Wage is an immoral policy."
    The Leader of the Opposition said that the minimum wage is the height of irresponsibility. The shadow Secretary of State for Social Security said:
    "It's a striking reminder of the basic difference between the two parties."
    We are delighted that those sinners have come to repentance now, but the important point is that large numbers of people are benefiting from the minimum wage and the fact that it is now introduced—and introduced with the consent not simply of trade unions and people at the workplace, but of enlightened business, too—shows conclusively what the Labour party has always said: we can have a socially just economy and an economically efficient economy at one and the same time.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I ask the Prime Minister to turn his attention again to Zimbabwe? How long can a Government who intimidate judges, expel independent journalists and harass their political opponents expect to enjoy membership of the Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. The behaviour that the Government of Zimbabwe have exhibited towards their own citizens is, of course, disgraceful. [Interruption.]
    294
    May I say in relation to the shouting of Conservative Members that all the way through, however, we have to judge what is right and best, giving account to those who are actually opposed to the regime, but have to live in Zimbabwe as opposed to on the Opposition Benches. It is for that reason that we have taken measures that I think are sensible and right in terms of reducing our aid programme and reducing or cutting our military training advice to the Zimbabwean regime. We shall continue to put pressure on them through every single forum we can, including the Commonwealth. However, the important thing for the people in Zimbabwe is to get change.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend join in the unanimous welcome given to last night's Second Reading of International Development Bill? Does he see that as another indication of progress from the Department for International Development, particularly as it focuses on eradicating world poverty? Combined with the Government's initiatives on international debt, that truly indicates remarkable successes which the world will be speedy to recognise.
    The Prime Minister: It is one of the proudest achievements of the Government that we have not merely introduced the International Development Bill, but have increased aid and development money as a proportion of our national income. In particular, I pay tribute to the extraordinary leadership of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. Between them, they have given leadership in respect not merely of this country but of the wider world, believe that our obligations do not stop at these shores. Indeed, it is not merely right, but is in our long-term interest to offer a helping hand out of poverty to the poorest regions of the world.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS

    Budget Statement
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon Members in the Vote Office.
    3.32 pm
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since we came into government, our first duty has been to secure economic stability. In 1997, with inflation rising, a £28 billion deficit and a national debt that had doubled, the British economy was once again at risk of repeating the old all too familiar pattern of inflation followed by recession.
    There were many who opposed our decision to make the Bank of England independent, others who opposed the tough controls on borrowing and spending, and many also who opposed our new fiscal rules and disciplines. There were some in this House who predicted that our policies would bring recession.
    I can report to the House today that, because of the choices Britain made, our country now has the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, mortgages now averaging £1,200 lower than under the last Government, more people in work than ever before, and the lowest unemployment since 1975.
    It is a new-won and hard-won stability, which Britain must not take for granted but which we must entrench—and, because there is still much to do, the stability built in the first years will be our foundation for building opportunity and prosperity for all in the years to come.
    We know as a nation that, after a generation of under-investment in both industry and our public services, the ambitions that we have for our country—high productivity and full employment, education opportunity for all and an end to child poverty, a modern NHS and modernised public services—can only be realised if we make the choice to invest for the long term.
    So this is the challenge for the Budget and for the future: by our tax and fiscal decisions, to secure rising levels of business investment and rewards for entrepreneurship; and for all hard-working British families, who deserve the best hospitals, schools and public services, decade after decade of past neglect and decline replaced by year after year of rising and sustained investment and modernisation. Our greatest long-term investment is in children. I have looked back at a century and more of past Budgets which have had one common feature: the needs of children in the tax system go almost unrecognised, and the needs of women were barely mentioned. And when the story of Britain is of families struggling to do the best by their children, to balance work and family life, and all the daily pressures they face, it is right that we have a Budget that puts families first.
    So this is my Budget judgment instead of the old short-termism of looking only a year or a month ahead, we lock in stability for the long term and, by striking the
    296
    right balance between long-term investments and affordable tax cuts, we not only boost enterprise and savings, but meet the needs of not just some but all Britain's families.
    Let me turn to the economic background and forecasts. Between 1979 and 1997, inflation averaged 6.2 per cent. Since 1997, it has averaged less than half as much—2.4 per cent. In the last year, I can report that inflation has averaged 2.1 per cent—it is the lowest annual inflation since 1963.
    Interest rates from 1979 averaged 10 per cent. Since 1997, they have averaged 6 per cent. and have remained stable over the last year, the longest period of consistently low interest rates since the 1960s. Long-term interest rates—now around 5 per cent.—are for the first time since the 1960s as low as those in Germany and as low as those in America. Mortgage rates, which averaged 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1997, are now down to 6¾ per cent. or less.
    Growth from 1979 averaged 2 per cent. Since 1997, it has averaged 2.7 per cent., and in the last year I can now also report to the House that the economy has grown at 3 per cent. exactly. I can also report that manufacturing—despite the euro-sterling exchange rate—grew last year by 1.6 per cent. Manufacturing productivity grew by 4.4 per cent., manufacturing exports by 11.8 per cent, and it is to the credit of thousands of British companies that overall British exports grew by 7.4 per cent. And business investment has grown this year by 2 per cent. as we lock in a higher level of investment as a share of our economy, over 14 per cent., higher than at any time in 40 years.
    The faster the speed of international flows today on the financial markets, the greater the need for international and national vigilance if stability is to be achieved and sustained. And it is precisely because we have taken the time to get the fundamentals right and hold to a steady course that we are better placed to cope with the uncertainties in the world economy this year.
    With the United States today experiencing a necessary slowing and Japan barely growing, the growth rate in the world's major economies this year is expected to halve, while the world still faces volatile oil prices.
    But because Britain's economy remains stable, our Treasury forecast is that this year, Britain's growth will be within a sustainable range of 2¼ to 2¾ per cent., and while elsewhere business investment is falling, I can inform the House that we are raising this year's forecast for business investment in Britain, which will rise by between 2½ and 3 per cent., continuing at an all-time high of 14 per cent. of national income, with total investment growing by between 5½ and 5¾ per cent. this year.
    The Treasury forecast is that consumer demand will grow by 3¼ to 3½ per cent., manufacturing will grow by 1¾ to 2 per cent., and exports will grow between 5½ and 5¾ per cent. Inflation is forecast to be 2¼ per cent. this time next year, and on target at 2½ per cent. at the end of next year.
    In the Budget, the Chancellor must confirm the inflation target for the coming year. With inflation forecast to be 2½ per cent. next year, imposing a lower inflation target—as some have suggested—would mean upward pressure on interest rates and would risk lower growth and higher unemployment. So I can confirm that because stability will guide our approach, the inflation target will remain at 2½ per cent.

    297
    And my Budget will meet each of our fiscal rules. Let me set out the detailed figures for the House. In the last Budget, I forecast a current surplus for this financial year, 2000–01, at £14 billion. I now forecast that the surplus will be £23 billion, and in successive years the current surpluses are projected to be 17, 15, 8, 9 and 9. Over the economic cycle, even on the most cautious of cases, we will meet our first fiscal rule: we will balance the current budget.
    After a doubling of national debt in the early 1990s, the ratio of net debt to national income had, by 1997, risen to 44 per cent. Our second fiscal rule—that debt should be at a sustainable level, below 40 per cent. of national income—has led us since 1997 to cut the ratio of debt from 44 per cent. to 42, to 40, then 37, to what I can report for this financial year—31.8 per cent.
    From the unacceptable level of debt we inherited—44 per cent. of national income—I now forecast debt in the coming year will fall to 30.3 per cent. and in the following years I project 29.6, 29.7, 29.9 and 30 per cent. successively—meeting our second fiscal rule and thus putting Britain in a far stronger position to deal with the ups and downs of the economic cycle.
    Net borrowing, forecast to be in surplus this financial year at £6½ billion, now yields a surplus of £16.4 billion. As we invest according to our plans, the projections for future years are 6, minus 1, minus 10, minus 11 and minus 12. In every one of the next five years, adjusting for the economic cycle, we have locked in the tight fiscal stance we set out in both the pre-Budget report and the last Budget.
    Because of this, and because of the spectrum cash proceeds, we are able to repay debt. Last year we repaid £9 billion. I can tell the House that this year the net cash debt repayment will be £34 billion. This is more debt repaid by one British Government in one year than all the total debt repaid by all the previous British Governments of the last 50 years.
    So debt interest payments next year are £1½ billion lower than forecast in the pre-Budget report, and very substantially lower than expected in last year's Budget. In total, because of the Government's prudence, debt interest payments in the coming year will be £3½ billion lower than this year, releasing resources for our priorities.
    In 1997, Britain spent more on debt interest payments than all the money it spent on our schools. In 2001–02, we will be spending £10 billion a year more on schools than on debt interest. And since 1997, lower unemployment has reduced social security costs by £4 billion a year, again releasing resources for public services.
    Whereas from 1979 to 1997, 42p of every extra pound spent went to debt and social security, now the figure is only 16p, and that leaves more than 80p in every pound of additional spending to go direct to front-line public services.
    So, because we have cut debt and cut unemployment—and achieved higher growth and earnings—we are also able to achieve what has eluded Governments for many years: to lock in a fiscal tightening, to meet all the fiscal rules, and then, within this prudent and cautious framework, to have extra resources available in this Budget to invest, in a balanced way, in Britain's future.
    298
    It is a balanced approach around which we will seek to build a consensus within the country in the coming years that, within a stable framework, the right kind of public investments and targeted tax cuts are both essential engines to drive forward our social and economic ambitions for Britain
    To achieve our first ambition—to secure the fastest productivity growth of our competitors over the next decade—business investment must rise even further, and today I am proposing further reforms needed to promote competition, innovation and entrepreneurship.
    Competition at home is necessary for competitiveness both at home and abroad. Yesterday, the Competition Commission published its provisional findings on the banks and small businesses. The Office of Fair Trading is today publishing its report on the reform of the professions. Later in the week, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will announce his proposals for reform and for detailed further consultation.
    Institutional investors are today responsible for assets of £1½ trillion. To promote long-term investment in our country and to protect investors, I have accepted the recommendations of the Myners report. We will abolish the minimum funding requirement; through tax and regulatory reform we will make it easier for life insurers and pension funds to invest in venture capital; and we will ensure both a strengthened role for pension fund trustees and a clearer duty on fund managers to promote beneficiaries' interests. I support the challenge to the industry that Mr. Myners has laid down and his proposal that we should be prepared to legislate as necessary to achieve the improvements that he prescribes.
    And so that we secure for Britain's companies the true competitive benefits of the single market, on Monday we will submit to European Finance Ministers our proposals on capital and product market reform for the Stockholm summit, and for the Spanish presidency of 2002 a White Paper on economic reform in Europe will also be published.
    And just as I will set out later our vision for the future of the tax system for work and for families, our vision for the future of the tax system for companies, large and small, is that by combining a wide and stable tax base with low and stable rates and a constant commitment to international competitiveness, we will encourage innovation, investment and entrepreneurship.
    Building on our reduction of corporation tax from 33p to 30p, I propose a further modernisation of the corporation tax system to meet the needs of a more knowledge-based economy. After further consultation with business, I propose to introduce a new tax relief for intellectual property and for goodwill. We will also consult in detail on relieving tax when companies sell substantial shareholdings. And from next month I will abolish the withholding tax not only on international bonds but also on payments of interest and royalties between companies in the UK—all steps that are designed to create the best business environment in the world.
    Enhanced capital allowances since 1997 and new tax credits to encourage investment and innovation have already saved business £1 billion, £⅓ billion for manufacturing. It is now time for the next tax incentive to back manufacturing and innovation. Today we issue proposals and will consult on the best way to extend a research and development tax credit to the larger companies.

    299
    And we will legislate a new and special tax credit that will help British companies contribute to the relief of disease round the world, an incentive to accelerate research on AIDS, TB, malaria and ether diseases that each year kill 8 million people, including 3 million children in our poorest countries—deaths that in many cases are avoidable, diseases that in many places are preventable. We have a capacity to help and we have a moral duty to act.
    Subject to a commitment by the pharmaceutical companies to invest in and deliver new drugs and vaccines in ways that truly meet the needs of the poor and sick, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I are prepared to extend this new tax credit even further. And Britain is prepared to take a lead in establishing a new purchase fund tot global health that will not only develop life-saving drugs but make existing drugs more widely available.
    As we consider the next steps for taxation in the North sea, our approach will be guided not by short-term factors but by the need for a regime that raises a fair share of revenue and promotes long-term investment in the North sea.
    For farming—an industry essential to Britain, which today faces immediate and long-standing difficulties—the Government, over and above their statutory obligations, have made available agri-compensation money worth £150 million. And I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is taking steps to advance agrimoney and other payments as quickly as possible.
    Last year, I cut the long-term capital gains tax rate for business assets from 40p to 10p I can now go even further. For employees in all types of companies, including venture capital and non-trading companies, the long-term capital gains tax rate will no longer be 40p but lop.
    Growing companies offering share options will benefit from today's extension of the enterprise management incentive scheme that we created. I have decided to double to £3 million the share options that benefit from tax relief, and in qualifying companies I will extend the right to benefit from these share options to all employees.
    Since 1997, the number of small businesses in our country has grown by 170,000, as we have cut small company tax from 23p to 20p, with a new starting rate of just 10p in the pound—an overall cut in the typical small company tax bill of nearly 25 per cent.
    We now propose a new regime to simplify VAT for small businesses, and this will be of direct help to up to half a million companies. For firms with a turnover of up to £54,000, VAT will not be charged at all—more of business income not subject to VAT in Britain than anywhere else in Europe.
    For firms with a turnover of up to £100,000, we propose a simpler and lower flat rate which after consultation we will implement next year. For firms with a turnover of up to £600,000 we will consult on a simplified VAT payments scheme.
    And I now propose not just to simplify VAT, but to simplify small business corporation tax as well. Last year, we exempted small businesses from the costly obligation to submit audited accounts, thus cutting red tape and small businesses' costs by an estimated £220 million. The next
    300
    step is an even more radical proposal: we will make the annual company accounts the basis for calculating tax, and that will cut more red tape and cut business costs once again.
    On Friday the Deputy Prime Minister and I will announce new financial flexibilities so that regional development agencies can fulfil their strategic role in delivering high productivity and, for every region of our country, balanced economic growth.
    Our rising prosperity still leaves too many people and places behind. Nor will they catch up if we rely on the old failed policies of the past—either paying out more and more unemployment benefits without the necessary investment in the areas, or paying out untargeted property subsidies without real job creation.
    I see our inner cities and our older industrial communities not as no-go areas for new enterprise but as places of untapped potential, where there are young people with dynamism looking for work, and markets waiting to develop and grow.
    Across Britain, whether in new towns, traditional inner cities or former coal, textile and steel communities, the way forward for regeneration is to harness both new public and private investment and new fiscal incentives to extend the opportunities for enterprise from some of the country to all of the country.
    To speed up regeneration, I now propose, after our pre-Budget consultation, a total of six tax cuts targeted on enterprise at a cost over the next five years of £1 billion. To make the first stages of buying property and bringing land back into use tax-free, in designated areas stamp duty will be abolished. To bring disused properties back into use, we will cut VAT on residential property conversions from 17½ per cent. to 5 per cent.
    For cleaning up contaminated land, there will be an accelerated tax relief set at 150 per cent., and consultation will take place on a further corporation tax relief for firms investing in the new urban regeneration companies. To help revitalise our high streets, we will provide 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for bringing empty flats over shops back into the residential market.
    To cut the cost of small business borrowing in these areas, we will introduce a new community investment tax credit and we will now create the first community development venture capital fund, which is a partnership between Government, the financial institutions and the charitable sector, for which the chairman of our review, Sir Ronald Cohen, proposes a capitalisation of £40 million. To cut the costs of start-ups, the Small Business Service will offer one-stop support and up to £2,000 worth of advice and help for any start-up company drawing up a business plan, making it easier than ever in these areas to start and sustain a business.
    In both urban and rural areas, our churches are essential features of our community life and are at the heart of our rich heritage as a nation. To help preserve that heritage and to cut the costs of saving and repairing our listed church buildings, we will introduce for repairs started after 1 April a new grant, which is the equivalent of a VAT reduction from 17½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—a reform long sought after by congregations across the country.
    At the centre of our communities are also thousands of non-profit sports clubs, and we will now consider the best way for the tax system to give them further support and to recognise their contribution to community life.

    301
    The Government's policy is for free museums, and I can announce that we will change the law on VAT to make that possible. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will set out the full details of this change.
    The film industry tax incentive was introduced in 1997, and is contributing to the unprecedented success now enjoyed by independent British films. This will be extended, at a cost of £50 million a year, until 2005.
    Our ambition for Britain is full employment—employment opportunity for all. I can report to the House that, one and a half years early and at a half of the planned cost, we have exceeded our goal: not 250,000, but 270,000 young people have now moved from welfare to work. In total, 1,100,000 more men and women are in work than four years ago, we have the lowest long-term unemployment since 1979, the lowest youth unemployment since 1975 and the highest employment ever among women—and there are today 1 million vacancies spread across the country.
    But there is still more to do. The demands of the new economy mean that we are likely to need 2,500,000 more employees at degree or higher degree levels, and overall more workers requiring higher skills and qualifications to fill new and higher paid jobs. So at the heart of our approach is that Government must meet their responsibilities, providing incentives for work and training, companies must meet their responsibilities to upgrade skills in the workplace, and people must take up their own responsibilities to work and to prepare for the jobs of the future.
    We have already made major changes to reward work—the new deal, the working families tax credit and the 10p income tax rate. Now we have decided that following on stage one of the new deal—when long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent.—it is time for stage two, designed to link those who need jobs to the jobs that need skills.
    Next week the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security and I will publish detailed plans to get the hard to employ back into work, to promote employer-led sector initiatives under which the unemployed learn key skills, and to improve training in the workplace. The starting point is the "employment first" principle. In the past, the unemployed signed on for benefit before they looked for work. Now, before receiving benefit, the employment first principle means that they will first have to be interviewed about job opportunities and the steps that they are ready to take to get back into work.
    For the hard to employ, those still left behind, we are proposing from 1 April, at a cost of £200 million a year, a new regime built around more intensive coaching and stronger sanctions for the over-25s.
    For 30,000 benefit claimants who have been drug addicts, a new three-year budget of £40 million will mean that they can receive the mentoring and training that they need—but to get on to the programme they will first have to get off drugs.
    Next, to link the unemployed without skills to the jobs that require skills, we will announce separate initiatives to fill job vacancies in the IT industry, construction, hotels, retail and financial services. As a result of the spending
    302
    review, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has now allocated over £1 billion so that modern apprenticeships—only 75,000 in 1997, over 220,000 today—will rise to 320,000, as we discharge our duty to invest in the skills of the next generation.
    Already with the new deal, lone parent employment has increased by 100,000, on the road to our goal of 70 per cent. employment for lone parents. From next month, at a total cost of £100 million, we will enhance the choices on offer to include not only full-time and part-time jobs and training, but the offer of self-employment, in all cases accompanied by help for child care. In return, the Government have decided that from next year all lone parents on income support, including parents with children under five, will be required to undertake interviews about work choices at regular intervals.
    In the new economy people already in work constantly need to improve their skills. As the Employment Secretary has rightly said, Britain cannot succeed when up to 30 per cent. of our existing employees do not have the basic level 2 qualifications. Here, too, employers, employees and Government all have a role to play. For our part we are prepared to examine radical new options. To back up the tax relief that we offer for employee training, we are prepared to consider how best we can help employers meet their responsibilities, including the case for a new tax credit.
    If we are to reach our long-term goal of full employment, we must also do more to reward work. Our vision of the future of the tax system for work is of one which, by integrating low starting rates of tax and targeted tax credits, makes work pay, brings more people into work and moves us lo that goal of full employment.
    This Government introduced the first ever national minimum wage and it is this Government who have raised the minimum wage, as of October this year, from £3.70 to £4.10 an hour, and then, subject to economic conditions, next year to £4.20.
    Today I can go further and announce that for all families on the working families tax credit, there will be a rise from June this year of £5 a week. This takes the hourly minimum rate for those on the working families tax credit not just to £4.10, but to £6.40 an hour. When we first announced the working families tax credit, the minimum family income for full-time work was £180 a week. This year, the minimum will be £225 a week, or £11,700 a year.
    And as part of our programme to ensure new disability rights, I can announce that in addition to the new guaranteed minimum income for a severely disabled person of £142 a week, for those in full-time work the disabled person's tax credit will be raised from June this year by £5 a week, and that will guarantee a minimum family income of £250.
    To help parents into work, I have also decided to pay working families more towards the costs of childcare. In addition to the childcare places being created for 1 million children, the child care tax credit will, from June, pay up to 70 per cent. of child care costs, up to—instead of £100, as now—£135 a week for one child, and—instead of £150, as now—up to £200 a week for two or more children, another step in our plan to place affordable child care within the reach of all working families who need it.
    I turn to other measures that will help hard-working families.

    303
    I can announce that for the coming financial year we will freeze all rates of car vehicle excise duty. Having completed our consultation on new duly rates, I will now move ahead with the proposal to extend the £55 reduction on the standard licence fee from all cars up to 1200 cc to all cars up to and including 1.5 litres. This will include, for example, Escorts, Astras, Micras and Rover Metros—in total, an extra 5 million cars. The reduction, to be implemented in July, will be backdated to November last year. In total, 9 million cars up to 1.5 litres will pay licence fees of £55 less.
    From this month also for all newly purchased cars, a new four-band vehicle excise duty rewards the most environmentally friendly vehicles, and 70 per cent. of all new cars will now enjoy a reduced licence fee.
    Since last November, lorry owners have already received rebates for up to half of this year's licence fee, at a total of £220 million. Following our pre-Budget consultation and at a cost next year of £300 million, I will sweep aside the 100 separate lorry licence rates. We will consolidate them into seven rate bands. They will be linked to environmental standards and set in consultation with the industry, and we will cut the rates to match the lowest in Europe. For those lorries used most for international haulage, the fee reduction will mean savings on the old rate of between £1,500 and £2,100 a year. Around 115,000 vehicles will save over £1,000 on their licence fee.
    Next month, we will also abolish vehicle excise duty for all tractors.
    Transport spending is set to rise by 20 per cent. a year over the next three years, as we take forward our 10-year plan of £180 billion public and private investment.
    In November 1999, I announced the Government's new approach to the fuel escalator. It was first introduced by the previous Government in 1993, and by 2010 it will have secured a reduction in carbon dioxide pollution of 1 million to 2½ million tonnes. As I stated in the pre-Budget report, this year we will riot proceed with the annual inflation rise in petrol tax dial has been the norm on Budget day.
    After consultation on the pre-Budget report, I am able to confirm the further changes. In addition to the 1p cut in ultra-low sulphur petrol duty last October, the duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol will be further cut by 2p a litre. To make sure all motorists can benefit from this 2p cut, I will extend it to unleaded petrol until 14 June, by which time the industry says ultra-low sulphur petrol will be 100 per cent. available. The 2p cut for both ultra-low sulphur petrol and unleaded petrol will take effect at 6 pm this evening.
    Lead replacement petrol duty will also be cut—by a further 2p per litre. And because it is light to maintain the proper balance in the tax treatment of petrol and diesel, I propose to match the cut in low sulphur petrol with a cut in excise duties in ultra-low sulphur diesel for all diesel users of 3p a litre, to take effect front 6 pm this evening as well.
    The pre-Budget report launched the green fuel challenge. Industry was invited to submit plans for new, more environmentally friendly fuels. I can announce that duty will be cut radically on alternative fuels—a further 6p per kilogram duty cut on road fuel gases with effect from 6 pm tonight, and from next April, a 20 per cent.
    304
    duty cut on bio-diesel. To allow the new industry to plan ahead, duty on road fuel gases will be frozen in real terms until 2004.
    We cannot achieve the Kyoto targets, and our own goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent., without the climate change levy which, with April's simultaneous cut in employers' national insurance, brings no additional revenues to Government but will cut carbon emissions by 5 million tonnes by 2010.
    To reward businesses investing in energy-saving improvements, the Government will publish this month the list of technologies that will now qualify for 100 per cent. tax relief, and later this year we will launch a green technology challenge, again offering 100 per cent. tax relief to companies investing in the next generation of environmental technologies.
    As previously announced, the landfill tax will rise from £11 per tonne to £12 per tonne.
    I turn now to the other excise duties. Last year. I froze duties on spirits. This year, an inflation rise would push the price of whisky up by 11p a bottle. Because of the competitive position of the industry, I will this year continue to freeze duty on whisky and on all spirits. And this year I propose to go even further: I will freeze duty on wine and on beer.
    Beyond the normal inflation rise of 6p, I will not go ahead with any real-terms rise in cigarette taxes.
    Following our consultation with the betting and gaming industry over the impact of Internet trading, I have decided from 1 January to abolish betting duty, which has been in existence ever since betting shops were legalised.
    I have now agreed that the tax on bookmakers' gross profits will be 15 per cent., which the leading bookmakers have agreed not to pass on to their customers. So by 1 January, no one will have to pay a tax on their bets.
    For inheritance tax, I propose to raise the allowance, so that no tax will be charged on estates up to almost £¼ million—a threshold of £242,000. Ninety-six per cent. of estates will pay no tax.
    I now turn to tax and benefit policy for families. A policy that puts families first in the tax and benefit system insists—as the Beveridge report said in 1942—that nothing should be done to remove from parents the responsibility of maintaining their children, but it is in the national interest to help parents discharge their responsibilities properly. Our vision of the future of the tax system for families with children is to support all families, to give most help at the time they need it most, and to give more help to the families who need it most. So, freed of poverty, every child has the best start in life. And consistent with our support for independent taxation of individual income, our vision for the integration of the tax and benefit system for families is that support should be based on family income, which is the basis of the new integrated child credit.
    By 1997, support for children had fallen in real terms by 6 per cent. since 1979, as child benefit was often frozen; there was no recognition at all of the needs of children in the tax system. As a result, families with children had incomes that were 30 per cent. lower on average than families without children, and child poverty had trebled.

    305
    So first, we made radical improvements in child benefit, which is paid to all 7.5 million families with children. Child benefit in 1997 was only £11.05 a week, or £575 a year. From April this year, child benefit will be £15.50 a week—£806 a year.
    Of course, we realise that £15.50 is too small a recognition of family needs for most families, and it is totally wrong that the tax system contains no allowance for the needs and costs of bringing up children. So, in addition to child benefit, and on top of it, the new children's tax credit is being introduced on 6 April and, after consultation, I have decided that the new children's tax credit will be paid not at £8.50 a week—or £442 a year—as was originally proposed, but at £10 a week: £520 a year. For families on average earnings, this is worth more than a 2½ per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax.
    With the children's tax credit, 5 million families who received only £11 a week for the first child in 1997 will now receive up to £25.50 a week: an increase from £575 a year to £1,320 per family. With this major change in the tax system, financial support for families with children has never been higher. We know also that the greatest help should be there when children are youngest—the time when family income tends to fall as family costs rise.
    We can do more to help mothers and fathers balance work and family responsibilities. Indeed, we want to make it easier for mothers to make the choice to stay at home after the child is born, and for much longer than previously. I can announce that, following the maternity review set up in last year's Budget under the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, working with the Ministers for Women, maternity pay, which is £60, will be increased in successive stages to £75 next year and, the year after that, to £100—as big a rise in two years as over the previous 40 years.
    We will also legislate so that, at the same time as the £100 is introduced, the statutory obligation to maternity pay will be raised from 18 weeks to 26 weeks. At a cost of £30 million, I will extend the help small and medium-sized employers receive for administering the scheme. Parents who adopt will for the first time receive similar benefits. We will introduce two weeks' paid paternity leave, set at the same level of £100, paid for by the Government, with further details of this and other measures to be announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    For the first year of a child's life, I propose a further innovation. From April next year, for families with new-born children, the children's tax credit will be set at an even higher level and paid up the income scale to all households where the main earner earns up to £50,000 a year. I propose to set this children's credit at over £1,000 a year, worth £20 a week, and I will ensure that this £1,000 baby credit will be continued, and it will be paid to the mother when the new integrated child credit comes in, in 2003. So, to summarise these changes: families receiving the higher children's credit and maternity pay will be up to £2,240 better off.
    Our ambition for Britain is that every child has the best start in life. When we came into power, with one third of children in poverty, we had to take action. While child
    306
    benefit starts at £15.50 for all families, the maximum rate of support for children will go as high as £51 a week, a rise of £23 a week since 1997. The income support child credit will be raised by £1.50 a week, and the sure start maternity grant will be set at £500. This will help to take more than 1.2 million children out of poverty in this Parliament as we work to cut child poverty by half, on the road to its abolition.
    For the sake of every family in the country we must and will do more to fight drugs. For too long, in too many communities, we have fought a war against drugs which drugs have, unfortunately, won, so I have a further spending announcement. Next week, the Home Secretary, working with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, will announce a new three-year budget of over £200 million. To every one of the country's 350 partnerships against crime and disorder, in every area of the country, direct payments averaging £½million to up to £1 million pounds will be made straight to police commanders and anti-drugs leaders. Similar funds will be available for Scotland, Wales and. Northern Ireland.
    The war against drugs will never be won by Government alone, but can only be won neighbourhood by neighbourhood across the country, so further resources will also be announced to support a new anti-drugs campaign involving prominent figures from the world of business and sports to mobilise communities against drugs.
    I come to the next set of Budget judgments.
    Our success in cutting debt and unemployment and rising economic growth have permitted us—while locking in our tough fiscal stand—to release £4 billion a year more for our priorities. And after the decisions already announced I can still go further.
    The Government could choose to pay off more debt—but we have already paid off £34 billion this year.
    We could choose to repeat the pattern of Budgets at this stage of previous Parliaments, and make tax cuts that are unaffordable in the long term.
    But it is right to choose the prudent course for Britain.
    Let me tell the House what the Government have decided.
    For savers, as I announced in November, the Government are extending the tax reliefs for individual savings accounts. Nine million new accounts were opened in the first year; £48 billion has now been saved through them. Because of the higher number of ISAs, tax reliefs for savers will by 2006 exceed projected tax relief for PEPs and TESSAs by £800 million. Tax incentives for savings will total £3 billion. We wish to see more ISAs and we want more tax-free savings, so for the next five years up to £7,000 A year of savings can generate income and capital gains that will both be tax free.
    In this Budget I want to do more to cut tax for all savers, including pensioners. For pensioners we have already announced that from April we will raise pensions well above inflation—indeed, above earnings—by £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples, and next year by £3 and £4.80.
    We will retain the winter allowance and the free TV licence for the over-75s that we introduced, and we will retain the Christmas bonus. Detailed announcements will be made in this year's uprating statement on social security.

    307
    Since November, we have been consulting on our new pension credit. It will be introduced in 2003. Pensioner couples with incomes below £200 and single pensioners with incomes below £135 a week—many millions of pensioners in our country—will receive the new pension credit, which will reward rather than penalise their saving. It will rise in line with earnings every year and in this way, it will give recipients more than even the earnings link in the basic state pension would have given them.
    In this Budget I have decided that from 2003, when the pension credit is introduced, pensioners' tax allowances will also be linked not just to prices but to earnings. And I will do more on tax for savers, pensioners and working families.
    To achieve our goal of full employment, I have previously cut the basic rate of income tax and I have introduced a lop tax rate. For national insurance we announced and legislated in 1999 upper and lower earnings limits of £575 a week and £87 a week respectively for the coming year, taking 300,000 men and women out of tax altogether, in all amounting to a national insurance cut of £590 million in this coming year.
    To reward savers, pensioners and hard-working families, my aim now and in the next Parliament is to ensure that more of savers', pensioners' and working people's incomes, now taxed at the 22p rate, should be taxed at the lower lop rate.
    And I propose to make a start today with a £1 billion a year tax cut: instead of the first £1,500 of taxable income at 10p rather than 22p, the first £1,880 of taxable income of every taxpayer in the country will be taxed from this year at the lower 10p rate This is a measure that will benefit 25 million taxpayers.
    And cutting income tax by extending the lop band shows our intention for the next Parliament too: that all those who work hard and save for their retirement will find that more of their income that is taxed at 22p today should be taxed at the lower 10p rate. Seven and a half million pensioners will now pay no tax, or tax at just the 10p rate—70 per cent. of all pensioners in the country.
    Taking into account the direct tax and benefit changes, and the changes coming in this year, households will be on average £240 a year—over £4 a week—better off after inflation.
    With the new children's tax credit now paid from April, the direct tax burden for the average family falls from 21 per cent. in 1997 to 18 per cent., the lowest level for 30 years.
    I said that our long-term goals are full employment, high productivity, strong public services, tackling child poverty and opportunity for all. Now, having made this tax cut for work, pensioners and savings, and having locked in our fiscal tightening, our economic strength allows us to release over the next three years a further £2 billion in total.
    There is a choice. I have had representations from some for billions in further tax cuts. But our priority has been and is Britain's public services. So we will not cut investment, but we will raise it. We will increase spending not by 3.4 per cent. a year, as we planned, by 2003–04, but by 3.7 per cent. a year.
    Let me give the detailed figures for the benefit of the House. To cut spending growth from 3.7 per cent. a year to 2½ per cent. a year, as has been proposed,
    308
    would mean, if started now, annual cuts rising above £16 billion a year by 2003–04; and, even if started next April, cuts of £10.1 billion a year by 2003–04.
    So I have rejected this course for Britain, not only because deep cuts would move us away from our long-term goals and put hospitals and schools at risk, but also because Britain must not repeat the short-termist mistakes of the 1980s—unfunded, unaffordable tax cuts, higher interest rates, cuts in necessary investment, with no fiscal rules. We will not return to boom and bust.
    Within our cautious fiscal rules, education spending is already set to rise by 5.2 per cent. a year even after inflation. I now propose to increase substantially the sum of current and capital money paid to every school, and directly to every teacher, to allow them to make their own decisions as head teachers, as they meet the nation's educational targets.
    Head teachers of every primary school will receive not £10,000, as planned, but £13,000. The larger primary schools will receive not £50,000 but £63,000. The head teacher of each secondary school will receive, for the smaller schools, not—as planned—£57,000 but £68,000, and for the larger schools a payment of not £92,000 but £115,000. And these payments will be made not just for one year, but for every year through to 2004. In total, £200 million extra each year for the next three years.
    As a result of our spending review, cash spending on the NHS is rising by 50 per cent. over five years. Today we add to that. There is a strong case for extra capital investment, new scanners and renovating old Nightingale wards. And there is a strong case for money going direct to each hospital trust, and a case also for more primary care money going direct to local GP surgeries.
    I am not, however, able to give £100,000 to each of the 200 acute hospital trusts. Instead, from April, for work on Nightingale wards and for new investment, acute hospital trusts will receive, as a result of this Budget, every year for the next three years, extra money of between £ ½ million and £1 million a year direct to the trust. Further announcements, including cash for GP trusts, will follow, as will allocations by the Scottish and Welsh Administrations.
    So I have one final announcement. The Secretary of State for Health wishes to recruit an extra 20,000 more nurses by 2004. Next week he will announce three-year allocations from a new £135 million fund for recruitment of front-line staff. And next week also, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will announce his three-year allocations from a new £200 million fund we are setting up today for retention and for recruitment of extra teachers.
    In total, over the next three years £1 billion more to our hospitals and £1 billion more to our schools—money that we could not provide if we made irresponsible tax cuts.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have made our choice: more investment, not less; stability the foundation; tax cuts we can afford; schools and hospitals first. I commend this Budget to the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?
    Under Standing Order No. 51, the first motion, entitled "Provisional Collection of Taxes", must be decided without debate.

    Budget Statement

      PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
      Motion made, and Question,
      That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

      (a) Hydrocarbon oil (rates of duty)(motion No. 2);

      (b) Hydrocarbon oil (rebate on unleaded petrol)(motion No. 3);

      (c) Tobacco products (rates of duty)(motion No. 4)—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

      put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions), and agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and they will then be decided without debate.

  Budget Resolutions

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.

    (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (6) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

    (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

    (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable;

    (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

    (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

    (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

    (3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax—

    (a) providing for refunds of the kind specified in paragraph (4) below;

    (b) providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on supplies of the descriptions specified in paragraph (5) below (and on equivalent acquisitions and importations); or

    (c) making provision of the kind authorised by paragraph (6) below.

    (4) The refunds mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) above are refunds of value added tax where—

    (a) that tax is chargeable on a supply to, or an acquisition or importation by, a museum or gallery, and

    (b) the supply, acquisition or importation is attributable to supplies of free rights of admission to the museum or gallery.

    (5) The supplies mentioned in paragraph (3)(b) above are—

    (a) supplies, in the course of a conversion of a building (or part of a building), of services related to the conversion if after the conversion the building (or part) contains living accommodation;

    (b) supplies, in the course of the renovation or alteration (including the extension) of a dwelling that has been unoccupied for at least three years, of services related to the renovation or alteration:

    (c) supplies of goods by a person making a supply of services within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above if—

    (i) those services include the incorporation of the goods into the building concerned (or its site), and

    (ii) the goods are building materials within the meaning of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994;

    (d) supplies of children's car seats.

    (6) The provision authorised by this paragraph is provision re-enacting, without altering any person's liability to value added tax or the amount of any such liability, provisions providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on certain supplies, acquisitions and importations.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

    4.26 pm
    Mr. William Hague: This is the Chancellor's fifth Budget, but those of us who have observed the previous four will already know a great deal about this one. The first thing we know is that those who naively relied entirely on what the Chancellor had said for

    311
    their Budget information ended up being grossly misinformed. In previous years, the clobbering of the pension funds, the abolition of the 20p tax rate, the billion-pound tax on high-tech entrepreneurs and the £2 billion addition to corporation tax were all introduced in the Chancellor's Budget, but never described—and in some cases never even mentioned—in the Chancellor's speech. So he will understand that people will be suspicious about some of the claims that he has made today.
    When the Chancellor says that he will simplify corporation tax for small companies, people will remember that the last time that he said he was going to simplify something for the self-employed—national insurance contributions—they ended up with a £475 million tax increase which he did not mention in his Budget.
    When the Chancellor talks about helping women and children, people will remember that he abolished the married couples allowance and left a gap for a year before introducing the children's tax credit, so that, in the current financial year, families—including many women and children—have been the victims of his stealth taxes.
    When the Chancellor talks about what he has done for savings, people will remember the penalising of savings in his previous Budgets. For some reason, he omitted to mention—this is at page 170 of the Red Book, which was published a few minutes ago—that the forecast for the savings ratio has been revised downwards again, and that what was going to be 6 per cent. of the national income being saved—compared with 11 per cent. under the previous Government—has now been revised down to 4.75 per cent.
    On a rapid reading of the Red Book, it is quite instructive to discover, on page 473, that the Chancellor's forecast for the balance of trade is a £27 billion deficit, which is £8 billion worse than the outturn for this year; that his forecast for a manufacturing output increase has been revised down from his previous forecast; and that although he said that he was increasing his forecast for investment, his figures show that the actual outturn for fixed investment for 2000 is 2.25 per cent., against the 3.25 per cent. that he forecast in the previous Budget. Therefore, as ever with his Budgets, all is not what it seems.
    We also know that so many of the claims that the Chancellor makes on Budget day turn out to be false. For example, he said today that the tax burden on the average family will fall to its lowest level for 30 years. However, in saying that, he included only direct taxes and left out all of his stealth taxes on petrol, pensions, cars, alcohol, cigarettes and council tax. His statement was watched by millions of people, and some of them may even have believed it, but it would be true only for people who never drive, never smoke, never drink and do not have a pension or even a local council. In other words, it does not apply to anyone in the country.
    Based on previous experience, therefore, no rational person can sit here and believe the Chancellor's assertions. It is just as well that the Prime Minister is sitting next to him. Labour Members cheer in ignorance of the detail, which proves that one cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but one can fool all Labour Members of Parliament on Budget day.
    The second thing that we know for sure about the Chancellor's Budget today is that his every pronouncement is set against the massive increases in tax
    312
    that he previously introduced. Taxes are £25 billion higher this year than when Labour came to office. In the four previous Budgets, the Chancellor introduced 45 stealth tax increases. Taxes have gone up on marriages, mortgages, pensions, petrol, diesel, cars, homes, medical insurance, savings, small businesses, large businesses and the self-employed.
    The Chancellor turned up today with tax reductions as part of a cynical election Budget. It gives back to people for a limited period only a tiny part of what he has taken from them. He is like the thief who steals one's car and comes back the next day to return the hubcaps. That is the story of the Chancellor's five Budgets in this Parliament.
    The Chancellor's extra taxes on families, drivers and businesses are already equivalent to an extra 10p on income tax. Today he announced tax reductions that would be equivalent to about 1p off income tax. It is therefore a 10p up, 1p down election Budget. What the right hon. Gentleman gives with one hand, he has already more than taken away with the other.
    Because of this Chancellor's tax increases, the increase in people's real household disposable income—the amount of their own money that they can keep after taxes and inflation—has fallen to its lowest level for a generation. Under the Government of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, disposable household income rose at 2.9 per cent. a year. Under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it grew at 2.5 per cent. a year. Under this Government, it has grown at 1.6 per cent. a year. The Government promised that they had no plans to increase taxes at all. The lowest increase in disposable income for a generation has been produced by a Government with the highest increase in disposable promises.
    As ever, there are a variety of tax increases that the Chancellor has decided not to mention in the Budget. No doubt he thought it a minor detail, but he omitted to mention yet another stealth tax increase—the decision to impose from 1 June, for the first time ever, the full cost of VAT on the purchase of spectacles. That will add about £10 to each purchase.
    Customs and Excise has written to the optical profession saying that local officers will apply that decision to all opticians businesses with effect from 1 June 2001. I received a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Alan Brown—at least one Mr. Brown can be straight about taxation—who said about the Chancellor:
    "The above 'TAX ON EYESIGHT' I suspect will not be mentioned in his budget speech this Wednesday, however, I feel it is of sufficient national importance for you to mention it in your budget reply as it high-lights the snide and underhand way in which the Government introduces these stealth taxes."
    It is typical of this Government to announce with great amounts of publicity the introduction of free sight tests for the over-60s without telling them that they will not be any better off as the VAT on their spectacles will now outweigh the saving. How is it that something that affects millions of people and thousands of businesses around the country and is a major extension of value added tax has somehow slipped out of the Budget speech?
    How is it that the increases in council tax were not referred to in the Budget speech? We now know that the council tax cost for the average band D property will rise by 7 per cent. this year—three times the rate of inflation. That means £60 more in tax bills for hard-working

    313
    families and brings the total increase in council tax since the Government came to power to £220 on band D properties—a tax hike of a third.
    Council costs are rising because of the Chancellor's other stealth taxes on fuel and pensions and because of extra regulations and bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman's best-value scheme has added £125 million to the cost of councils. Under this Government, council tax has become the ultimate stealth tax, piled on to taxpayers without any improvement in services. The Chancellor hopes that individual councillors will get the blame instead of him.
    We also heard nothing in the Budget speech about double taxation relief—which was much vaunted in last year's Budget—by which the Chancellor was going to raise hundreds of millions of pounds. This must be somewhere in the Budget measures because the pre-Budget report said that the Government would be acting through the 2001 Finance Bill.
    Today sees what should be the end of a saga of muddled thinking and failure to listen that has involved the Government in no fewer than three retreats from their original plans. They consulted on two options for changes to double taxation relief in 1998. The first retreat was when the Chancellor adopted totally different proposals in last year's Budget. So much for listening. He then slipped out those proposals in a Budget press release without mentioning them in his speech. So much for open government. When I asked the Prime Minister about the proposals at Prime Minister's Question Time, he insisted that the problems raised by PricewaterhouseCoopers were based on a misunderstanding of the tax position and that he knew more about double taxation than the accountancy profession. So much for knowing one's limitations.
    Then came the second retreat. The Government admitted that they had been mistaken and changed the proposals in the Finance Bill Committee. Yet they have still not got the details right. The Chancellor is having to change them again in this Budget, but has not told us how—that is the third retreat. So, double taxation relief has turned into a triple taxation retreat and the details should have been in the Chancellor's Budget speech.
    The Chancellor announced a change in income tax, widening the 10p tax band from £1,500 to £1,880. People will remember that the abolition of the married couples allowance adds £300 a year to their income tax bill. The abolition of mortgage interest relief adds £326 to their income tax bill. These more than cancel out the increases in thresholds and reductions in allowances announced in previous Budgets. The widening of the 10p tax band will produce in most cases £38 a year, or 75p a week. The right hon. Gentleman has got into trouble over 75p a week before, and I think that he might get into trouble over it again.
    The Chancellor announced proposals on business taxation and said that he had to make it easier for businesses to compete. Who has been bringing about all the increases in business taxation over the past four years? The Confederation of British Industry says that the United Kingdom tax take from business has already gone up by an estimated £5 billion a year over the course of this Parliament.
    314
    The Government are steadily destroying Britain's competitive advantage. While they have been playing politics with the British economy, our competitors have been sharpening up their act. While other countries have been reducing their taxes—France, Germany and Italy are all proposing substantial business tax reductions—the Chancellor is going to produce a White Paper on economic reform in Europe. He will lecture other countries on what to do, when he has been increasing taxes in Britain while they have been reducing theirs.
    Over the past four years, the UK's productivity growth has averaged 1.4 pr cent. and the Red Book, just published, refers on page 162 to subdued productivity growth since 1997. What a coincidence. Who came to power in 1997? Over the previous five years, productivity grew 50 per cent. more quickly. No wonder the International Monetary Fund has said that the United Kingdom's productivity performance in comparison with other major industrialised countries is an area of weakness.
    We will look at that, detail of the Chancellor's business announcements, and where they reduce the tax and regulatory burden—if they do—they will be welcome. However, the right hon. Gentleman would have done better to tackle business burdens head on, to have stopped forcing businesses to act as unpaid tax and benefit administrators, and to have scrapped the IR35 tax that will drive people overseas. He should have set British business free to compete.
    The Chancellor talked about simplifying tax arrangements for some businesses, but the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
    "The CGT system is now so complex as to be almost unworkable. Many businesses say they and their accountants are just unable to work out their CGT liabilities."
    Three years on from the Chancellor's reform we have one taper, two whole systems and hundreds of rates of tax. If the new deal had been as successful in creating work for the unemployed as the capital gains reforms have been in creating work for accountants, we would have the lowest unemployment rate in the western world. Only this morning—[Interruption.] If Labour Members do not know that 14 OECD countries have a lower rate of unemployment than the United Kingdom, it is no wonder that they can be so easily duped by the Chancellor on Budget day.
    The Chancellor talks about improving savings, while silently revising downwards his estimate for the savings ratio. Savers have borne the brunt of his stealth taxes—£5 billion a year has been raided from pension funds. In his Britain, there is no reward for people who do the right thing and save for themselves and their families. It is the double-take economy: "You take responsibility and the Government take your money." As a direct result of the right hon. Gentleman's policies, the savings ratio has fallen sharply—by more than half since he became the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The Chancellor announced new money to increase recruitment in public services, including the national health service. When will the Government understand that such an announcement is not enough to repair the morale—so cruelly undermined over the past few years—of teachers, nurses, doctors and police officers? Why did the Government not tell people in the public services that the Government would get off their backs? Ministers

    315
    should realise that there is no point in spending one day a year making helpful-sounding announcements if they spend the other 364 days piling on extra regulations and extra bureaucracy.
    Last week, in an open letter to general practitioners, the chairman of the general practitioners committee stated:
    "General practice in the UK is in crisis. Morale within the profession has plunged to new depths…Quite clearly, this government's interest in the problems of general practice is superficial. It has complacently shovelled more and more work on to general practitioners…Now we are saying that we have had enough."
    He noted:
    "For GPs across the UK struggling to cope with government initiative after government initiative whilst facing the daily reality of trying to deliver high quality patient care"
    recent Government announcements are "the final straw."
    That is the reality of trying to recruit and retain people in public services. That is why the chairman said that 60 per cent. of respondents said that they were
    "thinking of retiring early or changing career and 54 per cent stated they would not recommend general practice as a career."
    The Chancellor will not be able to achieve his objectives for recruitment in our public services unless he allows the professionals in those services to carry out their job without ever-increasing Government regulation and intervention.
    The Chancellor announced an increase in the children's tax credit. Despite our deep misgivings about the organisation of the tax credit, we welcome that increase. But, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman did not give us the whole story. He glossed over the fact that 5 million of the married couples who lost their married couples allowance last year will not benefit from the new credit at all. The Chancellor's endless tinkering—creating a cat's cradle of overlapping benefits and credits, chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictions—means that a family with two earners, both on £30,000, earning £60,000 between them, will receive the children's tax credit in full, but that a family with one earner on £40,000 will not do so. That is the clearest example of the muddle that passes for welfare reform under the Government.
    We know that we will have to sort out the mess that the Government are leaving behind, but we are not alone in having to do so—astonishingly, the Chancellor has already drawn up plans to sort out the mess that he will leave behind. He is already making new plans to change the plans that he yet to put into effect. That has been further confirmed in his statement today. What an admission of failure. He killed off the married couples allowance before he had a replacement ready, and now his new system is so full of holes that he is already planning its successor. He is creating a more and more means-tested society.
    In 1993, the Chancellor said:
    "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years…has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people".
    He is nodding; he said it. In 1997, 37 per cent. of pensioners were on means-tested benefits. By 2003, more than half of pensioners will have to reveal all their personal details to the state in the hope of being granted an income sufficient to pay the Chancellor's taxes. That is not just another broken promise from the Chancellor; he has deliberately set out to do the exact opposite of what he said he would do.
    316
    People have to fill in an extraordinarily long form, with 323 different items of information, on which pensioners are even asked whether they are pregnant. That shows the extent of the means-testing and the information required, as the Chancellor creates a more and more means-tested society. He tries to con people into thinking that he has suddenly been converted to tax reductions, so he must think that the people of this country are stupid. He must think that families are too stupid to notice that the typical family pays £670 more tax a year since he became Chancellor. That calculation allows for increases in child benefit and the cut in income tax rates, which are more than wiped out by the abolition of the married couples allowance and MIRAS, the pensions tax and the increase in duties on tobacco and petrol. He must think that people on low incomes are too stupid to notice that his stealth taxes have hit the poorest fifth of households the hardest because they are so regressive.
    The Treasury figures show that the tax burden on the richest fifth of households—the kind of people who get invited to the Lord Chancellor's dinner parties—has increased from 35 per cent., when Labour took office, to 36 per cent., but the tax burden on the poorest 20 per cent. of households has increased from 37 to 40 per cent. of their gross income. The Chancellor goes around posing as the friend of the least well-off, but he hits them even harder.
    The tax reductions in the Budget are entirely motivated by the onset of a general election in the not-too-distant future. In the Chancellor's first Budget, he increased taxes left, right and centre. Tax credits were abolished, MIRAS was restricted, vehicle excise duty was increased and the fuel escalator was accelerated. In his second Budget, he had the top rate extended to travel insurance, married couples allowance restricted, gaming duties increased, company car tax increased, reinvestment relief restricted and the fuel escalator accelerated again. That has gone on, Budget after Budget, with 45 taxes, until we reach this Budget, when suddenly some taxes come down. What could be happening in the next few months that could explain that bizarre change in behaviour? What could persuade a man who is so committed to taxing people more and more to do something so utterly out of character?
    We know that those election tax cuts are for a limited period only. We know that the petrol tax cut is for a limited period only because the Prime Minister himself has told us that he thinks cutting fuel tax involves cutting the money that goes to vital public services. He told me:
    "If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that he would cut fuel duty, that means that he would also cut the money that we are pulling into schools, hospitals and transport."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 899.]
    If that is what he really believes, the cuts in petrol tax announced today must be for a limited period only—in other words, until the election is over.
    The Prime Minister complains about cynicism in politics. Does he not think that everybody who has paid through the nose since he came into office will be cynical about a Government who raid their pockets every year until the election is in sight, decide to give a little back just in time for polling day, and then plan to take it all back after the election? The stealth tax on pensions alone raises £6 billion for the Chancellor this year, more than outweighing all the announcements that he has made today.

    317
    There are so many things that the Chancellor should have done in this Budget. He could have reversed the spiralling cost of running Whitehall; he could have proposed real welfare reform and tackled benefit fraud; he could have reformed legal aid and student loans; he could have made billions of pounds of savings and given the money back to the hard-working people of this country; he could have abolished taxes on savings; he could have raised the tax allowances for pensioners by more than he did and taken a million pensioners out of tax; he could have introduced a transferable married couples allowance that recognised the value of marriage, which he has removed from the tax and benefits system; he could have cut petrol tax for more than a limited period only; and he could have given the people's surplus back to the people. But he did none of those things; instead, he has produced a cynical election budget—the 10p up, 1p down Budget—that gives with one hand when far more has already been taken back with the other.
    It is a Budget for a limited period only and, given the chance, we know that the Chancellor will take it all back. Only the Conservatives will give people back their money; only the Conservatives will tax less and look after people's money.
    4.51 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To boil all that diatribe down, it seems that the leader of the Conservative party is rather upset that the Chancellor is behaving like a politician this afternoon. That was basis of the Leader of the Opposition's critique. The Chancellor is behaving like a politician and he is certainly behaving like the chairman of the Labour general election campaign—there is no doubt about that.
    Let us put all that we heard from the Chancellor in a political and financial context. In terms of the expenditure that has been announced today, he is devoting five times as much financial priority to tax reductions as he is to investments in health and education. That is the truth of the matter. That comes on the back of a four-year Parliament in which, with a colossal parliamentary majority, for the first half of that Parliament he stuck to Conservative spending plans that his predecessor said on air in an interview the other day he would not have stuck to. As a result, we have had persistent underfunding in vital public services. So before the Chancellor blows his own trumpet to such a huge extent, let us remember the truth of the matter and the context against which this pre-election Budget must be judged.
    Let us also consider a few facts. Secondary class sizes are at their highest since 1979; the number of people waiting to see a hospital consultant is higher now than when this Government came to office; police numbers are down by 3,000 and violent crime is up; public transport has effectively been immobilised in many areas; and last year—this is a terrible reflection on modern society—there were a record number of winter deaths among pensioners in this country. Those are the facts, and that is the backdrop against which the reality of the Budget and the looming general election should be judged.
    There are measures to welcome. I do not think anyone in the House of any political party could fail to agree with the Chancellor when he rightly spoke about social policy
    318
    and the need to tackle the absolute evil that is the drugs problem in our society. Additional hope and help for families are important. The greater emphasis on individual savings accounts is welcome. However, we must look at the detail of the social policies so that we are clear and specific about the extent to which we might end up loading extra costs on people and organisations, not least small businesses.
    As for our hospitals, schools, pensioners and the fight against crime, so much more could have been done if only the Government had not displayed such a poverty of ambition over the past four years. That is the truth of the matter. We need front-line police on the streets and in communities, preventing as well as detecting crime.
    The Chancellor has succeeded in reducing the Conservative deficit and replacing it with a Labour war chest. Yet spending on all the major heads of public services has been squeezed savagely as a result. He said that it is right to choose the prudent course for Britain. I know that he is fond of the word "prudent", because he uses it often. Such has been his prudence that official figures show that spending as a proportion of national income on schools, hospitals and pensioners is lower under this Government than it was under the previous Conservative Government. That is an undeniable fact.
    What was missing from the Budget? I raised the countryside and the plight of the farmers with the Prime Minister earlier, but the Chancellor did not have an extra word—far less an extra penny—for the agricultural community. Although we welcomed the additional compensation, the Government have to understand that it is not just the farmers who are suffering considerable knock-on consequences and losses because of the foot and mouth crisis. I appreciate that Governments have never paid compensation for so-called consequential losses, but these are unprecedented times and precedent must not be an excuse for inaction. I hope that the Government will reconsider that issue as a matter of urgency, because the knock-on effect goes further than our rural communities. For sad reasons, the crisis is uniting urban and rural Britain, because no one is immune from the effect of the catastrophe. The Government have to address that.
    Surely the mark of a society is what sense of opportunity it gives its youngsters and how much security it offers the most elderly and vulnerable. There was nothing today about the imposition of tuition fees. Like me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents a Scottish constituency and is a Scot. He must know what the figures reflect. The statistics show that student applications in Scotland are increasing, which is a result of the partnership Government in Edinburgh—at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats—abolishing student tuition fees.
    The story elsewhere in the United Kingdom is that such applications are decreasing. Youngsters—I spoke to some in Devon at the end of last week—tell us that they cannot envisage taking up a university or college course because they know that they will take their first step on the job ladder saddled with £12,000 to £16,000 of debt. There was not a word about that in the Budget, despite all the money that is available. It would cost £0.7 billion to get rid of student tuition fees for Britain as a whole. The Chancellor has been boasting to us of the extent of the funds at his disposal, but he has chosen not to do that.
    That matter is at one end of the age spectrum; at the other end is long-term residential care for the elderly. Again as a result of Liberal Democrat insistence,

    319
    the Scottish Parliament and Executive have committed themselves to free provision of such care. The situation is not the same elsewhere in the country. That is what we can do when we are given the opportunity. The big choice that the country faces will provide a real chance for real change in, probably, a few weeks' time, and that chance comes not from an over-hyped pre-election Budget, but from an honest, rational and sincere Liberal Democrat alternative.
    5 pm
    Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have the chance to speak in this debate. I want to talk in particular about the many benefits that the Budget holds for women and families. The Liberal Democrats have tried to depict it as a purely tax-cutting Budget, instead of looking at the tangible benefits that it provides. For me, the essential point is that it redistributes wealth, including, in part, a transfer from the wallet to the purse or, to be more accurate, from the Coutts bank account to the purse.
    I shall consider some of the significant changes which have already been greatly welcomed, particularly by women in my constituency. There has been criticism of the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, but they are some of the most important benefits that the Government have already given people in my constituency. Some 3,200 families in Northampton already receive the working families tax credit, and many of them also receive the child care tax credit. I have heard stories from women who receive those benefits which leave me in no doubt that they are one of the Government's flagships and have probably done more to change the living standards and lives of women and children than almost anything else.
    The Conservatives have pledged to destroy these benefits, but I do not think that they have even begun to comprehend what they plan to do. I have talked to women in my constituency who, having applied for the new deal, are better off by £60 or £65 a week because their child care is paid for and they can get out to work. Now that they have had a taste of economic independence, a threat to send them back to the kitchen spells absolute catastrophe.
    The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have not got their heads round the fact that the tax credits benefit not only traditional communities with high unemployment, but areas such as my constituency, which has long had high employment, but where many families have split up and there are lone parents who need to go back to work. I went to a reception for lone parents and met a woman whose child had been at music class with my own child two years ago. She had then been happily married with a mortgage and a car. Two years later, she had lost all that, but she was benefiting from the new deal and receiving the working families tax credit, so she had been able to get her life back on course. The Conservatives need to understand that family breakdown changes many of the dynamics in society, and we have rightly reflected that in the tax and benefits structure.
    It is no good the Conservatives saying that the Budget measures are merely for the election. Last weekend, I was talking to people in my constituency, and one woman said that she had already switched her loyalty from the Conservatives because of the effects of the package of the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit and
    320
    the new deal. That is a sign of the dynamic for change that can be achieved through the proper use of the tax and benefits structure which the Government have begun.
    Increases in benefits have been announced, and I shall refer especially to the child care tax credit. The increase will be a real help for women who need money to pay for child care. The expense of child care is one of the greatest barriers faced by women who wish to work, or who want to get a reasonable job instead of a small part-time job.
    Yesterday—can I say Baroness Jay, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or am I not allowed to mention her in that way? I cannot remember.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It is indeed in order to refer to Baroness Jay as a noble Lady in the other place.
    Ms Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Baroness Jay visited a local nursery in my constituency. We saw—it was fantastic—an independent nursery sharing premises with a state primary school, and providing the wrap-around care that the public sector is not able to provide yet. The nursery has a full waiting list for babies—for the smallest children—until spring 2002. That is a measure of the demand for quality child care.
    The increase in the child care tax credit will be important in ensuring that women can afford quality child care, which is expensive. It will be important also in giving women the chance to go to work. Given the national child care strategy, the new deal, the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, and because of the improvements that have been announced this afternoon, many more women will have the chance of working and achieving economic independence. The Conservative party will have no chance in future if it thinks that it will take these opportunities away from women.
    I welcome, as I am sure will my constituents, the increase in the children's tax credit, which will be up to £520 a year. There has been discussion of whether the tax credit has been claimed; criticism has appeared in newspapers relating to confusion. I can say from constituency experience that it is a greatly appreciated tax credit. I am sure that the improvements will be welcomed and equally appreciated.
    When the tax credit was first being advertised on the radio, I knocked on doors in my constituency to ascertain whether the advertising was effective. I found that people had heard the radio advertisements, had obtained the application pack from the Inland Revenue, had completed the forms and had returned the pack. They were quick off the starting blocks. They were quick as well to understand the benefits that the tax credit would offer them. I am sure that the improvement of the child credit system, along with improved child benefit, will be much appreciated by many families in my constituency.
    I welcome the improvements in maternity leave and maternity pay. They seem to have come remarkably soon after the ending of consultation on these matters, which was only yesterday. I sent a response from my constituency. I can hope only that it had some influence on today's announcement.
    It was apparent from a consultation meeting and a questionnaire in my constituency that the main priority for women was to see an improvement in maternity pay

    321
    so that they did not have a sudden dip in income after so many weeks at 80 or 90 per cent. They wished to receive more for the whole of their maternity leave, which they wished to be longer. I am extremely pleased that both aspects have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor this afternoon.
    Ms Diane Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend's acclamation for increases in the children's tax credit and other tax credits. However, does she agree that the problem with trying to alleviate child poverty through a system of tax credits is that it leads to relatively deeper poverty for the children of women who are unable to go to work, either because they believe that their children are too young to leave or for other reasons? Although the tax credit does well by women who are able to return to work, I believe—I hope that my hon. Friend does—that women with children under five should have a choice. If it is good for middle-class women to stay at home with their toddlers, working-class women should be offered a genuine choice as well.
    Ms Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with her. Improvements to child benefit are also important, even though they are small in relation to a full income.
    In my constituency, the benefits of the new deal for lone parents are particularly important. It as an area of high employment and, because there are jobs, it is possible to get women into work. A lot of my support for the new deal for lone parents in an affluent area comes from my experience of chairing a jobs and industry committee for a council in an inner-London borough, when I supported training courses with child care for women in the inner city. When I was in that position, and later as leader of the council, I found it a bitter experience to close those courses because of cuts in local government spending made by the Conservatives. They had no commitment to deal with unemployment and were not prepared to put money in on the same scale as this Government have. They were not prepared to look at the care offered by people such as personal advisers in the Employment Service, who deal with the particular difficulties that women have and the barriers that stop them getting into work.
    My bitter experiences—shared, I am sure, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her local government experience then and now—have made me supportive of the Government's measures. I recognise that there are clear differences between the inner cities and seats like mine, and I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that that is a genuine sentiment.
    Support for two weeks' paternity pay is strong in my constituency. There is a feeling that times are changing and that men want to get involved in the care of their children as much as women do. Parents are not always married, which is their choice. The Opposition do not approve of supporting unmarried couples, but it is right that we should support mothers and fathers in the arrangements that they make for their children. That is also important throughout the schooling system. When I went round schools in my constituency, the main reasons
    322
    that head teachers gave for special needs in schools included behavioural difficulties associated with repeated family breakdowns. The more we encourage stability and the involvement of fathers with their children, the more communities such as those in Northampton, North will appreciate the benefits.
    Last year, the Chancellor had small items in his Budget that he did not mention. One was the cut in VAT on sanitary protection. This year, I believe, he did not mention the cut in VAT on children's car seats. That is a small thing but, for many families, it will be a welcome tax relief on something that they regard as essential for their children's well-being.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am listening closely to the hon. Lady's oration. Given the importance of preparing for the future, how is the objective of prudence compatible with the reality of a halved savings ratio?
    Ms Keeble: That is a great issue, which the Opposition always bring up, so I always check the figures beforehand. It is true that, in the first years of the Government, the savings ratio declined. It was then projected to stabilise and start to improve again.
    The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should consider two additional factors. In his speech, the Chancellor gave the figures for the number of people who have taken out individual savings accounts. I have certainly heard people in the industry say that ISAs are another of the Government's success stories.
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady cannot be serious.
    Ms Keeble: We have many. ISAs have succeeded in attracting people to save, over and above those who had previously saved in TESSAs and PEPs. I have not studied the Institute for Public Policy Research publication in detail, but it refers to the number of families who have no assets. It is right that the Government should take account of that end of the market as well, and encourage saving among people who have not done so previously. I welcome the Government's emphasis on that, and not just on the earnings:savings ratio.
    Pensioners are a group who have been strongly encouraged to save The consultation in my constituency on the pensioners tax credit was extremely successful. The only question front pensioners concerned why it would take so long to introduce the tax credit. Because many people in my constituency have had the good fortune to be in work for most of their adult lives, they have access to private or occupational savings schemes, and some derive their income from savings. They welcome the fact that their prudence and thrift will be rewarded by 60p in every pound of their savings above the level of the state pension.
    People might say that that applies to all pensioners, which is right, but NA omen tend to live longer than men, and any measure that helps pensioners will particularly help women. For women who have experienced considerable difficulties in retirement, the introduction of the pensioners tax credit will provide substantial help. I hope that, after the announcement today, the measure will be unfolded quickly, with all the necessary publicity and simplification of the application forms, so that pensioners in Northampton, North will soon feel the benefit.

    323
    In summary, the Budget has huge benefits to offer to families, and will be welcomed wholeheartedly by many families in my constituency. The Budget contains particular benefits for women, and by providing extra money for hospitals and schools, it will address some of the priority services that are highly valued by the whole community, but especially by women voters, as research has shown. I commend the Budget to the House.
    5.17 pm
    Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) seemed to be saying in the last part of her speech, in answer to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), "Don't confuse me with the figures." I feel some sympathy for the hon. Lady. Like the rest of us, she had to wait for the real figures on personal savings to come out in the Red Book. No doubt she had been told by her researcher or her Whip that she should include in her speech a picture that personal savings were going up from a very low level, but as we discovered today, they have gone down from a very low level. She cannot get around that.
    Ms Keeble: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I said, first, that the figures initially showed a reduction, but later showed an increase. Yes, the projected figures went down for a while, but the figures last year showed a rise. Secondly, there is a major issue in relation to families who have no assets. The publication by the IPPR shows the significance of that, and it is one of the issues that the Government are addressing.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Lady has forgotten the end of the Mexican wave, when the figures went down again. Those figures are in the Red Book, where she can examine them.
    The other figure which the hon. Lady may have been told wrongly by her Whip was the figure for productivity rates. It has been the Government's message for a long time that productivity rates are stable and rising. As has been shown again today, however, the rates have been falling since 1997. That is a great indictment of the Government, to which I should like to address much of my speech.
    In the light of the explosive nature of the Government's spending plans, which, contrary to what the Liberals are saying, are massive, many commentators—most recently, the International Monetary Fund—said that it would not be prudent of the Chancellor to cut taxes at all in the Budget.
    While I am on that subject, I have a question for the Minister of State. If he can answer it now, I shall be grateful. Will it be feasible or even legal under European arrangements to carry out what the Chancellor has announced in respect of VAT on derelict land? I think that a similar scheme was proposed a year ago for churches—my memory may be wrong—but that the European Commission refused permission. I imagine that that is why the arrangement announced today for churches is based on a grant rather than on VAT reduction. Is it not likely that the same European Commission ruling will apply to the reduction of VAT in respect of derelict land, and also to excise reductions?
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I seem to recall that we heard the same noises about VAT on fuel before the last election. The then Conservative Government kept telling us that we could not reduce VAT on fuel, but we did so.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Perhaps I should slightly rephrase my question. Does the Chancellor have the European Commission's permission? Has he been to Brussels to check with his masters there that he is allowed to reduce VAT in respect of derelict land? Surely the Minister accepts that that is exactly what happened last year with regard to a VAT reduction for church renovation and that permission was not given. Will he admit that that is why assistance had to be introduced in another form?
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing? The Minister of State is obviously oblivious of something that is well known to the parliamentary spokesman for the Church Commissioners, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who has made the matter clear. [Interruption.]The Minister can chunter from a sedentary position, but the hon. Member for Middlesbrough made it clear that the European Commission did not give approval to the VAT reduction for church repairs. If he did not know that, it is about time that he did. [Interruption.]
    Sir Michael Spicer: I hear the Minister thanking my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Battle: I was not thanking him; I was informing him.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister appears to be getting excited. Does he accept that I have described correctly the position regarding the attempt to reduce VAT on church renovations? A Minister went to Brussels, permission was refused and help has now been introduced in another manner. Surely it is worth asking whether permission has been sought in advance for the announcement of a VAT reduction in respect of derelict land, which has been presented as a certainty.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: I think that the confusion was about whether churches could be included in the scope of suitability for VAT reductions. The 5 per cent. level at which the grant is aimed does not contravene any European Union legislation.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I am not saying that any laws have been broken. I am suggesting merely that permission was not given for the reduction of VAT on church renovation, which had been announced previously. I was asking a simple and rather innocent question about whether such permission had been granted in advance in relation to the arrangement announced today, which has been presented as a fact and entered into the Budget calculation. I hope that the answer will be yes and that the Chancellor has permission. If not, the Government may look a little foolish on that matter as well.

    325
    The effect of today's speech must be that the Monetary Policy Committee will be unlikely to reduce interest rates in the near future, especially with the current tightness of labour markets. The distinction that the Chancellor makes between current spending and capital spending in his so-called golden rule appears less and less credible. As the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly said, especially recently, the growth of private finance initiative arrangements renders almost meaningless the distinction between capital and current spending. Making such a distinction is dangerous for managing the economy.
    Public spending is at the centre of the debate on not only the Budget but the Government's entire economic strategy. Current public spending was planned to increase by some £77 billion in the next five years: from £370 billion in 2001–02 to £447 billion in 2005–06. If my calculations are right—Ministers are entitled to intervene and say that they are wrong—we must add another £10 billion to the £77 billion. That means a total increase on current public spending of £87 billion or approximately 25 per cent. in the next five years.
    Like all socialist Governments, the Government have embarked in the past few years on a massive programme of public expenditure. That has already led to much higher taxes.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even on his projected figures for future capital expenditure—
    Sir Michael Spicer: Current expenditure.
    Mr. Purchase: I am sorry, I thought that the hon. Gentleman said capital expenditure. However, the same point applies. Debt repayment has made room for lowering year-on-year recurrent expenditure.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Surpluses, if one believes in them, rely heavily on fiscal drag. They prove my point about the vast increases in taxation: they do not appear from nowhere. There is no dispute between us about the fact that public expenditure is rising fast. For a surplus to exist on top of that expenditure, there must be an even greater increase in taxation.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we can have some protection from the Chair? Several documents, to which the press notices for the Budget refer and which, according to normal practice and procedure, should be made available in the Vote Office, have not been provided. We have been told that they are not likely to be made available. They are: REV BN 6, REV BN 8, REV BN 12, REV BN 13, REV BN 17, REV BN 18, REV BN 19, BN 63/01 and BN 73/01. That is a serious matter. Much of the detail of the Budget statement is hidden in the press notices. It is essential that hon. Members have an opportunity to study them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot give him an immediate answer. I have no means of knowing why documents are not available, if that is the case. However,
    326
    Government Front-Bench Members will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will want to ascertain what has happened so that the matter can be remedied as quickly as possible.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The Government are engaged on a massive expenditure programme, which is accompanied by a massive taxation increase, higher interest rates than would otherwise be necessary and, as the Red Book establishes, falling personal savings and productivity. Perhaps the missing documents would further confirm that.
    The long-term effects are likely to be profound. Earlier this year, a fascinating but deeply disturbing study was produced on public expenditure in the 14 most economically advanced countries. The work was published in a book entitled "Public Spending in the 20th Century: A Global Perspective". The main work was done by two economists: Vito Tanzi, who has been director of the fiscal affairs department of the International Monetary Fund since 1981, and Ludger Schuknecht, the principal economist in the fiscal policies division of the European central bank in Frankfurt.
    I want to develop for the House the analysis that those economists undertook. They began by showing that public expenditure throughout the 14 western countries rose fairly gradually during the first half of the 20th century. The massive explosion in spending started throughout those countries in the mid-1960s. For example, table 1.1 shows that the average rate of public spending in 1960 was 28 per cent. of gross national product, and that by 1980 it had risen to 41.9 per cent., which is close to a 100 per cent. increase. By the late 1990s, the rate had gone up to close to 50 per cent. That is a massive increase.
    Ms Keeble: On the savings ratio, which the hon. Gentleman has been going on about, I have now had a chance to have a look at the new edition of the Red Book. On page 170, we see that although the ratio went down for a while, it stood at 3.75 per cent. last year, is 4.75 per cent. this year and is projected to reach 5 per cent. and 5.25 per cent. in the next two years.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady should look at last year's Red Book.
    Ms Keeble: Yes but will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the rate went down for a while, it is now going up and that that trend is projected to continue?
    Sir Michael Spicer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she confirms the fact that the rate has gone down It has been going down, give or take a few years, throughout this Government's term of office. The projections that are being made are a matter of hope.
    Ms Keeble: Up.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Well, the "up" bits are the projections, the forecasts, the hope, the aspirations. They have nothing to do with the facts. Governments can put any figure that they want on personal savings projections in the Red Book, it that is what they are inclined to do.

    327
    However, the fact is that, throughout tie period, taken on average, personal savings have been low and are going down.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: It might be of assistance to the hon. Lady if she realised that she needed to look at last year's Red Book to see how those forecasts have changed and been revised downwards.
    Sir Michael Spicer: That is very helpful. The aspirations may well go down. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps putting her thumb up, but she should put her thumb down, because that is the direction that personal savings have taken. As my hon. Friend has just mentioned, the revisions have gone downwards rather than upwards every time they have come out.
    I was making the point that there was an explosion in public spending throughout the western world from the 1960s to the end of the 20th century. Britain followed much of that pattern, except for the fact that, during the 1980s and very early 1990s, we got our public spending under some sort of control. We left the flock and showed a downward trend in public spending relative to GDP during that period, but the rate subsequently started to increase rather rapidly.
    The effect of the public expenditure increase was pretty benign in the first part of the 20th century in terms of economic growth, employment and social welfare. In all countries—I am not making a party political point here—the turning point came in the mid-1960s, just as public expenditure began to take off. The turning point came in terms of the effect of public expenditure from the mid-1960s onwards. From then on, growth rates—for instance—began substantially to slow down across the board in those countries, except, latterly, in the United States, where public expenditure is lowest, relative to other countries.
    Unemployment, especially in high public expenditure countries such as France and Germany, began to rise dramatically as public expenditure began to rise dramatically. Perhaps most interestingly of all, income distribution, which, in the latter half of the past century was the primary reason for the explosion of public expenditure, especially on social services and public health, was brought virtually to a standstill. There has been almost a negative effect on income distribution as public expenditure has expanded for the precise objective of spreading income more widely.
    As the authors say on page 96 of the study:
    "When the total tax burden becomes a large share of the country's GDP, it is no longer very progressive and, equally, when public transfers become very large, they tend to be poorly targeted."
    That adds up to a picture that is familiar to Conservative Members. When the state takes over, everyone, after a certain point, becomes poorer, especially the poor themselves. An example of that is the virtual collapse of this country's public services. We have the worst health service, the worst transport system, the lowest state pensions and, arguably, the worst education system in the western world. Examples have already been given for education and other sectors.
    In health and with respect to guaranteed pensions, we need an average percentage improvement not of 5, 10 or even 20 per cent., but one that would probably stretch into the hundreds. Given the exhaustion of the taxpayer,
    328
    that can be achieved only by the application of a mix of private and public resources with the taxpayer supporting those who cannot, for whatever reason, buy their own insurance policies. On health, the necessary massive injection of extra private resources would not only improve the motivation and morale of those working in the service, but achieve real accountability to the customers, which no amount of Government-run consultative bodies could ever achieve.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on present NHS funding, it would be possible to give every man, woman and child in this country a voucher for £800 to go towards health care and still leave an adequate reserve for national priorities at the centre?
    Sir Michael Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend for providing that interesting figure, which very much supports my argument.
    Ms Keeble: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is nonsense to say that the health service could be funded out of private means? That £800 would not go very far. For example, a constituent of mine was having particular problems getting care and, in 15 months, he spent £6,200 on cancer treatment. In terms of treatment that is needed, £800 is nothing. The need for equity and access is what makes the NHS so crucial to our country.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I could never expect the hon. Lady to accept what I am saying because she is a member of a socialist party and that is her philosophy, but I ask her to think about the fact that I am referring to a mixture of public and private resources and that such a mix occurs in all western countries, which have far better health services than we do.
    Let us talk about France, not America. Precisely because the French are applying private as well as public resources in a way that we are not even contemplating, especially because we have a socialist Government who will never achieve that, they get far better quality and put far more resources into their health services than we can possibly put in off the back of the taxpayer, which is what is proposed here. I cannot hope that the hon. Lady or her party will ever be imaginative about the matter, but I assure her that that is what is happening in every single country in the western world. They have health services of far better quality than ours and that is the way that we shall have to go eventually.
    Of course that could never happen under a socialist Government. There was a brief moment when we thought that something like it might emerge, but the sacking of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put paid to that. It will be left to a Conservative Government to pick up the pieces and reform our public services, which we began to do with our productive industry and services in the 1980s. Today's Budget is a move in precisely the opposite direction.
    5.40 pm
    Ms Diane Abbott: Even as we speak, my colleagues are surging through the television studios hailing a Budget that provides a marvellous election-winning platform. It is a

    329
    masterly Budget, presented in a masterly fashion, and it is no surprise that Opposition Members are struggling to attack it.
    Having sat through at least 14 years of Budget statements, I know better than to reach a final conclusion before reading the finer print. Any more detailed comments on this Budget will have to wait until I have had time to study the Red Book. I can say, however, that some changes in principle will be welcomed by my constituents in Hackney, notably the extension of maternity pay from 18 to 26 weeks. I speak as one who was not given one day of maternity leave from the House when I had my son in 1991. As we were in the run-up to a general election, there was no time for maternity leave. I voted here three days before my son was born, and I was voting again eight days after his birth. Nevertheless, I welcome the extension.
    I also welcome the principle of providing paid adoption leave, and two weeks' paid paternity leave for working fathers. The extension of the right to adoptive parents is a long-awaited change. I welcome, too, what appears to be a move towards changing the structure of value added tax to allow free access to museums.
    There are many changes in principle to welcome, but I must tell my hon. Friends who will welcome—and have already welcomed—the cascade of children' s tax credits, working families tax credits, pensioners tax credits and other tax credits that, sadly, a system of relieving poverty through such credits cannot reach millions of poor people in constituencies such as mine, particularly single mothers of very young children. It is easy enough to say that those ladies—those women—should leave their children aged one, two or three and find jobs, but it is easier said than done.
    As I have said in our debates since 1997, at the end of the day we want, as a Government, a structure that allows poor single mothers a choice. Of course the majority of single mothers whom I meet in Hackney want to go out to work, but they should not be driven out to work by a system of benefits and tax credits that, bit by bit, forces single mothers who have young children and cannot work into a position that makes them relatively worse off than they would be otherwise. Millions of people up and down the country did not vote Labour to see the creation of a structure widening the gulf between working single parents and single parents who choose not to work.
    I note from the small print that we are introducing compulsory interviews about work for all single mothers, however young their children may be. I realise that such interviews are supposed to acquaint single mothers with the benefits of work, but people do not need to go to the dole office for an interview to find out how much better off they might be if they worked.
    Practical issues, such as training, access to jobs and child care, stop very many single mothers in areas such as Hackney from working. As I have said before, underlying the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is the most modern of Chancellors—he is a masterly Chancellor, who has presented a masterly Budget in a masterly fashion—there is a very old-fashioned notion. It is the belief that there are the deserving poor—those who are prepared to leave their children, however young, and go out to work—and the
    330
    undeserving poor, such as women who choose to stay with their children at least to school age. I tell him and my other Front-Bench colleagues that the Victorian distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor which is embedded in the tax credit system does not reflect well on a 21st-century Labour Government. [Interruption.]
    In the 14 years in which I have been an hon. Member, I have always striven to do my job. My job is not to say that which is popular—or that which will secure me advancement or the sunny smiles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but to speak up for my constituents in Hackney. That is what I am paid to do, and that is all that I can do. In the words of Martin Luther, I can do no better.
    I should like to deal with a matter in which very many hon. Members will not be much interested, although it is a passionate concern for those of us who live in London. That matter is public transport, which is a key factor in considering economic growth, helping poor communities and looking to the future. For Londoners, the future of the London underground is a key issue.
    Extraordinarily, given the range of his Budget speech, the Chancellor did not find time to touch on that issue. In the stirring passages at the beginning of his speech, he reminded us of his £23 billion surplus. However, that will make Londoners wonder why it is so difficult to find a way in which to fund properly, under proper democratic arrangements, a 21st4-century transport system for London.
    As some hon. Members may not use public transport in London—perhaps they drive—I should remind the House that public transport is more important to people in London than it is to those in other big cities. Public transport in London is not only a means of transporting people from place to place, but a key issue. Transport links are key to regenerating communities. No other single action could do more to regenerate my constituency in Hackney than for the Government to find the money to build the Chelsea-Hackney line, which would produce for the first time an underground station in the centre of my constituency and link us to the Jubilee line. Public transport is about regeneration. It is about people's lives—getting them to jots—and about urban redevelopment.
    What action has there been? Last year, as part of fulfilling our manifesto commitments, a Labour Government restored local government to London and gave us a Mayor Although, sadly, there were a few hiccups along the way, finally, right triumphed and the people's choice, my colleague the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), became the very first duly elected Mayor.
    The future of London Transport was the central policy issue in that mayoral campaign. It was at the heart of everyone's manifesto—Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat. There can be no doubt that, in that election, the majority of Londoners, including very many Conservative-voting ones, voted emphatically against the Government's proposed system of public-private partnership for renovating and improving the underground.
    Before colleagues say that I am old fashioned and stuck in the past and ask me what is wrong with private investment in these big public sector projects, I say that no one is opposed in principle to private investment, least of all my colleague the hon. Member for Brent, East. It is, after all, a flatter of new Labour, new Ken Livingstone. He is the darling of the City and of business. They are

    331
    wholly behind him in his opposition to the Government's PPP proposals. It is not a question of opposing private investment. The point at issue in the mayoral campaign, and in the fraught negotiations in the run-up to the general election, is how that private investment should be structured.
    Treasury Ministers, as opposed to Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, have proposed the system of public-private partnership. Every commentator has said that the proposed system has all the worst characteristics of that deployed in the disastrous privatisation of British Rail. If the system is introduced, Londoners will find themselves in the same position as rail travellers before the Hatfield crash.
    If a safety risk such as a broken rail arises, there will be no one in charge of transport in London able to deal with the problem immediately. The people responsible will have to talk to contractors, who will talk to subcontractors, who will perform a survey and then perhaps hire other subcontractors. In the end, the problem will be put right, but the resolution of safety risks will take an indirect and circuitous route.
    The Hatfield rail crash showed that the delays, the complications, and the layers of bureaucracy introduced by privatisation can mean that safety problems are addressed too late to save lives. The Treasury advocates that London's transport system should be split up between three different companies. Unified management control will be lost, but the Treasury is trying to impose that structure on Londoners.
    I do not accuse all my colleagues on the Treasury Bench of acting in bad faith. Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—and especially the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—have negotiated with a view to cutting the best deal for Londoners. My hon. Friend is a loyal member of the Government, and a Londoner, and he negotiated in good faith with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and the city's transport commissioner, Mr. Bob Kiley. The negotiations went on with the utmost energy and dispatch for many weeks. All sides believed that a deal had been reached.
    Everyone wants there to be private investment in the tube, but we do not want the PPP to replicate the worst features of rail privatisation by not allowing the unified managerial control of repairs and safety precautions that will secure the safety of Londoners on the underground. Ten days or a couple of weeks ago, after weeks of negotiations, the Department thought that a deal had been reached, but then the Treasury stepped in. A few days ago, it said that the negotiations had gone on long enough and that nothing else would do but the PPP system originally proposed.
    I accept that token concessions have been made.
    Mr. Purchase: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend's interesting saga, and no one will feel anything but sympathy with the proposition that all possible measure must be taken to prevent fatal tragedies, but she predicated her remarks on the fact that the Treasury has a surplus of £23 billion. I may be mistaken—it would not be unusual—but that revenue has been accrued by different means. Some of the means were planned, and some were
    332
    accidental or fortuitous windfalls. When the £23 billion has been spent on recurring expenditure, will my hon. Friend say what we should do for an encore?
    Ms Abbott: I shall put my hon. Friend out of his misery. I am not saying that we should spend the £23 billion on renovating transport in London. I am arguing that the Government's PPP, which so resembles that used in the privatisation of British Rail, will mean that more Government money will have to be given in subsidy to private contractors. The Government do not draw attention to the fact that the Treasury is prepared to put in more public subsidy simply to bolster its stubborn insistence that only its preferred PPP option will do. My hon. Friend may rest assured that I am not attempting to lay a finger on the £23 billion, but my remarks about the future of London Underground had to be put in the context of public spending policy as a whole.
    Mr. Purchase: I understand.
    Ms Abbott: As I said, successful and positive negotiations had been held between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the mayoral representatives when the Treasury stepped in at the last minute and said, "Our way, or the highway." Some token concessions had been made: Mr. Kiley will sit on a few more boards and will have the theoretical power to remove the chiefs of some of the privately contracted infrastructure companies. Those contractors have squealed about the concessions, but the fundamental issue—of unified management control of repair and safety issues—remains.
    The excitement of today's Budget speech will die away, and a general election is expected in the spring. Londoners will focus as never before on what one of the most successful Chancellors in Labour party history has chosen to do with regard to transport in London. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor appears to have obstructed a constructive conclusion to negotiations on the future of public transport in the capital.
    No one is asking the Government to spend a penny more on transport in London, and no one excludes the use of private investment. However, Londoners, the Mayor and the transport commissioner are all saying that there is a better, cheaper and safer way to structure transport in London. Londoners have made their preference clear over and over again. What is the point of devolving power to Londoners if the Treasury insists on retaining power at the centre when it comes to the most important element of London's economic regeneration? The Treasury is blocking the expressed will of Londoners, and of their Mayor and transport commissioner. When the glitter of today's Budget, with its masterfully presented cascade of tax credits, has faded from Londoners' memories, people will focus on the question of transport and the Treasury's insistence on its PPP model.
    I have sat through Budget speeches in this Chamber over the past 14 years, and I know better than to jump to conclusions about how a Budget will turn out until I have studied its fine print. However, I can tell hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that Ministers must be seen to act in good faith on the future of the London underground. They must not act in a partisan and arbitrary way.
    The new Ken Livingstone scoured the world to find the best public transport manager, and he found Bob Kiley. Mr. Kiley is not some terrible left winger: I understand

    333
    that he used to be a member of the CIA. That must surely endear him to Conservative Members, although some of us are worried that he may have seen our files. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, the Mayor of London, went out of his way to find the most technically proficient, experienced and successful manager of public transport in the world.
    Londoners have chosen their Mayor; he has chosen a transport commissioner. Londoners are not asking the Government for more money; they are asking them to put aside past animosities, grudges and stubbornness. They are asking the Government to put the interests of Londoners first and allow these negotiations to come to a successful conclusion—so that there is a way of financing the long-desired renovation and upgrading of the London underground that sits with the desires of Londoners and of London' s transport commissioner.
    6 pm
    Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) says that she speaks for herself and her constituents, and I am sure that the House would agree wholeheartedly with that. She certainly does not automatically seek the approbation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Member of her Front Bench. She talks about her details being held on file, but I suspect that the Labour party's headquarters at Millbank is more likely than the CIA to have a large file on her.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a brilliant reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quoted, among other things, what the chairman of the general practitioners committee said about general practice being in crisis. We all know about the state of the health service in general from our local hospitals and consulting practices. Over the last quarter for which the figures are available, the waiting time between seeing the GP and hospital treatment has increased to 203.8 days—about seven months. Such a long waiting time would be incomprehensible and inconceivable in any equivalent industrialised country. It is on the state of the national health service, and the Government's attitude to it, that I wish to dwell.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer exultantly announced that over the next five years, health spending would increase by something like 50 per cent. However, that betrays either ignorance or a wilful determination not to understand the size of the problem. If we increased spending by 50 per cent. over the next five years, where would we be? Our health spending would still be £200 to £300 per head less than Germany's. We might just be at the level of the spending in France this year.
    Over the next five years, health spending in France, Germany and all the other industrialised countries will not stand still. The gap will widen—indeed, it has been widening steadily over many years. Those countries spend so much more, and the Chancellor's proposals will not close the gap. Even those proposals, as the IMF has warned, represent a danger to our national finances. The right hon. Gentleman is sailing very close to the wind.
    That issue underlines the need for new thinking in the structure of the national health service. I have been speaking about this ever since I was a junior Health
    334
    Minister in the mid-1980s. We must go right back to the creation of the national health service to understand the extraordinary blight on thinking that this extraordinary institution has imposed on politicians of all parties.
    The creation of a national health service, with its wonderful concept of health care free at the point of delivery, was an ambition shared by all the three major parties from before the first world war. The basic structure that was adopted in 1946 and put in place in April 1948 was based on the White Paper of 1944 introduced by Henry Willink, a Conservative Health Minister in the wartime coalition Government. Sadly, the idea of having everything free at the point of delivery was a flawed one.
    Aneurin Bevan has been glorified as the architect of the health service—a highly contentious proposition. Yet only months after the creation of the national health service, even he complained about the
    "cascades of medicine pouring down British throats."
    In 1950, he wrote to the Cabinet:
    "The position cannot be evaded that a nationally owned and administered hospital service will always involve a very considerable and expanding Exchequer outlay."
    That is precisely what happened.
    In 1949, the principle of totally free health care was abandoned, with the introduction of prescription charges. Bevan, with reluctance, went along with that. Two years later, when this fundamental problem was being revealed so that no one could deny it, and the Labour Government of the day introduced charges for spectacles and dentures, Mr. Bevan resigned. That was when he described the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell, as a desiccated calculating machine.
    Mr. Eric Forth: I am following my hon. Friend's analysis with fascination. I am sure that he is aware that quite recently the French health service was rated as the best in the world by a comprehensive and impartial survey. I know that he will be aware that French people pay when they go to their GP and are then refunded if appropriate, according to their level of income. In connection with his analysis of the development of charges post-Bevan, does my hon. Friend not think that that is an idea that any thinking person should consider?
    Sir Raymond Whitney: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that that is precisely the path down which I hope to proceed, if you will allow me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we shall arrive at a joint conclusion.
    After that, matters were very clear. Eventually, even the British Medical Association, normally the most conservative body involved in the development of medical care, decided that something had to be done. In 1970, it set up a committee under Dr. Ivor Jones, which concluded that the wonderful ideal of 1946 was unattainable and unrealisable, given All the pressures that were growing in health care.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's natural generosity of spirit should not be allowed to get the better of him. I understand why he makes some favourable reference to the late Aneurin Bevan. However, will he put it on the record that in 1952 the late Iain Macleod famously denounced the Bevan approach and attacked him

    335
    specifically for the crude, vulgar and intemperate speech to which the House of Commons had listened? Does my hon. Friend recall that, along with another great parliamentarian and Minister, the late Enoch Powell, Macleod went on to pen a magnificent pamphlet with a radical view of the development of the health service and social services entitled "Social Services: Needs and Means"?
    Sir Raymond Whitney: I must not allow my hon. Friend to lead me down the road of militant partisanship. I am strongly of the view that this is a national issue, although it has never been treated as one. Given the probable imminence of the general election and the fact that I shall not stand again, this is my last—I shall not say "despairing"—chance to get the matter looked at calmly, so I shall resist, up to a point, the temptation offered by my hon. Friend.
    However, if my hon. Friend studies the pamphlet written by the late Enoch Powell—whose great qualities we all admire—he will find a brilliant analysis of the ills of the NHS in the mid 1960s, but no solution. Why not? Because in the first paragraph of the last chapter, Mr. Powell said, in effect, that the political situation in Britain was too difficult, so rationality had to go out of the window. That is the measure of the problem that we are dealing with. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make that point.
    I was referring to the Jones committee, which reported in April 1970 and recommended an insurance-based system—such as those used with considerable success in several countries. However, by that time, the wind in the BMA had changed; caution was back in and Dr. Jones and his crew were out. People of equal eminence to Dr. Jones received CBEs and knighthoods—he received nothing. The issue went quiet again—it was put back in its box.
    Both parties staggered on with the old system until 1982, when the Central Policy Review Staff took the papers down and looked at the problem again; 12 years on, it was much greater than in l970. The CPRS, too, produced the idea that there should be an insurance-based system that people should chip into. Again, there was horror. By that time, there NA as a Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) refers to the idea with horror in his book; that dreadful cat was nearly out of the bag, but he cheerfully reports how it was safely put back into the bag. The next year the CPRS was obliterated—it was suspended. I suspect that I, too, shall be suspended soon, because the subject is dangerous.
    That is where we have arrived. Is there an answer? There must be one; we have to look at what other countries do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested, not only in France but in all the industrialised countries people make a contribution. That is understandable. What is more important to any of us than our health and that of our families? According to our circumstances—I shall discuss the very poor in a moment—we are very ready to chip in with £100 or £200 to bolster health care, whereas we all know that a rise in our taxes, by stealth, income tax or whatever, goes into a great pot and nothing seems to come out.
    That could not have happened in 1946 because the personal disposable income of the average Briton was extremely low. If it was grossed up to today's money,
    336
    it would be only about $5,000 a year at most—equivalent to the current national income per capita in Namibia or Gabon. In real terms, we are four or five times richer. By whatever statistical tricks one might play, we are manifestly much richer. Today's society is not the one for which the NHS was created.
    We must thus ensure that the public understand what is happening. Very, very gradually, the penny is beginning to drop. In these days of speedy communication, when we all think that we know everything that happens in the world the day before yesterday—in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and so on—it is extraordinary that, somehow, we have kept what is going on in health care across the channel from the British people. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not engage in our other familiar debates—
    Mr. David Davis: Don't tempt us!
    Sir Raymond Whitney: The idea that, because of disparity in expenditure, people should wait seven months, or even 18 months, for treatment is simply not comprehended in those countries. I accept that NHS spending is not necessarily inefficient. Inevitably, in private health care there are duplications.
    We have 1.64 doctors per thousand; the Germans have 3.19. We have 4.5 nurses per thousand; the Germans have nine. On life expectancy at 60, the UK ranks 19th in the world—level with Turkey. There is nothing wrong with Turkey, but we might have assumed that our health service would have given us better provision. We are 14th in the Economist Intelligence Unit health rating system for European countries. That is a measure of how far we are behind. It is difficult to understand why politicians will not recognise that.
    There has been an extraordinary political no-go zone for so long. However, I hope that, especially given the dangerous high-wire act that the Chancellor seems so ready to perform over the next couple of years, it will become clear that the situation cannot continue. To achieve the expenditure of continental countries—leaving aside that of the United States—would require an unbelievable and unsustainable burden of Treasury spending, even if we called it Treasury investment. We must, therefore, calmly say that although the NHS was a great idea in 1944 when the White Paper produced it, and that for more than 50 years, we have tried hard to make it work, Aneurin Bevan was right when he said that it would mean constantly expanding pressure on the Exchequer. We must have some new thinking. I do not think that is too much to ask.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Ken Purchase: I add my congratulations to those offered to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on an extraordinarily clear and well put Budget speech. If we are to believe the newspapers, this may be the final Budget before the general election is called, so it is important to judge my right hon. Friend's speech in the context of his chancellorship in the longer term.
    By any post-war reckoning, my right hon. Friend's chancellorship has been exceptional, although one would not expect the Opposition to reach that conclusion.

    337
    That is to be expected in the cut and thrust of politics. However, after the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), who expresses himself so moderately, it is especially appropriate to point out that the people of this country will have seen that, over the past four years, successive Budgets have benefited, by and large, not just some people—not just a few of them; not just most of them—but the whole country. The whole country has benefited from the Chancellor's stewardship of our taxes and revenues.
    Budgets always take time to be fully and properly understood and to mature in their widest effects, and we shall have to suck this one and see, as we do on every occasion, but in the fulness of time, we shall find that the nation has prospered, that its taxation revenue has been spent wisely and that people have benefited from a range of services under the Budgets of my right hon. Friend's chancellorship. One of his themes today was investment in public services. People will see that services are improving, and I shall refer later to the national health service. I accept that that is vexatious, but it is not beyond our wit to improve it.
    I regret that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has left the Chamber. He always makes an interesting contribution, if sometimes one that is rather eccentric and extremely right wing. He would certainly have qualified for a job as Hoover's right-hand man in the CIA and would have sorted out the liberal wets on the Conservative Benches; he would not have bothered getting round to us. The hon. Gentleman made his usual extraordinary contribution to our debate.
    I must confess in the hon. Gentleman's absence that we share one thing in common—a love of the countryside around West Worcestershire. The Malvern hills are a beautiful part of the country. I sometimes think that if the hon. Gentleman admired the countryside around him as much as I do, he would spend a little less time worrying about the international monetary scene and a little more on developing his soul, which would benefit us all enormously. None the less, his was an interesting contribution. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has gone because I want to deal with the savings ratio and I know that he would have interrupted me at least three or four times.
    Mr. Bercow: We will do that.
    Mr. Purchase: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
    To rehearse the point about the savings ratio, it is a matter of agreement that savings tend to rise more steeply when people are concerned about their future prospects. That is a natural and normal response to a worsening economic scenario, when people decide that they need to put money away for a rainy day. If that goes too far, the savings ratio rises steeply as a consequence and there is a fall-off in demand, so the thought that we must save for a rainy day becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is, of course, vital that people save for a rainy day, because misfortunes that do not affect the population in general may fall on any family: it is always a wise precaution to try to make savings from our disposable incomes.
    It is interesting that the savings ratio is now not such an important indicator as it used to be, in so far as people now have greater wealth in goods, houses and so on than
    338
    has ever before been known in the history of the United Kingdom. For the past 20 years or so, people have recognised that they have the opportunity to reward themselves with a plethora of consumables and white goods that make out lives so much easier, so they are investing in their lives now.
    In those circumstances, the ratio of savings to expenditure clearly falls, but let me reassure hon. Members that the important point is that the money available for investment in productive industries and services has in no way fallen. Money is, in fact, available through many different sources, especially the merchant banks, to provide opportunities to borrow and invest. That is an important facet of the whole equation.
    Mr. David Davis: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He is right to say that there has been no decrease in investment as a result of increased savings, but he must consider the source of the money, a large part of which now comes from outside the economy. If the money is not being generated within the economy, it comes from abroad, and one of the effects is that those who invest in portfolio investments in this country buy pounds, pushing up the pound's value and causing one of the problems that British industry faces today. So low savings lead to a high pound, which is a problem.
    Mr. Purchase: I would not disagree for a moment with what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is clearly one of the dangers of the United Kingdom's current economics, and outside the eurozone it remains quite acute. The pound is strong, which is helpful and, in part, a reflection of the economy, but, without question, it is also overvalued, which reflects what the right hon. Gentleman says. I was trying to say that we have to find the balance between the savings ratio and the money available for investment coming into the country when interest rates are too high, so pushing up the pound's strength and value unacceptably.
    In the circumstances, I do not believe that, in one Budget or five, the Chancellor can overcome the problems, many of which are detailed and require enormous analysis. The best arithmetical technology available must be used to understand them. I believe that we are going in broadly the right direction, given that we see around us investment in this country continuing at high levels—but other measures will no doubt have to be taken.
    What we used to regard as the medium term—three to five years—is now very much the long term. We simply cannot see horizons as clearly as we did perhaps 10 or 20 years ago. The time scales involved are much shorter, and the velocity of change is absolutely incredible compared with what was happening 20 or 30 years ago. Overall, I believe that, in successive Budgets, the Chancellor has brought about an improvement in the management of the economy, which points us in the right direction, improves prosperity and decreases essential costs, such as mortgages, for our population. Generally, the moderate voice in our society would say that, on the whole, a good job has been done.
    I am happy to say, as I have done before, that, towards the end, the previous Government's efforts were of considerable help. They started that movement, and we have been able to build on it. I know that hon. Members

    339
    would expect me to say that, but a fair analysis will show that we have done so. I am not frightened of saying that there is a continuum; we went through a very poor period when enormous improvements in productivity were achieved almost wholly at the expense of rising unemployment. People obviously understand that increases in productivity involve lets input for the same output, or the same input for greater output, depending on which way people want to dress it up.
    The truth is that during the early part of the 1980s, we lost an enormous swathe of workers. To an extent, we are suffering from that in so far as there is a major shortage of highly skilled and technical people in our country. Some of that shortage was caused by the tremendous shake-out in the engineering industry at the beginning of the 1980s. This country has a long history of sons following in their fathers' footsteps and learning at their fathers' elbows, but we lost many skills, such as pattern making, tool making and print setting—all essential ingredients in a successful economy.
    There has been an interregnum, and, to an extent, we are now paying the price. We are catching up, but more resources need to be put into the training and education effort in our country. That would not be altruistic but practical—without a well educated, well trained work force, any hope of improving productivity and thus world competitiveness goes out the window. A well trained and well educated work force with transferable skills will benefit us all.
    Most of us have witnessed in our constituencies the tragedy that has befallen workers—usually men—who have worked for 20 or 30 years in a particular industry. The steel industry is a good example. Many of the men who work in it are highly skilled—they can roll steel and operate the furnaces—but those skills are not transferable. If a town has one major steel manufacturer and that closes, we have the pitiful sight of men of long experience and great skill being unable to transfer their skills into another enterprise without considerable help and assistance.
    Often the culture among those men is such that they do not recognise as manly some of the opportunities that exist in the service industries. One of the United Kingdom's great successes has undoubtedly been the enormous growth in service industries, and financial services are an outstanding example. The boom in retailing has also provided many opportunities for good-quality work, but such jobs do not seem appropriate to those who spent many years working in trades that require great skill.
    The more general mathematical skills that were required in tool making and pattern making were, to some extent, lost between 1981 and 1986 That is a great pity, because we will have to work hard to catch up. Such skills will be vital to this country's future success.
    We are trying to move towards a society that is less dependent on the state. Let us confess that there is no question but that people became overly dependent on the handout; there is no other way of describing it. It is a great misfortune that what started as the wonderful idea of a safety net through which no one should fall became somehow distorted, so that people considered it a right that the state should take care of them if they were out of work, could not get work, were ill or felt ill because they
    340
    had not been in work. Of course, the state should take care of them, but there is a limit to the number of people in that position that a successful economy can sustain.
    Changes have had to be made. Rather than an erosion of benefits of the kind that the Conservatives tried to achieve in the 1980s and early 1990s, there has been a tightening up on people's ability to claim benefits willy-nilly, and many would claim that there is room for still more tightening. Through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budgets and other measures for training and education, we have initiated a structural change that has created a different understanding among people. They realise that they must begin to take care of their general needs and cannot afford to fall back ad infinitum on the state.
    I was a member of a local authority for 20 years that ran important services and I have been a Member of Parliament for nine years. Many young single women of not more than 21 or 22 years of age have visited my surgery and many of them have up to four children. The times I have heard a young woman say, "Mr. Purchase, how do they expect me to manage on this?" Let me clarify what that means. For those women and for many young people, the girocheque was their only understanding of wealth and income. That was a disaster. Those young people were totally disconnected from the idea of work, wealth and looking after their own welfare.
    Young men and young women left school at the age of 16 and they often had very little in the way of qualifications. The thinking was, "Why should I? Our kid never got nothing". Many of the young women became pregnant and were unable to manage on what the state was able to provide. This is not a mean state, but there are practical limits to what it can do. People must reach the new understanding that they are involved in a partnership. In essence, we are talking about co-operation and about people making provision for themselves as far as they can, while leaving the safety net—and a generous one—for those who cannot make it over the high hurdles that life puts in front of them.
    The girocheque became a symbol of income, but it meant that people had no understanding of wealth creation. This nation exists in its present form only because we have had a long history during which we have understood what is involved in wealth creation. People came from the countryside to the towns because they thought that they would find work and would be able to improve their lives and those of their children. Similarly, many people now invade America, Britain and Europe because they are looking for a better way to look after themselves and their families. In this country and many parts of Europe, the rural-urban drift began to take place and it became an avalanche. However, people in this country learned that they had to make provision for themselves.
    In successive Budgets, our aim has been that of "making work pay", as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would describe it. It is not a bad slogan, because people understand it. How many Members have heard their constituents—Conservative voters, Labour voters or non-voters"say, "It is all right for those who never go to work. They get everything they want and I get nothing"? I have heard that and it is still being said. However, the truth is very different. In my experience, unless they are doing something else as well, people on benefit generally just about manage. However, those who

    341
    work—perhaps for low wages—have the perception that the state does everything for those who do not work and nothing for those who do.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has started to make work pay. The methods may be difficult. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that there is a limit to what one can achieve with tax credits. In the end, productivity and improved performance at work will bring about the higher wages and salaries that will improve our lives and those of our families.
    Mr. Bercow: I am greatly enjoying much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but can I ask him to focus on a slightly different aspect of the equation? He talks about the importance of making work pay, but does he not agree that it is also important to generate a culture in which people think it is worth while to start a business? To that end, does he not regard it as regrettable, if not deplorable, that the Government continue to refuse, even as a starting measure, to publish an annual statement of the costs of regulation on business? What possible good explanation can there be for that omission?
    Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door as far as I am concerned. I would love to see the annual costs of regulation. I do not believe that we have made a significant dent in the costs of regulation. In fact, in some sectors, we have undoubtedly added to them, but we believe in the greater good, and the administration of the minimum wage is an example of that. We can disagree about that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am absolutely open to ideas and suggestions on how we can reduce regulation.
    I have one such idea in my head, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken an interesting step forward in encouraging new businesses to start up. The offer of £2,000 worth of free advice and assistance is very welcome. Without that advice and assistance, I fear that more businesses would fail than needed to. My right hon. Friend also said that we had liberalised the approach to account reporting and the rules for audited accounts have been relaxed, to some extent, for smaller companies.
    My suggestion for my right hon. Friend is that we should not insist on using the European convention on accountancy—which is very good for larger companies—in smaller companies. Smaller companies with a turnover of less than £1.5 million to £2 million should perhaps be able to base their reporting unaudited, on a profit and loss account, a balance sheet and a source of application of funds. That would give them a quite a boost, and would save them a lot in accountancy fees.
    Mr. Bercow: I confess that I am veritably put in a state of high excitement by that concession. I do not want to push my luck, but I am tempted to have a go. Consistent with what the hon. Gentleman says about encouraging the enterprise culture are two propositions. The first is that it is about time that the Government conducted a proper assessment of the United States Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, because that would yield benefits. The second is that it would also help if the Government signed
    342
    up to the policy of sunset regulation, which applies in the United States. That would mean that a regulation would automatically expire or lapse—perhaps three or five years after its enactment—unless it is judged sufficiently worth while for Parliament to take time to renew it.
    Mr. Purchase: I am not in an argumentative mood. However, I keep my wits about me and recognise that everything that comes from the United States is not always welcome or helpful. The adoption of chapter 11 would have been useful, but I know that the Opposition oppose it. They believe that it does not help to keep businesses afloat.
    We could consider what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, I invite him to join me in admiring the concept of continuous improvement, which most of industry applies. Reconsidering, deleting and adding to legislation is the right approach to any Act that involves regulation. Continuous improvement is an important part of industry and commerce. It is right to have a lighter touch within the bounds of good health and safety practices and good labour relations.
    Ms Abbott: I listened with great care to my hon. Friend's argument on what is usually known as welfare dependency and I agreed with much of it. I can identify individuals in my constituency who are in an advanced state of welfare dependency and whole estates that contain generations of people who are mired in welfare dependency. But moving complete communities from a state of mind that accepts welfare dependency to the more preferable state of enterprise and looking after themselves is not a simple matter of providing tax credits and making speeches. However undeserving many of those people may be, if our approach to moving them off welfare dependency is too shot-term or mechanistic, the poorest children in society might suffer. That is the danger.
    Mr. Purchase: That is a profound point and I have no objection to it. If I wanted to pick a fight, it would be with Samuel Smiles. The concept of the deserving and undeserving poor has never served the country well. We need a more rational approach to understanding the cultures that people it habit and the way in which things develop. I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. There is room for discussion, debate and analysis. I agree that a mechanistic approach cannot solve the cultural difficulties. However, it demonstrates that there is a way out in the shorter and medium term. It is important to give that signal. I commend the stance taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but accept that there needs to be a wider debate about the future and how we apply short-term measures in the wider context of cultural change.
    The hon. Member for West Worcestershire mentioned the International Monetary Fund and the European Union institutions and criticised the funding of longer-term spending and debt. I am an absolute supporter of my right hon. Friend's golden rule on that matter. I have always believed that we should I pay for the acquisition of a capital asset over its useful lifetime. For example, a new school in a local authority area will serve successive generations. It is right, therefore, that successive generations pay for that asset. It would be unfair to front load that expenditure for capital acquisition so that today's tax burden becomes intolerable. That would be nonsense.

    343
    A similar case can be made for current expenditure. The golden rule, expressed many years ago by Mr. Micawber, is, "Expenditure 19s 6d, income £1—good fun; expenditure £1, income 19s 6d—not too good."
    Mr. Forth: That is Thatcherism.
    Mr. Purchase: It is good socialism because moneylenders are owed nothing and they cannot take their pound of flesh.
    It is right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should balance his revenue budget over the cycle and ensure that, year on year, we can sustain desirable improvements in our society. There is no better way to organise our financial affairs than by employing the golden rules that he has set his stall by.
    I welcome the improvements in exporting. I hope that I do not encourage raucous remarks when I inform the House that, with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid—Kent (Mr. Rowe), I am joint chairman of the all-party group on exports. We have made a real effort because exports are a most important facet of British economic life. Without exports, we cannot import. We are an island economy and we are short of certain items, so we have to import them. If we do that, we must pay for them, and the only way to do that is by selling abroad.
    I welcome the improved figures. I especially welcome the improvements in manufacturing. I am delighted but surprised, because there have been considerable manufacturing job losses in my constituency over the past few months. Goodyear has made 500 people redundant. Skilled tyre workers and management are finding themselves out of work. The Chubb safe company will soon send about 200 workers down the road. Some 200 jobs at the Britool factory on the border of my constituency, which employs many of my constituents, are being exported to France. About 350 jobs are going at a food processing company. All those jobs are well paid. Even the workers at the food processing factory receive hourly rates in excess of £5, which is well-paid employment in the west midlands for that industry.
    Redundancies are also a major problem elsewhere. There has been a disastrous loss of employment in the steel industry. However, my right hon. Friend is able to announce that our manufacturing exports are improving. We are matching the best exporting countries in the world and we have internationally competitive companies that are doing the business for Britain. They are to be congratulated on that and we should be proud of them. We should recognise that their effort; support our way of life, because we have to import many of the things that we enjoy. The dreadful affliction in farming is bound to lead, at least in the short term, to an increase in imports. I make no comment about the disease itself or the handling of it; I merely point out that in the short term we will have to find the money to pay for increased imports—that is a fact of life.
    Mr. Bercow: I am determined to provoke the hon. Gentleman, which has thus far not been possible. He has just made yet another interesting and valid point. Given our improving export performance, does he accept that despite his reference to the overly high exchange rate, the overall strength of our capacity to sell overseas means that the exchange rate difficulties in no way justify a decision
    344
    to abolish our national currency for ever and permanently to hand over to the European central bank the power to set our monetary policy, given that we do not elect that bank and cannot remove it and, under the treaty of Amsterdam, it would be illegal to seek to persuade it of the British national point of view?
    Mr. Purchase: There is much to consider in what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. Andrew Love: Disagree!
    Mr. Purchase: I am being urged to disagree—how extraordinary.
    It is interesting to reflect that no country, except perhaps America, is entirely in charge of its own interest rates, for the simple reason that it has to take note of what everyone else is doing and, to an extent, reflect any changes elsewhere in its own arrangements. If we allow rates to get too high, we attract hot money; if we allow them to get too low, out that money goes. We are not independent in the way that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would lead some of his Eurosceptic supporters to believe.
    On exports, I gave the House the good news first, because I did not want to fall out about the bad news, which is that Britain's exports, as a fraction of total world exports, have been falling for many years. We are not reversing that trend even though we are increasing our exports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we can have rising exports and a falling share of the world markets.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that damaging trend is likely to be accelerated, rather than slowed, by the imposition of the climate change levy on British manufacturing? Does he accept that the Chancellor's earlier comment seems spurious to those who represent constituencies in the north or the midlands which have many manufacturers, because although there have been offsetting reductions in tax costs for some service industries, manufacturing companies are not benefiting from those?
    Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have been in the front line of west midlands MPs from all parties, standing shoulder to shoulder, saying to the Chancellor that the levy represents a significant challenge, especially for companies that are energy efficient and which have been careful to introduce new energy-saving technology. They run a good monitoring system to ensure that they are always on the cheapest tariff and are therefore running furnaces and heat exchanges at the lowest possible cost, and have done so for several years so that they remain competitive. We have acquainted the Chancellor with that difficulty, and he has partially responded by agreeing that there can be special dispensations where they can be shown to be beneficial.
    I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and I accept that the levy is extra expenditure. We have to weigh the good against the bad, and there is no question but that a serious crisis in the world's energy use is looming. Fossil fuels are undoubtedly running out, and we have to find ways of meeting the energy needs of a developing world so that it can keep its people in comfort.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic generosity in giving way. I accept his

    345
    point that no nation is omnipotent, but does he accept that the experience of our forced ejection from the extended recession mechanism demonstrated that a country that is not tied to a fixed exchange rate system has some flexibility in setting its own interest rates, as we discovered when we were able to slash our rates after our ejection in September 1992? Does the hon. Gentleman further accept—I hope that he does—that increased stability within the eurozone could be bought for Britain at the damagingly high price of increased exchange rate volatility with the dollar and the yen? Is not that particularly important to this country, which trades more with north America than do other member states of the European Union?
    Mr. Purchase: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes interesting points. I will not fall out with him because those are matters that we should discuss and analyse. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that not one single factor has a total influence on our position. We need balanced consideration of a series of indicators, including the option to join the euro, if not yet then at some time when it is appropriate to our needs. I believe that that will assist British exports, although I accept that the climate change levy and energy taxes have an impact. We must measure all those costs against the benefits of joining. If there were a sophisticated enough cost-benefit analysis model, we would be applying it and making the right decision, but much of this is a matter of judgment.
    I must return to the subject of the Budget, or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will rule me out of order. Today's Budget, as one of a series, will broadly find a welcome in the country. It is a path towards the balance that we seek.
    We have heard today that the management of pension funds is to be freed up. That matter is an important part of our lives because pretty well all of us are now dependent on the investment of our present contributions to ensure that we receive a pension in future. I am a little concerned because I am rather old fashioned when it comes to pension management. I have always understood first, that no pension fund should have too great a holding in any individual stock because one sometimes needs to make an orderly retreat without disturbing anything; and secondly, that not too many of those holdings should be in equities.
    In boom times it is nice to say, "Look how well we are managing the fund; pay us our fees now", but there are difficulties when the market flattens out or goes into recession. People who depend on their pension may then find that its value has diminished. One must ensure that the investments of the pension fund as a whole are properly balanced, with not too great an amount in equities, so that pension commitments can be met and the auditors and actuaries are always satisfied that the fund is equal to the job it has to do. I sound a note of caution because it is important for people's future that they are able to rely on their pension fund managers to guarantee that the income that was promised will be paid.
    As for the national health service—
    Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Chancellor's
    346
    abolition of dividend tax credits and the impact that that will have on pension funds? Clearly, the hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority on the matter. Does he agree with the estimate that this year the abolition has cost pension funds £5.4 billion?
    Mr. Purchase: Yes, because I do not know other than what the hon. Gentleman has just told me. However, I would like to put the matter in context. I listened to Prime Minister's Question Time and my right hon. Friend's answers on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made exactly the right point. Opposition Members will be surprised to hear that. The cost of the abolition has been more than met by growth in pension funds. It is—[Interruption.] That has excited Conservative Members. I can tell that they will become argumentative—
    Mr. Tim Boswell rose—
    Mr. Purchase: I will give way.
    Mr. Boswell: It is because I respect the hon. Gentleman that I want to make a point. Has he considered that whereas pension funds get no relief from the knock that they have suffered with the abolition of dividend tax credit, exactly the same regime applies to charities, and the Chancellor has acknowledged the potential problem by giving charities compensation?
    Mr. Purchase: That was a fine gesture. Indeed, it was more than a gesture. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated on taking such a measure.
    If the loss to pens ion funds will be £5.4 billion, and if there had been no change, that sum would have been in addition to the funds. There is no question about that, if that is the figure. However, that must be seen within the balance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is trying to strike.
    Funds have increased greatly and the cost of the change will be £5.4 billion, or whatever. That cost will be more than met by growth To a large extent, that growth has been engineered by successive Budgets together with the growth in our economy, given the way in which, for example, engineers, manufacturers and others in the service industries have performed. There is an obvious loss and it could have been greater, but we always want more. We must have a Chancellor—Labour or Conservative—who makes a judgment on what we have in our pockets and what will be needed to fund public services.
    I move on to the national health service.
    Mr. Forth: Oh!
    Mr. Purchase: I can tell that the right hon. Gentleman is upset.
    There has been a considerable boost in expenditure. I expect Conservative Members to accept that as a fact. In real terms, there has been a real boost. I believe my local health service managers—they are honourable men and women—when they say that the difficulty is in getting the money to the front line. There must be a cultural change in the way in which the health service and other public services are managed. We must adopt in public services

    347
    the ethos that is widespread in high- tech industry, which is getting things right the first time and every time. We must also—
    Sir Raymond Whitney: I understand the problem of getting the money to the front line However, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a much more fundamental problem when per capita money available in Britain is about 50 or 60 per cent. less than that which is available in other continental countries?
    Mr. Purchase: I would have to examine carefully how per capita expenditure is assessed. I would have to consider, for example, how much is the result of direct taxation in each country and how much stems from personal contributions in the from of buying private care, or a state-run system that has a mixed economy of private and public money. These are difficult issues when I have not seen the relevant figures, which the hon. Gentleman has probably carefully examined. However, I believe what he tells me. I know that he would not lead me in the wrong direction.
    We must compare apples with apples, not apples with pears. We must ascertain the components of individual expenditures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked some time ago about health expenditure in the UK reaching the European average. It was necessary to analyse exactly what was meant by that—I understand that it is that our level of state spending would match European state spending nation by nation. However, a great deal of additional expenditure in other European countries, as in this country, will have been incurred by individuals.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe is able to give chapter and verse on our position in the league table, but we are beginning to see some genuine improvements, which are welcomed by all and which were striven for by all. In my constituency, where the general hospital in Wolverhampton is situated at New Cross, there is a £110 million development and refurbishment programme that is ready to get moving. We heard news today of between £500,000 and £1 million that will go directly to the hospital trust rather than being brokered through the health authority. Next week, I shall have the great honour of declaring open our refurbished accident and emergency department. There is a huge programme of such refurbishments throughout the country, which are welcomed by all.
    People of good will recognise that sometimes our efforts are not always rewarded by excellence in the health and education services. However, when we work together, co-operate and pull in the same direction, and when the necessary resources can be made available, we can appreciate the work that others do for us. It is always worth thanking those who work in hospitals and schools, for example. Often, they are like the neglected civil servants who look after us day and night, and sometimes for 24 hours a day. We should applaud the work that is done and encourage those who are involved. There is certainly room for further salary increases in the public sector, especially in teaching and nursing. Such increases should be introduced to bring about a revitalised NHS—a service of which we all want to be proud.
    The Budget, when seen as part of a series of measures, will be good for Britain. Everyone will benefit, or has benefited. We must wait a little I anger to see the full
    348
    effects of the Budget, but I believe that we are on the right path and that the balance is right. That balance can be criticised—and, no doubt, it will be criticised. However, I think that the Budget will have many defenders. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor deserves our congratulations on bringing forward a Budget that is neither too prudent nor too expenditure driven.
    We are in an election period. Had my right hon. Friend spent less, no doubt he would have been accused of doing a Jenkins on the Labour party; had he spent more, it would have been open season for Opposition Members.
    7.9 pm
    Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) finished by saying that the Government may have spent less than they might have. Perhaps the Chancellor spent less because he has more lives to lose in the election than would otherwise be the case. If he has a large number to lose, he can afford to lose a few extra and still win.
    By general agreement, it is a most interesting Budget. I must welcome the continuing use of tax surpluses to repay the national debt. I listened carefully to what the Chancellor said. He told us that he would repay about £34 billion this year—a vast sum. The only larger sum that I can remember being announced was, unfortunately, a £50 billion debt, which was acquired rather than being repaid. This repaying of the national debt is welcome. As the Chancellor said, it will mean a £3.5 billion saving on public debt interest. I suspect that that would go a long way to covering some of the hand-outs that we will be told tomorrow by the press the right hon. Gentleman has given us. It is a useful and tidy sum, and much can be done with it, especially if it is to be saved year on year. It is more than welcome. However, when one looks at the more detailed figures, some of which the Chancellor read out, one realises how the public sector debt will fall. It will do so only for a fairly shortly period, but it is then projected to start rising. Exactly the same is true in regard to public sector debt as a percentage of the gross national product, which drops to a minimum of 29.6 per cent. in 2000–03. After that, it is projected to rise slightly, to 30 per cent.
    Of course, those are substantial figures. One aim that is a long way from the hopes that we heard about in the past, and which I thoroughly endorse, is to wipe out national debt. If we are to get £3.5 billion to spend from the repayments this year, think of the wonderful benefits to the nation, year on year, if we do not have any interest payments to make. As the House will know, I have been interested in that for a long period and I am hopeful that, as time goes on, there will be a slow reduction until we get rid of the huge burden that has hung around our necks. I have always thought it very sad that, whenever Chancellors talked about balancing the Budget over the cycle, few of them were prepared to say that they wanted to achieve more than that when the cycle had finished, and have lower national debt, both as a percentage and in real cash, until it was eliminated.
    My hon. Friends and I are especially disappointed that, once again, the Chancellor has not seen fit to do rather more about reducing the duty on tobacco. If it was purely an instance of a morality tax to improve health, we might be more willing to support the Government on increasing duty or maintaining the present level of duty, as happened this year. We are all only too aware of the damage that

    349
    smoking causes to the nation's health and to individuals. It kills thousands every year one way or another, and costs the national health service millions annually. It is not purely an issue of morality taxation, as practicalities are also involved, which are particularly clear to me, coming from where I do.
    In the past few years, the number of smokers in Britain has increased, which shows that increasing tax to limit smoking has failed. The issue is now severely complicated by the continued growth of cigarette smuggling. I mention cigarettes in particular, but the problem goes wider than that. However, cigarette smuggling has shown the largest increase in recent years and the market for that kind of tobacco is huge, with an estimated £4 billion in lost revenue each year. Those figures were given to us by trade unions in Northern Ireland, which say that a phenomenal amount of money has been lost.
    Mr. Forth: I am looking at page 192 of the Treasury's Budget document under the heading "Public sector current receipts". To my surprise, it suggests that tobacco duties yielded £5.7 billion in 1999–2000; £7.5 billion in 2000–01; and will yield an even greater amount—£7.6 billion—next year. Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am by that? I thought that it was common knowledge, even in the Treasury, that the yield is falling because the tax is now too high and smuggling is rampant? Can my hon. Friend help me with those figures?
    Mr. Ross: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if those figures are correct, they represent a change from past projections, which show a fall in revenue from duties, despite an increase in taxation? On the other hand, perhaps Inland Revenue officers are going to get so efficient that smuggling will be stopped altogether.
    It is estimated that 30 per cent. of all the cigarettes that are consumed are purchased outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, thereby avoiding UK taxes. The percentage of cigarettes purchased on the black market continues to rise. I shall give vivid examples of that in a few moments.
    Mr. Bercow: I have not smoked a cigarette since 25 June 1986 and have no desire to do so ever again. Nevertheless, in common with a small but insistent minority, I am against the social fascism that says we should continually smother people with excessive taxation for indulging in perfectly legal activities. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 6 June 2000, when I presented the Taxation (Right to Know) Bill, I calculated that 79.3 per cent. of the cost of a packet of 20 cigarettes went directly to the Exchequer? Has my hon. Friend worked out what percentage of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the Exchequer as a result of today's tax changes?
    Mr. Ross: I have not worked that out, but later I shall give the hon. Gentleman extremely interesting figures showing the difference between the sum that people pay for a packet of fags in this country and elsewhere.
    It is a fact that tobacco manufacturers and trade unions predicted a good many years ago the consequences of increased taxation on cigarettes. That prediction followed their correct forecast of the consequences for hand-rolled
    350
    tobacco, practically all of which is now smuggled. Quite a lot of it goes out of the Gallagher factory in Ballymena one week; then, ten days later, it is on market stalls throughout the country. All that tobacco is smuggled. It is true that the Chancellor has increased investment in Customs and Excise to counter tobacco smuggling, but those efforts have not been effective, owing to the potential rewards for Those involved in smuggling.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Smuggling is not necessary. The problem is that people can go to France, Holland or another country perfectly legally and buy cigarettes for their own personal consumption at such a dramatically low price that it is worth undertaking that journey. That is one of the problems with a high tax.
    Mr. Ross: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I understand that one can now bring in 800 cigarettes for one's own use. A man, his wife and his non-smoking grown-up children can take a day trip to France and come back with enough to do them for several months and still make a considerable profit on their visit. Rather than raising the tax, the Government would be wise to freeze it at the very least. If the increased resources for the Revenue fail to prove effective against smuggling, a cut in tobacco duty must be seriously considered.
    Such a cut is not unheard of, as that step has been taken in other European states and Canada to combat the type of smuggling that currently plagues the United Kingdom. The current policy of morality taxation—as it has been christened—has failed miserably to decrease the number of smokers in the United Kingdom and has damaged the moral fabric of society by precipitating general criminality—smuggling—in the population.
    Other options must be considered. Decreasing duty would increase total Government revenues; as the profits from smuggling decreased, the extent of smuggling would diminish, and a far greater number of taxable products would be sold in the UK, thereby compensating for a lower percentage it duty. Consequently, additional investment to combat mass smuggling would become unnecessary, and there would be savings in the cost of Revenue officers if the incentive to smuggle were removed. The size of That incentive is evident, as has been said, in the difference in the cost of tobacco products retailed here and elsewhere.
    I have, given to me by trade union visitors from the Gallagher factory in Ballymena last week, a packet of one particular brand which is sold in the United Kingdom at £4.27, in Spain at £1.47, in Luxembourg at £1.66 and in Belgium at £1.95. I also have two packets of Old Holborn which, as I do not smoke, I will eventually return to the factory of origin. One packet is printed in English and states:
    "United Kingdom price duty paid £8.70".
    The other shows the Luxembourg duty paid: £1.95.
    The stuff all comes out of the same factory in Ballymena, in County Antrim. It goes across to Europe and back it comes. The House will agree that, with an incentive of that size, the idea that smuggling can be stopped, other than by the harshest and most repressive measures, is nonsense. It just will not happen.
    That illustrates more clearly than anything the real problem that we face. The House will be aware that with a land frontier between Northern Ireland and another

    351
    European state, tobacco smuggling is not the only problem that we have. We have road fuel smuggling—not only diesel, but all road fuels. Many petrol stations along the northern side of the frontier haw been closed and are derelict, and their counterparts in the Republic are thriving, as are many little stations set up along the roadside.
    The grapevine tells one things which it is sometimes impossible to trace back to source, but they are revealing. I heard of one gentleman who was invited to allow some people to sell fuel on the forecourt of his closed petrol station. He refused for a few days, then he allowed it. The reasons for that I leave to the imagination of hon. Members who are listening.
    Who is profiting from that trade? Who owns the closed Northern Ireland outlets? What will the situation be when the system reverts, as it inevitably will? Some time in the future, the relative value of the pound and the punt may change, and even with the difference in taxation, the trade may start to flow the other way. We will then find that many dozens of decent, hard-working people who built up their business have been ruined; they are gone, and their establishments are run on either side of the border by paramilitary organisations.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful, again, to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is highly likely that one of the reasons why the Republic of Ireland can keep its tax levels lower than ours in matters such as the one being discussed is that money is flowing from the European Union into the Republic, thus saving the Government of the Republic a great deal of money? Some of that is our money, which has gone from Britain to the European Union and thence to Ireland, thus allowing the Irish to keep their taxes lower. The position is even worse than my hon. Friend describes. Not only are the Republic's taxes lower, causing the problems described, but it is happening because of our money going via Europe to Ireland.
    Mr. Ross: The House debated a Bill yesterday to help development in the poorer nations of the world, so I suppose we have done the same for a former part of the United Kingdom. However, the situation is changing rapidly. Instead of receiving money, the Republic of Ireland will start to have to pay it out. It has also, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, signed up to the euro, and is now being told to toe the line.
    There was one blooming awful row recently between the Republic's Finance Minister and the European authorities, because the Republic refused to toe the line. It was wonderful to see that nation, which was so pro-European that it made one sick, coming to understand the consequences of being in thy euro system. Hon. Members who did not read the reports in The Irish Times, which is the best paper for such stuff, should go back a few weeks and read it. It is extremely revealing.
    I digress, however. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has a habit of taking me away from the subject of the debate. The night is moving on and I want to hear what he has to say, so I shall return to my own remarks.
    The effectiveness of the Government's countermeasures against fuel smuggling has been, at best, questionable. In response to an oral question that I asked last year, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office informed me that
    352
    13 illegal fuel processing plants had been closed, and an estimated 40 million litres of illicit fuel had been prevented from reaching the Northern Ireland regional economy. I welcome that success, as every right-thinking person would.
    I welcome any success in the war against criminality, but 40 million litres is like a drop in an oil well, compared with what is going on. A comparative analysis of the legitimate third quarter fuel deliveries into Northern Ireland since 1994 provides a far more accurate indication of how widespread and how massive the Northern Ireland fuel smuggling crisis was and continues to be. Since 1994, fuel deliveries into Northern Ireland have fallen by a staggering 55 per cent. Between 1994 and 1996, third quarter deliveries dropped slightly, by more than 10,000 tonnes—that is, 6 per cent. of the total fuel delivered. By 1997, a sharp decline had begun, and by the third quarter of last year the total fuel delivery into Northern Ireland was just over 100,000 tonnes—less than half the equivalent delivery for 1996. Unfortunately, that amazing decrease has only one possible explanation. It must be remembered that over the same period there was an increase of almost 20 per cent. in the number of vehicles licensed in Northern Ireland.
    One aspect of the Chancellor's Budget today that I particularly welcome is the change in the road vehicle excise duty, which will be extremely beneficial to the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland. Some firms are transferring their vehicles to the Irish Republic because of the very much lower taxation on heavy lorries there. That incentive, at least, will now be removed.
    I return to the subject of fuel. With 20 per cent. more vehicles, 50 per cent. less fuel delivered and Northern Ireland having no indigenous resources of road fuel, the figures just do not add up. The estimated revenue lost to the Treasury is astronomical, although when one starts asking questions, the Treasury keeps going round in circles and one never gets an answer. The causes of those astounding figures are simple: diesel smuggling, petrol smuggling, mass blatant smuggling across the frontier every day, plus, of course, the thousands of people who drive across every day and fill up.
    The problem must be dealt with in the same way as cigarette smuggling—by reducing duty and consequently removing the incentive for smuggling. I am disappointed that a pragmatic solution to fuel smuggling has yet to be considered by Government. I admit that, unlike cigarette smuggling, fuel smuggling is primarily a regional problem for us. It should not be forgotten where the smuggling profits end up. The profits of cross-border fuel smuggling fill to overflowing the coffers of the republican terrorist organisations. They go to the IRA which, as we all know, controls the whole trade.
    The scale of the smuggling, not only in fuel and cigarettes but in farm livestock, has become abundantly clear in recent days. Only recently did the public learn how foot and mouth disease reached Northern Ireland from Carlisle. In The Irish Times yesterday there was an article to the effect that some 8,000 sheep had been taken illegally from the United Kingdom into the Irish Republic over the past two months—that is a lot of sheep.
    Let us remember what happened to the lorry. It went in and dumped off the sheep, some in South Armagh and some at the slaughterhouse in the Republic, then it was used to transport livestock all round the island of Ireland

    353
    and maybe on the mainland—heaven knows where. I hope that it was well cleaned down and disinfected. It is beginning to look as though it was, because if it had not been, there would be foot and mouth from one end of the island of Ireland to the other by this time. That could not have been avoided.
    It is estimated that a third of the filling stations in Northern Ireland are now controlled by paramilitary terrorist organisations, which use these businesses to launder the proceeds of their criminality.
    The fuel differential has far greater implications than merely cross-border smuggling. The taxation of aggregates is another significant matter that is impinged upon by the cost of fuel. Transportation is an important factor in the distribution of aggregates and the downstream products in which they are used. Northern Ireland's aggregates industry differs greatly in character from that of its mainland counterparts. The Province has a rural industry with a wide distribution of small quarries and sand and gravel pits. Most of those quarries process the aggregates on site into concrete and other downstream products. They generally supply them within a relatively small radius, although that could include the whole of Northern Ireland.
    The tax will apply to both raw and refined aggregates and to imported aggregates, but not to imported downstream products. That means that concrete building materials—whether they are beams, pipes, bricks or anything else—can be made in the Republic of Ireland and then imported, which creates the potential to swamp the Northern Ireland market with much cheaper products. Another comparison might be pertinent in that respect. In Northern Ireland, the average value of raw aggregates is £2.60 a tonne. On the mainland, the average value is £6.50, which is a very large difference. The tax per tonne in Northern Ireland will, therefore, be 60 per cent. of the product's value; on the mainland, it is 25 per cent. of the current aggregates value. Consequently, there is a massive difference between the burden that the tax places on the quarries in each region. An unfair burden is imposed on the industry in Northern Ireland, and there is no value in taxing industry in the Province in that manner. It can only result in a substantial economic and job loss.
    In 1999, total aggregates production in Northern Ireland was 23 million tonnes. With exemptions taken into account, 22 million tonnes would be taxable under the new tax, so the total revenue for the Treasury would be a mere £35 million. The estimated consequences for the industry of the new tax include the loss of up to 4,000 jobs, which is more than 70 per cent. of the total number of jobs in the industry in Northern Ireland. The estimated cost to the Treasury is some £60 million.
    There was an obvious and simple solution to that potential disaster for the region's aggregates industry. The tax could have been disapplied in respect of Northern Ireland, with a saving for the Treasury. At the very least, it could have been applied to the value of the product and not per tonne. Taxing the value by 25 per cent. in Northern Ireland, as on the mainland, would provide a pragmatic solution to a salient regional problem.
    Those in the industry point out that their products are heavy and not easy to transport. There is one manufacturer who manages to sell bridge beams in England. All his
    354
    competitors would like to know how on earth he manages to make them in Northern Ireland, put them on a boat to south-west Scotland or Heysham, cart them half way across England to be used to build a bridge—and still make a profit. He is a neighbour of mine and apparently he gets on very well. There are also certain products that are not made elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as concrete pipes of a particular size, so Northern Ireland is the only source of supply. However, the reduction of the tax in Northern Ireland on a percentage basis would not hurt manufacturers in the mainland, as the materials are generally too heavy to transport and the cost of doing so would be too great.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend referred to a £60 million loss to the Exchequer Does that calculation reflect merely taxation forgone and benefits paid, or does it also take into account—I fear that it probably does not—the obvious loss of purchasing power that has been experienced in the process?
    Mr. Ross: The calculation does not take account of the second point at all.
    I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the problems on board or acted on them. Their tax policy in two of the areas chat I have mentioned has failed to deliver the benefits that we hoped for. It will also fail in the third area, as it will do great damage to the Northern Ireland economy. Heavy taxation of fuel has not led to a reduction of car use in Northern Ireland, whose rural nature means that people have to use their cars. It has simply become a source of terrorist funding. Those are two very good reasons for doing something serious about it.
    With regard to tobacco, taxation has greatly increased law breaking and smuggling; that is positive proof that one cannot make people good by passing laws that it pays them handsomely to break. I have demonstrated that the policy on fuel and tobacco does help pay them handsomely to break the laws. I fear that smoking reduction has become a matter of education and not of exorbitant taxation. I have also rehearsed in some detail the danger to the quarrying industry. I hope that the Chancellor will listen to my comments on that issue, as he can improve the situation without much difficulty and without causing any great damage to similar industries on this side of the Irish sea.
    7.35 pm
    Mr. David Kidney: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) leaves the Chamber, I should like to say that I greatly enjoyed his speech. His performance, which is best described as emollient, provided a neat counterpoint to the speech made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). I much preferred my hon. Friend's analysis of the future, as he spoke about consistent and adequate investment in core public services and targeted spending for the rest of the public services. That contrasts with the vision presented by the hon. Gentleman, who spoke of a future in which, as I understood it, even health and education services would be accessed only in accordance with the size of a person's wallet.
    I want first to speak about the happy situation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in making his statement, perhaps in the shadow of the next general election, and

    355
    the strong position that enabled him to make his announcements. I should like to illustrate that position by comparing his speech to the past three speeches made by Labour Chancellors in the shadow of general elections that Labour went on to lose.
    Initially, we must go back to April 1951, when the late Hugh Gaitskell, who has already been mentioned, delivered the Budget of the then Labour Government. He was wrestling with two huge problems that were exercising the minds of all hon. Members. First, there had been a huge—30 per cent.—devaluation of our currency, which had made it impossible to valance the Budget. Secondly, he had to find the finance to wage a war in Korea—which some might forget today.
    Those two demands made his position hopeless. His Budget set a starting income tax rate of 3 shillings in the pound, which is 15 per cent., and an intermediate rate of 5s 6d in the pound, which is 27.5 per cent. The standard rate was 9s 6d, or 47.5 per cent. The maximum surtax was another 10 shillings in the pound for people with incomes of more than £20,000 a year. That is another 50 per cent., which makes a maxim um payable income tax rate of 97.5 per cent. It is no surprise that Mr. Gaitskell mournfully observed:
    "I know that this budget will not be popular".—[Official Report, 10 April 1951; Vol. 486, c. 865.]
    Those who had to respond instantly for the Opposition—a very difficult job—were a great deal politer than today's politicians. I do not make a party political point; it is merely the passage of time. The late Sir Winston Churchill had that duty in 1951 and he was politeness embodied. He said:
    "I pay our compliments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the lucid, comprehensive statement which he has made to us this afternoon".
    Before he sat down, he thanked the Chancellor again for a gracious speech, but politeness did not get in the way of trenchant political criticisms. His summing up of the Government's performance reflected the difficulties that they faced at the polls shortly afterwards. He said:
    "If we take the whole period of the rule of the Socialist Party, I think it is fair to say that the mismanagement of our finances over the whole period tells the same tale…as the mismanagement of our defences."—[Official Report, 10 April 1951; Vol. 486, c. 879–881.]
    Mr. Hayes: I believe that, in 1951, Winston Churchill voted in half the Divisions in the House. That starkly contrasts with the current Prime Minister's performance. The hon. Gentleman should consider the difference between that Labour Government and the current Government in their methods of taxing the British people. The hon. Gentleman spoke of tax at 97p in the pound, but the 1951 Government were not to ping by stealth. He should compare the honesty of the 1951 socialist Government on tax policy with the dishonesty of the current Administration, who tax by the back door and do not tell people of their real intention.
    Mr. Kidney: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. On dishonesty in modern taxation, I shall shortly consider the great shift from direct to indirect taxation. I should be interested to know how taxes that are announced in a manifesto for a general election can be labelled stealth taxes. The hon. Gentleman makes an odd criticism that I reject.
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman claims that the Labour manifesto for the general election announces
    356
    several taxes. Doubtless he will tell us more shortly. However, does not he recall that, when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said in an article in The Sun—an authoritative publication—on 14 April 1997 that the Labour party planned no increases in taxes?
    Mr. Kidney: That has been explained many times. The Prime Minister was referring to the rates of income tax. Let me demonstrate the inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's criticism. He claims that the Labour party said that there would be no new taxes. That is not true; the manifesto stated that there would be a windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities. The Opposition claim that the Labour party said that there would be no increases in taxes. Again, that is inaccurate; the manifesto stated that the fuel duty escalator would continue. I am happy to continue the debate.
    Mr. Hayes: I do not want to test the hon. Gentleman's patience, but will he comment on some of the other taxes that have been introduced by stealth, such as the pensions tax that I mentioned earlier, the changes to national insurance contributions for the self-employed, holiday tax and insurance tax? The list is almost endless; there are 45 such taxes. How many are included in the manifesto?
    Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: not all the changes to which he refers appeared in the manifesto. Policy evolves; that applies to every Government.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kidney: I would have been surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not asked me to give way.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I recently had the great pleasure of visiting. The Prime Minister specifically said that there would be no increase in taxation at all. That obviously referred to the overall level; it was not a decision to rule out the introduction of any specific tax. To argue the contrary is to argue about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
    Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is an innate contradiction between the Government's attitude to public finances at Government level and at local authority level? What assessment has he made of the effect of the change in the rules for the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?
    Mr. Kidney: I am happy to stand toe to toe with the hon. Gentleman on the head of that pin, and to continue to argue that the Prime Minister referred to income tax rates. I shall not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman's second point.
    Let us move on from 1951. For a long time after that Budget, there was no Labour Government. However, we were back in power in the 1960s. Let us consider 14 April 1970, when the Chancellor who delivered the Budget speech was Roy Jenkins. He perceived an improvement in his position. He said:
    "The circumstances in which I open this Budget are, I am glad to say, more agreeable than those in which I made my last two Budget statements".

    357
    He continued:
    "In 1968, we were in the trough of crisis."—[Official Report, 14 April 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1212.]
    What were the problems with which Roy Jenkins had to wrestle? In 1970, Hansard included headings and subheadings for the Budget speech. One was, "The record since devaluation". That Labour Government were struggling with the aftermath of a devaluation and its terrible consequences in 1968, when debt had peaked. The current account debt was the largest ever, as was the country's total indebtedness. The then Chancellor found time to single out a Staffordshire Member of Parliament, the late Sir Hugh Fraser, whose tenacity of criticism of the financial position especially irritated Roy Jenkins.
    People mainly remember the decision not to make the 1970 Budget a giveaway Budget. Roy Jenkins was determined to avoid blatant electioneering and to be thoroughly decent. He explained his intentions thus:
    "I therefore conclude that it is right to give a moderate stimulus to the economy, but to spread this between monetary and fiscal measures. On both, I intend to proceed fairly cautiously. If I find that my judgment is too cautious, it is much easier to correct this later in the year than if I go too far in the other direction."
    Hansard then records "[Interruption.]" In my imagination, the interruption consists of Labour Members shaking their heads, gnashing their teeth, weeping into their handkerchiefs, beating their heads against the wood on the back of the seats and begging the Chancellor to go further.
    Roy Jenkins also said:
    "With my approval, therefore, the Bank of England is reducing Bank Rate to 7 per cent. with effect from tomorrow."—[Official Report, 14 April 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1231–36.]
    A clear difference today is the welcome decision in 1997 to give independence to the Bank of England to set interest rates without reference to the political cycle and the difficulties of the day.
    What had happened to income tax rates by 1970? Roy Jenkins continued the standard rate at 41.25 per cent; he also applied surtaxes, which could total another 40 per cent. That gives a top rate of 81.25 per cent.
    In 1970, Leaders of the Opposition continued to be polite in their responses. On 14 April 1970, the duty of replying to the Budget speech fell to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who is now Father of the House. He began by "warmly congratulating" the Chancellor on his speech and said that the Budget was
    "delivered with such lucidity and fluency and in such a well-constructed speech".—[Official Report, 14 April 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1254.]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there was a selective employment tax in 1970? I believe that it was 15 per cent. of the surcharge. Not only was it a terrible tax, but it condemned, for example, hairdressers to suffer additional taxation. That was unreasonable.
    Mr. Kidney: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman refers to hairdressers, but he is right about the existence of the selective employment tax. It was telling that, as in 1951, the Leader of the Opposition observed that the
    358
    Chancellor sat down to comparative silence. Labour Members probably felt that an opportunity had been missed. The Labour party went on to lose the general election.
    Mr. Hayes: I hope that my comments will match the hon. Gentleman's expectation of politeness. Will he reflect on two matters that were relevant to the run-up to that election? The first was the publication of the balance of payments figures Many people believed that that had an impact on the result of the election. The second was the savings ratio. Both are less healthy now than they were then.
    Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman's first point is quite interesting, because the then Chancellor referred to our obsession with the balance of payments figure, and said that he looked forward to the day when people were no longer obsessed by it. At that time, people looked at the figure and thought that it was extremely worrying if it was an unhealthy one, whereas today people take a much more relaxed view of that indicator of economic well-being.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about the savings ratio, I confess that I do not recall the position in 1970. I adopt the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North—East, who said that the savings ratio is not taken quite so seriously as it was in the past, because other economic factors are at work at the same time. Perhaps a good illustration of that is that in America, during its very successful period of growth in the 1990s, there were times when its savings ratio was negative, yet that did not impinge on its success.
    Mr. Bercow: If published, the hon. Gentleman's brief history of Budget debates would make a racy read and a standard text book. He ought to savour that compliment, because I shall probably not volunteer many more in his direction. He made an important point about the 41.25 per cent. tax rate under the chancellorship of Lord Jenkins, as he now is. Will he now take the opportunity to acknowledge that me then Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton, South-West, the late Enoch Powell, was arguing at the time—as he did in a publication from Elliot Rightway books—for income tax at 4s 3d in the pound? The argument was developed in a legendary speech in Morecambe.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assistance, and I shall come back to that matter in a moment, in a different context.
    I shall move on to 3 April 1979, and the Budget that never was. Denis Healey—now Lord Healey—was the Chancellor, and he was due to deliver his 15th Budget in five years, believe it or not. That is a telling indicator of the difficulties with which he was wrestling in the late 1970s. The reason that he did not deliver that Budget was that, the week before, the Labour Government had suffered a defeat in a vote of no confidence and his Budget was scrapped. Instead, he came to the House to deliver a Finance Fill that would merely continue the authority to collect taxes and keep the Government in

    359
    funds until the next Government were formed. In his usual colourful language, he described his position at the Dispatch Box, saying:
    "I confess that I feel a little bit like a man who turns up to play the leading role in the opera and all they want him to do is to help them hold the scenery together."—[Official Report, 3 April 1979; Vol. 965, c. 1187.]
    We spoke earlier of the problems of devaluation and the resulting growing debt but, my goodness, the difficulties that Lord Healey wrestled with were manifold. He had just succeeded in returning inflation to below double figures for the year. In relation to debt, he was planning the following year to finish repaying the International Monetary Fund borrowings that he had had to access. He complained of sluggish manufacturing output, wage inflation, oil price rises—although we were just starting to benefit from North sea oil production—and the uncertainty of oil supplies from Iran. So he had an enormous amount of difficulty, and perhaps the writing was on the wall for him.
    To return to the story about income tax, the standard rate then was 33 per cent. There was a huge number of different rates, but the top rate was 83 per cent. I think that Lord Healey had just about had enough of the job by then, because during his speech he described the job of Chancellor as
    "this heavy burden, this poisoned chalice"
    Opposition responses were no longer polite. The Leader of the Opposition did not respond on that occasion, as the debate was on the Finance Bill, but Sir Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe of Aberavon, said:
    "we celebrate the Chancellor's demise today with great enthusiasm."—[Official Report, 3 April 1979; Vol. 965, c. 1196–7.]
    He went on to give a clear statement of what to expect if the Conservatives won the next election, which they went on to do. He said:
    "The nation clearly needs substantial reductions in personal taxation to restore incentives, reductions in public spending programmes so that public spending is in line with what the nation can truly afford, and a willingness to shift the balance of the tax system away from pay-as-you-earn to pay- is-you-spend."—[0fficial Report, 3 April 1979; Vol. 965, c. 1205.]
    That reinforces a point that I made earlier, and that is what we got in spades over the subsequent 18 years. I suggest to Opposition Members that there was a need to readjust the pendulum, but it swung massively too far in the other direction.
    I am pleased that that little history lesson has entertained at least one hon. Member present. It has enabled me to make the point that today's Budget speech was delivered from a position of immense strength and power, built on four years of preps ration and the laying of proper foundations. We are in this position through choice, because of decisions that have been made, rather than by chance or happenstance.
    When I listened to the leader of the Liberal Democrats make his contribution to today's debate, I was struck not only by his call—naturally—to spud more money, but by the inadvisability of spending such money before preparations have been made. That is the lesson of the previous three Labour Governments, who churned out a great deal of spending on public services at the beginning of a Parliament, hit a crisis in the middle of it, then spent the rest of it recovering their position and going to the polls saying, "We are sorry, we have made a terrible mess,
    360
    but we will try to do better next time." Today, we have a Chancellor who has, through choice, made good, strong decisions and who gives hope and a vision that he can do the same in the future.
    Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for disturbing the hon. Gentleman, who is making a most entertaining speech, but I wish to refer to a point of order made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) concerning information provided to hon. Members in relation to the Budget.
    The original Budget bundle contained an indication of a number of additional press releases that were to be available to hon. Members, but they were not in the Vote Office when my hon. Friend raised his point of order. Since then, I have made an additional inquiry at the Vote Office and have received another bundle of documents that was not made available to hon. Members with the original Budget bundle, but is now available. It includes one important document referred to in the original bundle—"A Review of Small Business Taxation".
    I have just been to the Vote Office again to inquire whether the press releases have now arrived, as they relate to important measures affecting business taxation. I was given an envelope that contains only parts of the Budget bundle. The press releases are still not available. I understand that they may be available on the internet, but I do not think that that is an adequate way of informing hon. Members of the contents of the Budget. Given the importance of the details of this Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statements, it would be helpful if the Ministers on the Treasury Bench could arrange for those press releases to be made available in written form in the Vote Office at the earliest possible moment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The supply of documents to the Vote Office is not the responsibility of the Chair. I have no doubt that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Kidney: I am happy to excuse the hon. Gentleman for interrupting my speech. He made an important point and wherever the fault lies, it is unacceptable that we cannot have access to the documents that we need on Budget day, of all days.
    I shall move on to make three brief points that will conclude my observations. The first concerns public spending. Opposition Members have raised eyebrows and expressed concerns about the Chancellor's announcement that he intends further to extend his commitment to spending money on public services over the next three years. However, the cautionary note that I would sound to the Chancellor, and to those who might think that that was a worrying thing to do, is that so far, our Departments seem to be having difficulty coping with spending the money that they have already been given.
    An article in the Financial Times today points out an underspend on the working families tax credit, and there is an even greater worry about capital spending, in terms of the inability to spend the money allocated. Ten months of this financial year have passed, and we are told that about £2.2 billion, out of an allocation of £7 billion, has been spent.

    361
    I am sure that the position will improve by the end of the year. Nevertheless, this appears to be becoming a bit of a habit. The previous year, the Select Committee on the Treasury, on which I served, pointed out that even the more modest capital spending total for that year had not been met: it had been underspent. On that occasion, the Chancellor told us that the Departments had got so used to being starved of capital resources that they were neither used to spending money nor geared up to do so. However, I would have thought that 12 months later, we would now be ready to spend the money.
    When I talk to Treasury Ministers about the matter, they point out that there is now the ability to carry forward money, and it is not lost if it is not spent in the financial year allocated. That is a welcome development, and very healthy indeed. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to spend that money, and those with responsibility for spending it ought to consider doing so as a matter of urgency.
    We want investment in law and order, roads, railways, bridges, schools and hospitals. We want good quality and good design and we also want all those to appear physically sooner rather than later—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) urges me on, and he will like my next point, which is on fair education funding.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that a number of Members are unhappy about the way in which the Government distribute money to local authorities, however generous the sum. I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Eunice Finney, who says:
    "The disparity between the highest funded shire LEA and Staffordshire is now £235 for primary children and £286 for secondary children. This is totally unacceptable!!"
    The last sentence appears in bold, which should give the House an idea of how formidable Mrs. Finney is. She is a tireless critic of that unfair system for distributing the money and has pressed me on the matter.
    Mr. Hayes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he agree that the easiest way to address the anomalies that he describes would be through a national funding formula, which would bring greater equity. Is he aware that the base figure used to calculate education standard spending assessment in terms of cost per pupil is based not on a thorough and detailed analysis of what it costs to educate a child, but on a statistical convention?
    Mr. Kidney: That is music to my ears, although the hon. Gentleman's remarks contrast entirely with what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who speaks for the Opposition on local government, said to me in the debate on this year's local government settlement. I am delighted that there is at least one Conservative Front-Bench supporter of a national minimum entitlement for funding children's education. The local government finance Green Paper proposes that very measure, and I was heartened to see the same formula repeated in the schools Green Paper.
    The Government have consistently accepted that the current formula is unfair and change will come. Earlier this Parliament, they tried to make piecemeal changes to the formula, but found that there would be unintended
    362
    consequences. They also tried to achieve a consensus among local government representatives, but they would not play ball. The Government's own determination has led to the production of the Green Paper that will eventually lead to change, although change requires legislation and is therefore still some way off.
    That is disappointing, but the good news is that the Chancellor has built on the success of last year's Budget in which, for the first time, he announced flat rate payments for every school in the country. Today he announced an enhanced rate for those payments, guaranteed for the whole of the next Parliament, which is excellent. At least no one can complain about their school getting the same amount as every other school in the country. That will go some way to alleviate the unfairness—until the unfairness itself is made a matter of history by new legislation.
    Following our entertaining diversion through history, my final point is about a war. The leader of the Liberal Democrats again mentioned the war chest, which has been consistently referred to over the past 12 months or so. It was implied that it represented a lot of money that had been gathered together only to be given out on the eve of an election, but that idea has proved to be wrong. However, thanks to the Labour Government, there is a war going on in this country—a war on poverty.
    At home, the war is about relieving the poverty of children, families and pensioners who struggle to survive. Overseas, it is about helping the world's poorest countries through debt relief', support for United Nations development targets for eradicating poverty, bringing primary education to all children and putting public health in reach of all citizens. That is a war that I encourage, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to continue it in the next Parliament.
    We inherited a situation in which 4 million children in this country were living in poverty. For the first time ever, a Government have announced the target of eradicating poverty, giving themselves 20 years to do it. Policies such as increasing child benefits, the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit are making an impact and during this Parliament, more than 1 million children have been raised out of poverty. If the blistering pace of the past two years is continued, we can meet the target to eradicate all poverty within 10 years, not 20.
    The same is true for pensioners, and it was right for the Government to target first the poorest pensioners with the minimum income guarantee. Between 1 million and 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty in that way. In the Stafford constituency, those who receive the minimum income guarantee have told me what a difference it makes to their personal circumstances. No amount of increasing the basic state pension within affordable limits could have achieved that so quickly.
    Next, we must face the problem of those who do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee because of modest savings or a small occupational pension. That is what the pension credit is about. From 2003, it will help not 1 million or 2 million pensioners, but up to 5 million. The consultation on the pension credit has gone down well in the Stafford constituency. In the meantime, all pensioners appreciate the winter fuel payments and help with their bus fares. The over-75s agree that the free television licence is fair. Britain leads the world's efforts

    363
    to achieve meaningful poverty reduction around the globe: from debt relief and free trade to UN development targets and access to medicines, we are at the forefront of the war on poverty.
    I conclude with a reference to the late Audrey Wise, my parliamentary colleague—a former Member for Preston who died last year. When Audrey was between seats, she lived in Stafford. I knew her and her family very well and I still see her husband, John, often. She contributed to the debate on the 1979 Finance Bill and was oft referred to because of the 1977 Rooker-Wise amendment, which she introduced with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is now a Minister of State. The amendment provided for the indexation of personal allowances. Audrey said:
    "I agree that it is not sufficient to consider taxation alone. It is necessary to consider the underlying health of the economy. The economy will only be healthy when working people dominate decision making about the use of their labour. Then, talent—rather than cunning or deviousness—will be releaed."—[Official Report,3 April 1979; Vol. 965, c. 1216.]
    In my view, we are all workers now. We are engaged in serious work in trying to unlock the talents of all our citizens and trying to marry economic efficiency with social justice. We have come a long way in four years, but there is yet much unfinished business, be it improving productivity, eradicating poverty or protecting the environment. There is plenty of work to keep a Labour Government busy for many years to come.
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): On a point of order, Madam Deputy SpeaKer. It may help the House if I say a few words in response to concerns expressed by hon. Members about the availability of Budget documents. This year, as in previous years, packs of Budget literature, containing the main Budget document or Red Book, press notice a summary leaflet and other key papers published alongside the Budget, were readily available.
    The Government have also made an increasing amount of supplementary information available on Budget day, covering more detailed and technical information. As in previous years, the Treasury ensured that all that information was available in sufficient quantities in the Vote Office shortly after the Chancellor has concluded his statement.
    There is absolutely no substance in any suggestion or allegation that information is being concealed from Parliament. I give that absolute commitment to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the contrary, the Government are making more information alongside the Budget available than ever before.
    Following the approach adopted by Customs and Excise in previous Budgets, this year the large volume of specialist technical information previously included in Inland Revenue press notices has been published in a separate series of Budget notes, as referred to in the pack, making the material issued more accessible and usable. This specialist, detailed, technical information is available on the Inland Revenue website and from Somerset house. Precisely the same amount of information is available this year as in previous years.
    364
    If it is convenient for Members, I will certainly require the Treasury to arrange for copies of those notes to be placed in the Vote Office before the debate resumes tomorrow. I emphasise, however, that all the information that is available, is available to Members.
    Mr. Luff: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although the Opposition are grateful for the Minister's courtesy, I am afraid that her point of order fell well short of our expectations.
    I do not think the Minister understands the exact nature of the information that has not been made available to Members. I am looking at a list of press notices that would normally have been available in a wodge about two inches thick; instead, we have a thin document from which a number of items are missing. They include "Further help for Small businesses", REV C and E 1; REV 3, "Tax boost for employee share ownership"; REV BN 8, "Stamp Duty Reserve Tax and Individual Pension Accounts"; C and E, BN82/01, "VAT: Increased turnover limits for registration and deregistration" and—what about this one?—REV BN 21, "Loophole closed in controlled foreign company rules". Then there is "VAT: Changes in fuel scale charges".
    I am afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that information of that kind would have been made available in earlier years as part of the Budget bundle. The Minister should reflect on what she has just told the House.
    Mr. Sayeed: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been present for nearly five hours—certainly since 2.30 pm. I am not able to get to Somerset house, to a computer or on to the internet. I require the documents here, and I consider it an extraordinary insult to Parliament that the Government should not provide Members of Parliament with them.
    Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm, or at least reflect on, the Government's tendency to assume that putting information on to something called a website, or something called the internet, is an acceptable substitute for the provision of information directly to MPs in the House of Commons for the purposes of a House of Commons debate?
    I hope you will be able to confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that even in this day and age we as MPs can still expect the Government to provide information in written form when it is necessary for a debate in the House of Commons. Will you confirm that until the day comes when I am forced to use the internet or a website—neither has happened yet—or when we have those ghastly appurtenances in the Chamber, we can require information in written form when necessary?
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard three points of order, and I think that it is time for me to respond.
    I said earlier that what is in the Vote Office is not the responsibility of the Chair. The Minister has offered Members an explanation, and will have heard the further comments that have been made. I think we should now return to the Budget debate.
    Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having looked at the press notices that

    365
    we do have—they are contained in a bound volume—I note that the page numbers are not consecutive. People who look for the press notices that they do not have will find that the first list is on page 19, the second on page 11, the third on page 3, the fourth on page 4 and so on. I have found the one I want on page 7. The point that I am trying to make—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is continuing to discuss an issue raised in earlier points of order. Members have heard the comments that have been made and the Minister's reply, and I hope that due note will be taken.
    Mr. Bottomley: The point is, does the Treasury, or do Treasury officials, have any copies of these press notices in the House at present? If they do not, it is disrespectful to Parliament; if they do, we want them as well.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that this is not a point of order for the Chair. The matter has been dealt with, and the issues have been raised. We must now continue with the debate.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I greatly enjoyed the wander through the history of past Budgets that was the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I wish that it had been a little swifter, but it was very enjoyable.
    I want to take up two points made by the hon. Gentleman. Halfway through his remarks—after his Budget history—he made a statement with which I must take issue: he suggested that it was as though the Chancellor had invented a strong economy. I put it to the hon. Gentleman—in fact, I am certain of this—that we are talking about a Chancellor who has taxed a strong economy. He did not invent it. He is one of the fortunate Chancellors who managed to inherit a strong economy from a previous Administration.
    Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke of a war on poverty. I agree that a war on poverty is important—it is important to deal with poverty abroad and at home—but let me make a point to the hon. Gentleman that I trust he will make to his colleagues. It is likely that, at the end of the current Parliament, the amount of foreign aid that we provide from this country as a percentage of gross domestic product per person will be less today than it was under the last Conservative Government.
    My other point is this. We can say all the nice things about war on poverty at home, but if we have—as I intend to demonstrate that we do have—a thoroughly inefficient tax and benefits regime, we cannot send help to where it is really needed.
    One of the benefits of being in opposition—and there are very few—is that it provides an opportunity for radical thinking about policy. In no area is that more necessary than in the area of taxation. The intrusiveness, the complexity and the counter-productive nature of the current tax regime, and the failure of many tax proposals to do what they are designed to do, should have persuaded
    366
    this Chancellor and earlier Governments to rethink the fundamentals of taxation. Successive Governments have failed to do so.
    The evidence is clear. Tax legislation, even prior to this Budget, occupied more than 6,000 pages. In four years, the number of basic tax rates has risen from 15 to 38. Tolley's "Standard Tax Manual", the bible of tax accountants, has grown by more than 30 per cent. in the last three years. More tellingly, despite computerisation and companies' now being unpaid tax collectors, it costs £6 billion a year to run the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency. In 1950–51, when we did not have computers and companies were not unpaid tax collectors, it cost less than £1 billion in today's money to run the Inland Revenue and the equivalent of the Benefits Agency.
    Things continue to get worse. Last year's Finance Act was the longest ever. Even before this Budget, a bewildering array of different rates, credits, tapers, allowances, rebates, reliefs, means tests and adjustments led us to a point at which even those with a fair degree of financial knowledge have not a clue about the true extent of their tax liabilities. An estimated 1 million people failed to return their self-assessment forms by the 31 January deadline. Because of the complexity and the weight of bureaucracy, there is clear evidence that those who are most in nee d are not receiving the help that they urgently require. Here I return to the point I made previously to the hon. Member for Stafford.
    Government figures show that, although 750,000 pensioners inquired about their minimum income guarantee entitlement, only 62,000 entitled non-recipients made a successful claim. Additionally, only 2.9 million children's tax credit forms had been returned by February 2001. Consequently, 2.1 million eligible families have not applied for the tax credit. Moreover, although Ministers have repeatedly claimed that 1.5 million families would receive the working families tax credit, Department of Social Security figures show that, currently, it is going to only 1.1 million.
    That situation is not right: it is the most needy who are being hurt. Yet it is a direct and unavoidable consequence of a labyrinthine tax system. It was wrong that many amendments to last year's Finance Bill became law without time for scrutiny. It is of no benefit to the nation's long-term prosperity that the cost to business of red tape and taxes introduced since May 1997 is £32.3 billion. Nor is it in anyone's interest to stifle the growth of small and micro-businesses. Yet figures from the Institute of Chartered Accountants show that, for micro-businesses, the average cost per business of implementing new legislation increased from £1,700 in 1999 to £3,600, in 2000. For small businesses, the average cost per business increased from £4,700, in 1999, to more than £8,000, in 2000.
    I therefore hope that, whatever our political perspectives, we can all agree that the tax system that we have is not the tax system that we want or need, and that no amount of tinkering will remedy it. Consequently, I am drawn to the cot elusion that radical reform of the tax and benefit system is necessary. However, before we can undertake such reform, we shall have to define our objectives.
    I suggest that the first and over-arching objective of any tax system is that it is simple and transparent. Such a tax system is cleary preferable to a complex and opaque

    367
    one. A tax system should be easy to understand. Individuals with normal numerical skills should be able, roughly and quickly, to calculate their tax bills and to make an informed decision about the effect on them of each party's fiscal policy. I also believe that entrepreneurs and companies, especially small and micro-businesses, should not have to waste considerable time and money in administering their tax and regulator affairs. I should also think that it is clearly desirable that the transition between the tax and benefit system should be seamless and promote economic activity.
    More contentiously, I believe that wealth and job creators should make their expansion or diversification plans solely on the basis of business factors. Their decisions should not be skewed by tax considerations. I would hope that we can all agree that our tax system should attract inward investment. One thing that we know about large international companies that, increasingly, they are basing themselves—and paying the majority of their taxes—in the most tax and regulation-friendly environment. Therefore, our tax regime should encourage multinational companies and individuals with skills that are easily portable to base themselves here.
    The consequence of the IR35 legislation was that thousands of our brightest information technology entrepreneurs moved to countries where their efforts are better rewarded. Last year's row about so-called mixer taxes showed just how quickly multinationals can rework their investment strategy.
    The final objective of our tax system should be to make tax avoidance unnecessary and tax evasion easier to detect and not worth the risk. The more complex and burdensome the tax regime, the more people will avoid or evade tax. Each year, from the home owner who pays a workman in cash to large-scale international smuggling, billions of pounds worth of potential revenue is lost.
    Today, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) rightly raised the issue of tobacco smuggling. The Treasury itself estimates that, between 1997 and 1999, it lost £5 billion of revenue because of smuggled tobacco products. The Treasury's forecast total, just for 2000, is £4 billion. The size of the black economy has been estimated at between 7 and 10 per cent. of recorded GDP. In money terms, that is between £66.5 billion and £95 billion. It represents an annual loss to the Treasury of between £25 billion and £35.5 billion.
    So much for the deficiencies of what we have and the principles that I believe should define what we need. The question that follows is whether we can construct a system of taxation and benefits that fulfils those objectives. I believe that we not only can but must build such a system. I suggest that a flat-rate tax on income, sales and businesses is one way of constructing that system.
    On personal taxation, I would argue for the abolition of all income tax allowances and the imposition of a single tax rate on all forms of income. I believe that we should aim for a flat rate of tax of 10p. All other taxes on income and savings, including inheritance tax and capital gains tax, should be abolished.
    I asked the Library to compute the revenue effects of moving to such a system. Imposition of a flat 10p tax rate on all income would produce a revenue gain for the Treasury of approximately £9.6 billion per annum, which could be used to reduce national inst rance contributions.
    368
    In time, administrative savings, reduction in the black economy and increased revenue flow may result in the elimination of NICs.
    For indirect taxes, we should restructure the current VAT system to charge one universal rate. Again, the Library estimates that a flat 10 per cent. rate on all goods and services would be revenue neutral. However, the behavioural changes that would flow from a flat-rate tax would mean that the figure could be substantially lower—or, as I would prefer, that the extra revenue could be used to reduce excise duties.
    The third and final tranche of these tax-simplification proposals is for companies. We should abolish all capital allowances and different rates of corporation tax and reliefs and establish a single, flat rate of corporation tax, which again should be set at 10 per cent. Unlike the two earlier proposals, this would lead to an initial loss of revenue of around £6 billion, but I believe that the economic fillip that would follow from such a simplification—and from the reduction in the overall tax burden—would mean that we could set a 10 per cent. rate with no net loss to long-term Treasury revenues.
    However, it is clear that these figures have been calculated on the basis of a static snapshot of current revenues from current economic behaviour. I am convinced that if we simplified the tax system we would increase the revenues available to Government and thus be able to lower the rates still further.
    Reducing the tax and benefit system administration costs by £5 billion, and cutting the black economy by £35 billion, would produce £40 billion. This additional money could reduce significantly, without impact on spending plans, the projected tax receipts for the current year of £150 billion from income tax and corporation tax and the £100 billion from VAT and other Customs and Excise duties.
    The gains, however, would not stop there. The fact that businesses would not be wasting so much of their time, strategy and resources on tax concerns would produce a boost to our economy and attract inward investment. That, in turn, would generate extra tax revenues. Moreover, a reduction in Customs and Excise duties would add another revenue gain when the incentive for legally or illegally buying alcohol, tobacco and even fuel products abroad was reduced.
    Mr. Bercow: I have no desire to distract attention from the agenda of big-ticket items on which my hon. Friend is rightly focusing his attention, but would he agree that a modest additional point might be that increasing public information about the taxes that we pay would act as an incentive for their simplification and reduction by the Government of the day?
    Mr. Sayeed: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the system is so complex that I doubt that we could persuade many electors or constituents to read the detail necessary to understand the range of taxes that are levied these days, let alone the new taxes added to them. I believe that we must go for root-and-branch surgery of the tax system, for the reasons that I have suggested.
    There is clear evidence that a reduction in tax rates leads to greater tax revenues for the Treasury. That effect is called the Laffer curve effect, and it happened in this

    369
    Country, the United States and New Zealand when the top rates of taxation were substantially reduced during the 1980s.
    My proposals would clearly create winners and losers. Winners would not complain, so we would not have to worry about them, but we would have to worry about the losers. Unless ameliorating action were taken, those at the lower end of the income scale—who either pay very little tax or no tax at all—would face a significant reduction in purchasing power. However, I believe that we also need to simplify the benefits system radically. We should do so in a way that would have the overall effect of making nobody worse off than under the current system, but would also ensure the improved take-up of benefits.
    My initial thoughts—and I stress that they are initial thoughts—are that we should replace all current social security benefits and state pensions. The state would then pay to each household receiving benefit a sum of money that ensured that the poorest families did not lose out because of the increased income and sales taxes that they would be liable to pay under a flat-rate tax proposal.
    That payment would be tapered. It would start from a point that equals the purchasing power received from the current benefit. The next point is somewhat complicated—it is easier to draw it out on a graph than to describe it in words, but I will try. The payment would end at a "break even" point, at which losses from a flat-rate tax on currently untaxed earnings and spending equal the gains from a lower tax on already taxed earnings and spending. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that if they draw that graph, they will see that it provides a taper that gives the incentive for people to climb out of poverty.
    Mr. David Taylor: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Will he acknowledge that the introduction of a taper would create bureaucracy and difficulties not unlike those associated with the present, relatively progressive, forms of taxation in the income tax sector of the economy? Is the hon. Gentleman flagging up his first Budget in the Administration led by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in about 2025 or 2030?
    Mr. Sayeed: I am rather too old even to contemplate taking part in my hon. Friend's first Administration.
    The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The proposal would reduce bureaucracy. I suggest that he gets a piece of graph paper, takes some figures and works it out—that will make my point easier to see. Clearly, bureaucracy would still exist but there would be less of it and it would be less complicated. We would not be in our current position, in which 5 million families are eligible for children's tax credit but only 2.9 million take it up.
    Although the exact level of payments would be a political decision, such a transparent system would unlock wasted and uncollected resources. Administration costs would be cut and the annual social security fraud bill of £7 billion a year would also be reduced.
    I do not underestimate the enormity of the task of devising or moving to a new system. However, I firmly believe that we cannot afford to lose sight of the huge opportunities that such a radical shift would offer and,
    370
    most importantly of all, the threats to the United Kingdom's long-term prosperity that may arise if we do not make such a move.
    Let me conclude with a quotation from Adam Smith:
    "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
    I commend to the a ancellor the words of his compatriot.
    8.38 pm
    Mr. Derek Twigg: There has been some lamentable opposition to the Budget, not least from the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen what a mess the Conservative party is. The conference at the weekend set the style and showed the difference that exists between the two parties. That was confirmed today—the Conservative party wants to be a tax-cutting party for the rich, whereas we want prosperity and stability and to ensure that public services are invested in and developed.
    This is a Budget for stability—we can see that in the investment in public services. It is also a Budget for families. Importantly, it is a redistributive Budget. "Redistribution" is a word that we should use more. The Budget will contribute to the continuation of the redistribution for which the Government have been responsible over the past few years.
    The Budget is a further attack on poverty, of which there is a great deal in areas such as Halton. Many families suffered for many years under the Tory Government. We are at last seeing money going to the poorest, who will also receive help in terms of jobs and education.
    It is clear that the Conservatives do not have a thought-out policy. Today, The Sun published an interesting editorial stating:
    "We fear shadow chancellor Michael Portillo's economics do not stack up, however. First he scraps plans to guarantee lower taxes. Then he says his is the party of lower taxes…Then he promises more on schools, more camps for asylum seekers and more on hospitals."
    That sums up the Conservative party; it does not have a clue about running the economy or about paying for its so-called tax cuts. The Conservatives would be able to find that money only from education, health and other public services.
    The Sun also discusses the issue of giving the country back to the people. It states:
    "No matter what Hague says, he was allowing his new speechwriter to flirt with extremism."
    We have come to something when even The Sun says that the Conservative party is extreme.
    Today's Budget will set the scene for the next few years. People will see that it will benefit them and improve their lives. It is clear that people do not want the Tories to get their hands on public services—they know what would happen.
    Today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the rate of inflation is the lowest since 1963. We have the lowest mortgage rates for some time. My right hon. Friend said that, between 1979 and 1997, the average mortgage rate was at out 11 per cent., but that it is 6.3 per cent. at present. That figure is important. During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, people were paying

    371
    tremendous mortgage rates—for many ordinary families that meant an extra £200 or £300 a month from their earnings. The rates have come down considerably, which will help and benefit families. We shall reap that benefit at election time.
    Inflation is down. It is important that the Chancellor set the figure for next year at about 2.5 per cent. If the inflation rate is too low, the danger is that interest rates may be affected. I do not want interest rates to stay as they are or to rise; I want them to come down so that they benefit manufacturing industry in my area.
    I especially want to refer to the Chancellor's important announcements about the regions and about help for the older industrial areas in the cities. Runcorn has a long-established chemical industry; it is very much an industrial area. The measures on tax and the help for regeneration are most welcome.
    I welcome the greater flexibility in the powers of regional development agencies. That is clearly needed, because the Treasury held the reins of the RDAs too tightly. That flexibility will ensure greater investment and prosperity in the regions, and move jobs will result. However, more can and will be done to ensure such investment. Regions such as the north-west must receive a bigger slice of the cake. London and the south-east are overheating—there are jobs by the thousand and prosperity is growing much faster than elsewhere. We need that regeneration.
    The Chancellor mentioned City institutions. It is time that they looked beyond London mid the south-east to ensure that investment is made in the regions. Yesterday, a report on banks noted that they do not appear to support small business start-ups or to help existing businesses to continue and to avoid bankruptcy. It is important to tackle the way that banks support business development.
    I welcome the Chancellor's comments and the announcements he made on the regional agenda and about regeneration. That is especially important. I welcome the extra help for youth unemployment, especially for those young people who have difficulties in getting work because of social problems, drug problems and so on. In areas such as mine, where there is a large drug problem, the extra resources announced by the Chancellor can be used to deal with that situation. Young people can get back into the labour market only if they receive support and specialist advice on a one-to-one basis. Again, it is a Labour Government who are delivering that.
    I am delighted that the Chancellor is doing more for lone parents. My constituency has a high ratio of lone-parent families, and it is good to see that my right hon. Friend is delivering for then. On the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must ensure that money gets to the families who need it most. Of course, most pressure is put on family earnings and expenditure when the children are younger, so it is right that he is targeting those families. I am especially pleased with the increases that he has mentioned today, because I reckon that, on a rough estimate, they will benefit more than 50 per cent. of the families in my constituency. That is a phenomenal figure. Thousands of families will receive extra resources, helping parents and their children. It is clear that this is a Budget for the family—we are seeing that investment.
    372
    I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about cars and the fact that more cars, especially new ones, will qualify for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty. That will be most welcome for people in my constituency.
    I want briefly to return to the children's tax credit. We can help families in many ways, but there is no perfect way to do so. There have been large increases in child benefit, but the children's tax credit will be especially helpful. I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible and that it will run smoothly.
    I welcome the point made today on drugs. As I have said, my constituency has a particularly difficult drug problem. There may be several reasons for that problem, but it causes crime, nuisance and concern to my constituents. It is not uncommon or irregular for constituents to visit me to complain about drug dealing, its effects and the people who tear into the houses where drugs are being sold. It is sometimes difficult for the resources to be put in place, but they clearly have an important part to play in attacking that problem. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the fact that that is happening. I am pleased that the money will go directly to the crime partnerships and police commanders in the area. That will certainly produce a more co-ordinated approach and more resources will be put into tackling the drug problem in areas such as mine. I also welcome that part of the Budget.
    We have talked a great deal about savings. I asked the Library to produce a document on savings. Even with TESSAs—tax-exempt special savings accounts—new savings did not increase massively under the Conservatives. Often, with tax benefits and ways of earning better rates of return, people who tend to save anyway put their money into such schemes. I am not sure whether, in recent years, there has been a significant amount of savings. The drop in savings has gone on for a considerable time. There is no easy answer to that problem, but it would be silly to suggest that it is any worse under this Government; it is a social issue. People want to save, but they need an incentive, and my right hon. Friend has dealt with that in his Budget statement.
    The Chancellor announced new expenditure for schools and hospitals. Those specific areas mark the dividing line between Labour and Conservative Members. He announced massive extra expenditure on hospitals, especially for acute services, which will be most welcome to my constituents. It is interesting that the Labour Government want to invest in and improve the health service so that it provides a better service, but the Conservative party wants to privatise the health service.
    As we heard earlier, some Conservative Members think that they must go some way down the privatisation route. The leader of the Conservative party, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow health spokesman talk about extending private insurance and giving people incentives, but they do not come out and say that they want a more privatised health service, with less public provision. That is what Conservatives Members want, given the way in which they react when they talk about the issue. We all know that the poorest, the least well-off, will suffer badly as a result. The Tories are actually saying that they are abandoning any hope of providing a publicly funded health service that is free at the point of use. The electorate will not wear that; they want a party that is committed to investing in and providing a quality service, ensuring that people get the health care that they deserve.

    373
    It is no use pretending that changes will happen overnight, but some people might have thought that they would take place quickly. However, the investment is now being made and we are beginning to see the results. We need more nurses, so I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision to put more money into recruitment. It takes about three years to train nurses, so we shall see the benefits of that decision in a year or two.
    The dividing line is clear: one either wants a publicly funded health service with the Labour party or a service that will gradually be privatised by stealth under the Conservatives. They should be open and honest about their policy and say exactly what they want to do. They should not hide behind their current remarks on the extension of private health insurance.
    I welcome the fact that money will go directly to schools. When the money comes from bureaucracies, such as Whitehall or councils, money can be lost on the costs of administration. Schools want to use the money in whatever way they wish. They should be able to decide whether to spend it on new teachers, books, new equipment or investment in the school's infrastructure, which are all crucial.
    I have spoken to head teachers recently and they have told me that never has so much money come through to the education service as has happened in the past year or two. They have been able to spend that money and, in my area, some of it has gone on two new classrooms. In addition, the building of a brand new primary school, for which we have waited 11 years, is just about to finish. It has been built under a Labour Government.
    Education standards have risen. In the primary sector, Halton has had some of the best improvements in the key stage 2 results, whereas 40 or 50 per cent. of children were written off under the Conservatives. The Labour Government are willing to invest in education and to develop the service.
    What is the Conservatives' panacea? They merely want to reintroduce grammar schools as a means of dealing with educational standards. However, we all know that standards are raised by having resources, quality teachers and quality leadership in schools. It is pleasing that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is devoting more money to the recruitment of teachers. Anyone who has spoken to head teachers will know that recruitment has been a problem.
    Mr. David Taylor: I acknowledge the warm welcome that will be given to the sums that will go directly to each school in the country. However, does my hon. Friend agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the urgent need to tackle the funding formula, which is so capricious in the way in which it distributes resources? My county of Leicestershire is at the bottom of the league table under the standard spending assessment for primary and secondary school pupils. Should not the formula be a priority for the incoming Administration, whom we hope will be elected on 3 May, 7 June or whenever it might be?
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. However, to focus on my backyard, Halton schools have
    374
    done particularly well under the education SSA funding formula. In fact, people like me predicted that they would benefit when the borough broke away from Cheshire and became a unitary authority. Our predictions were borne out in a parliamentary answer that I received only last week, which shows that expenditure per head on the pre-school, primary and secondary sectors is much better than in Cheshire. The Government are ensuring that resources go to areas such as mine, which is among the top 20 most deprived boroughs in England and Wales. For years, we were neglected by both the Tory Government and the county council, but we are now seeing the benefit of the extra resources.
    However, I understand my hon. Friend's point. We had a similar problem with our SSA for highways. Changes resulted in the council losing quite a lot of money. Clearly, there is a case for a fairer and better targeted SSA formula and the Government are committed to considering that. W e should not forget that the formula was used under the Conservative Government, so it ill behoves Conservatives Members to attack us on that issue. We cannot do everything at once, but the Government are committed to considering the issue. There are problems, but good results have been achieved under the Government's policy.
    To return to the issue of schools, I want to comment on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's policy for better skills. People will have better skills only if they receive a good primary and secondary education. They also need to receive high-quality post-16 further education. I am pleased that more resources will go into further education. That will improve the skills and abilities of people so that they go into the work force and attract the industries that we need into areas such as mine. It is important to put education, skills and investment together.
    Manufacturing has been mentioned. The regional development agencies and the improvements to the tax system will help businesses, especially small businesses. Ineos took over ICI's operations in Runcorn and employs more than 2,000 people. Last week, it announced 450 job losses. That is one of a number of similar announcements that have been made over the past few years in the manufacturing setter of my constituency. It is clear that we need a manufacturing industry because the skills that it provides are important for the nation's economic wealth. However, there is n0t much that a company can do on its own to provide the climate for a thriving manufacturing industry, because of the global markets and so on. It is important to keep interest rates low. There is a problem with the exchange rate with the euro and the ability of, for example, the chemical industry, which is a commodity-based industry, to sell its goods abroad.
    One of the biggest problems at the Runcorn site is that ICI did not invest in the industry at Daresbury for 10 years or more. The Government have to address the lack of investment in research and development, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned. Many of our companies have not invested in new machinery, either because the banks are too short-sighted to lend or because the management is too short-sighted. British management, certainly in our top Industries, is lacking. Although there are many good people, the ability and talent of management needs to improve. We must register that. The bloke or woman on the shop floor is, of course, part of an industry's productivity, but we also need good leadership

    375
    and investment. Management needs to bring about productivity changes by investing and making their companies more efficient.
    Last year, the Government decided not to locate the synchrotron at Daresbury. I am pleased that last week they agreed to make a large investment of possibly £180 million to secure the excellent work force of scientists, technicians and so on at Daresbury. That will become an important beacon for the north-west, especially because of the way in which the Government intend to fund it. It could involve the regional development agency, the university and others. Instead of just sustaining jobs, it could create thousands of new ones because the RDA wants to develop a science or technology park there. That is a great development and is a sign that the Government have listened to what has been a long campaign.
    I want to congratulate my right I on. Friend on the Budget. He has again got it right. It is not perfect, but it hits the right buttons. It is important that we get public services right. It is not easy to introduce change overnight, but it takes a Labour Government to deliver that. People want security for their families, security of employment, security against crime and a secure environment. The Government want to provide that. It tiles investment and good management, and we must bring that about. I am pleased to support the Budget tonight. It clearly puts dividing lines between us and the Tory party.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) took exception to the expression "the Chancellor's war chest", which Liberal Democrat Members have often used. The war chest is a reality; it has been boasted about by the Chancellor today and by other Ministers in recent weeks. We can disagree about its provenance—whether it is due to good management, good fortune or just parsimony—but it undoubtedly exists. In this Budget the, Chancellor had at his disposal a substantial amount of money to do whatever he felt was right.
    Although it is difficult to judge a Budget on first hearing, and often a few days must elapse before everyone understands its complexities, many people will find this Budget a rather dull affair. There were certainly very few surprises in it. This morning's Financial Times listed almost every one of the Chancellor's proposals in black and pink.
    Mr. Kidney: The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) asked earlier for three more spending commitments: money for the consequences of foot and mouth, money to fund the ambition of tuition fees for students and more money for long-term care. His argument was "spend, spend, spend". Has the hon. Gentleman read Viv Nicholson's biography, called "spend, spend, spend"? She won a lot of money on the pools, spent the lot and went broke. Should we expect a Liberal Democrat Government to feel as if they had won the lottery and to spend, spend, spend until the country went broke?
    Mr. Heath: I say in the gentlest of ways that that intervention was not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He was at pains to advise the House of the top rate of tax under various Labour Administrations. He did not get as far as the Administration led by Baroness Thatcher, but
    376
    had he done so he might have pointed out that the top rate of tax then was 50 per cent. He might then have told us whether he thought that an excessive rate for those earning over £100,000. I believe that it is not excessive, and it is entirely appropriate that the revenue raised from a top rate for those earning over £100,000 should be spent on dealing with deficiencies in our public services. I turn to that subject now.
    We are used to hearing recurrent announcements of Government expenditure. That is to say that the announcement is made, repeated a few months later by the Department concerned, repeated yet again in the pre-Budget report and then again in the Budget. Eventually, a few years later, when everybody has forgotten it, it appears as new money. The Government have excelled at that practice. We had not previously witnessed to the same extent a practice that was evident today—a restatement of money that has already been spent. I refer to the continuing use of underspends in previous Budgets—so-called committed, new money at the time—for a different purpose in the following Budget, as if the Chancellor were plucking a rabbit from a hat, when he has merely failed to meet the commitment that he made the previous year. That unfortunate practice is to be regretted.
    We assume that this is a pre-election Budget, perhaps intended to reassure the readers of the Daily Mail or to encourage others to swim into the new Labour net. When we analyse it, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is a huge disparity between the tax-cutting measures and the so-called additional expenditure. A rough analysis shows that one figure is six times the other. That shows the Chancellor's priorities, if not for ever then at least for the moment, with electoral purposes in mind.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, our criticism of the Government, and that levelled by many people in the country, is that it shows a poverty of ambition. I think that Nye Bevan's phrase "a poverty of aspiration" is more apt when one considers what could be achieved with this uniquely advantageous financial and economic situation. We could put right some of the problems in the public services which have been allowed to decay for so long. The indictment is that, four years into this Government, class sizes at the top end of primary schools and in secondary schools are not smaller, but larger, and that is not what a Labour Government were elected to achieve. We still have fewer police officers on our streets than there were in 1997. A Labour Government were not elected for that, either. We still have people waiting yet longer for their hospital operations. We still have a transport system that is worse than appalling, and is in complete disintegration.
    Problems have ensued as a result of adopting the Conservative Government's spending plans. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described them as "eye-wateringly tight", yet the incoming Labour Government not only adopted them but underspent them. They are now running hard to catch up with what Labour promised before and during the election. The Government have clearly failed to deliver since the election.
    That is why we have failed to make good. There are problems with student tuition fees in England, but progress has been made in Scotland. We have failed to come to terms with the needs of long-term care in

    377
    England, but again progress has been made in Scotland. We have failed to give pensioners the sort of deal that they wished for.
    The hon. Member for Stafford will perhaps give a warmer welcome to my bringing to the attention of the House yet again another problem that is associated with the Government's expenditure plans, which is the uneven distribution of the funds that have been made available. Some areas have not seen the great benefit, or certainly not to an equal extent, of increased education or health spending over the past year. Much of that is to do with wretched formulae that are biased against some areas compared with others.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree entirely with what he has to say on the issue. We have crusaded on an entitlement for children, irrespective of where they live. He mentioned disparities between one shire county and another. I go further and draw attention to the disparity between children in Somerset—my children, attending a local education authority school—and a child who is being educated, as are the Prime Minister's children, at a publicly funded school in Hillingdon, where funding is £1,500 per child per year more as a result of Government formulae. That cannot be right.
    That sort of disparity is extraordinary and wrong. It creates many other distortions, because if the local authority has decency and a commitment to education, it will move funds from other areas of spending to ensure that its schools are well provided for. That means that road maintenance will be reduced, spending on social services reduced or the council tax increased. Council tax is increasing disproportionately because of the shift from direct taxation—that is, the progressive taxation that is income tax—to the much less progressive taxation that is council tax. That shift took place under the previous Government and it continues to take place under the present Government.
    It is time the Government got to grips with the basic problems of area cost adjustment and standard spending assessment and the iniquities that flow from them. It is not good enough to pretend that eventually there will be consensus among local authorities on the road ahead. Of course there will not be. Rightly, every local authority will be arguing for the needs of its own areas and will get the best possible deal for children and council tax payers in those areas.
    It is impossible to reach consensus. It is important that the Government accept that there is an injustice, and deal with it. One approach, which the Government are using, is the direct funding of schools. That has merit because at least it gets some money into the schools that need it. There are also demerits. One of the difficulties is a threshold system. There are sudden, quantum shifts in funding. A family left a village in my constituency, and a school that had always had 102 pupils on its roll found overnight that it had only 99. As a result, it lost substantial moneys through the Government's distribution formula.
    Mr. David Taylor: I certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not beyond the wit of civil servants in the Department for Education and Employment to create a model that will provide a per capita sum of direct payment for each child on the roll.
    378
    One would think that they were unaware of the existence of even simple spreadsheets to allocate the sums that the Chancellor has available to him. I agree that the situation is grossly inequitable, especially for small schools that may be one pupil short of the band width.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I are as one on this; we represent broadly similar areas and know the true state of affairs in them.
    Finally on education, it is rich to hear the Chancellor talk again about the paramount need to recruit more teachers. Of course there is a desperate need to recruit more teachers; there are fewer applications now than in 1997, and there are 11,000 empty places. However, the right incentives are needed, and teachers do not believe that the Government have yet found the incentives to encourage people it to the teaching profession. It is a little tardy of the Government to wait until there are 11,000 vacancies before starting to address a problem that people have identified for several years.
    Moving on to small businesses, I congratulate the Chancellor on introducing measures of advantage to them in the Budget. However, measures still need to be taken, the most important which, according to businesses with which I have dealings in my constituency, especially retail businesses, concerns the uniform business rate. That monstrous imposition by the previous Government has continued virtually unchanged under this Government; it actively militates against small shopkeepers and benefits large supermarkets the outskirts of town. It desperately needs reform or, better still, replacement by a fairer system of business taxation; at least its effects could be mitigated in the short term if the Treasury felt it appropriate to use funds to produce an allowances system for businesses with a small turnover.
    The Government do not seem to have engaged with that issue—I wish that they would. I wish that they would also engage with the cost to small businesses of administering an increasingly complicated tax system. A lot of personal taxation measures have implications for small businesses and the way in which they operate. A lot more should be done by civil servants. rather than by people who are trying to run a business and administer the Government's tax system at the same time: that cannot be a sensible way to proceed.
    I am worried that a Government who proclaim that the tax system needs to be simplified are constantly complicating it. There was a stretch in the Chancellor's address when I thought to myself, "Every single mother who is trying to work will need a resident chartered accountant to find her way through a system that is being devised to provide her with support." I urge the Chancellor to look ,it that again.
    I shall briefly mention a couple of specific areas. First, the aggregates levy is of great importance to my constituency, which is one of the country's primary producers of limestone aggregates. Everyone accepts that there are arguments both way on that levy. However, there is a consensus that a crude levy which does not reward companies that have made the effort to put in infrastructure to do the right environmental thing, as compared with those who have done no such thing, is a bad environmental instrument. Unfortunately, that is what we have at the moment. Prolonged discussions between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

    379
    Regions, the Treasury and the quarry companies have not yet reached any conclusion. I regret the fact that the levy is to be introduced and that a rebate system to encourage good environmental practice is still wishful thinking. That is however a priority if the levy is to work as we hope that it will.
    With regard to rural areas more broadly, I notice that the pesticides tax has still not been removed from the agenda, despite the firmly expressed views of the Minister of Agriculture in many forums, and of the Prime Minister on at least one occasion. The rubric in the documents before us suggests that matters are proceeding on a voluntary basis, with the threat of an enforced pesticides tax on the industry. That could not happen at a less opportune time for agriculture.
    There is a growing view that agrimonetary compensation is the Government's response to foot and mouth. It is not. Agrimonetary compcnsation is intended to deal with the difficulties of currency exchange and to provide farmers with the sum that they should have received in the first place. It is not an adequate substitute for doing what needs to be done to deal with the foot and mouth epidemic.
    Of course, I welcome the fact that agrimonetary compensation has been drawn down. Of course, too, I recognise the difficulties caused by the Fontainebleau rebate and the way in which it operates; but agrimonetary compensation is not a substitute for other Treasury action, in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, nor does it answer the question of what is to happen next year, when there will be no agrimonetary compensation mechanism and nothing to replace it.
    I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to take their time. I conclude by quoting paragraph 5.87 of the Budget document, which is headed "Strengthening rural communities" and which states:
    "The Government's vision for the countryside, as set out in the Rural White Paper in November 2000 is of thriving rural communities with access to high quality public services, a diverse rural economy providing high and sustainable levels of employment, an enhanced and sustainable environment which all can enjoy, and a countryside which can shape its own future with its voice heard by Government at all levels."
    We could all sign up to that aspiration, but the reality in Somerset and the south-west generally is far from that. I should like to have seen genuine measures in the Budget to deal with many of the problems that rural areas face. I did not find such measures in the Chancellor's statement. In that respect, if in no other, the Budget has failed the people of rural Britain.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Economists make a fairly straightforward distinction between macro-economics and micro-economics and the problems with which they deal. A Budget deals with the macro issues, but we all analyse its micro-economic implications for our constituencies.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made a purely macro-economic speech. He spoke of what he wanted from a Budget and about the developments that would take place. It was a strange speech, as it seemed to start from a socialist position, in which the hon. Gentleman argued for universal benefits, but as the speech developed, other peculiar ideas appeared in it, and by the
    380
    end it sounded poujadist, with tax rates all at 10 per cent. It was difficult to see where the revenue would come from for the provision of universal benefits.
    My speech will focus on the other end of the spectrum. It will be a micro-economic speech about my constituency and its problems, and how they could be affected by one particular aspect of the Budget. Before Christmas, I spoke at length in the House about a problem at the southern end of my constituency, with the threatened closure of Biwater pipe works. I wanted the Department of Trade and Industry to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. I believed that we could make a case showing why the takeover that had led to the closure threat should not take place.
    Despite the arguments that were advanced, the plant has now been closed and 700 jobs have gone. Many other jobs in scrapyards and community services have also been lost because of the closure. In Clay Cross, 8.5 per cent. of males were unemployed before the closure of Biwater. Since then, although one or two of those made redundant have found jobs, unemployment among men has risen to 15 per cent. That is a fairly reasonable estimate, as the people involved in scrapyards and other services connected with the plant are obviously not finding alternative employment.
    As we could not save the plant, many people, including me, have had since the closure to turn our attention to the economic and social regeneration of the devastating situation that developed in the Clay Cross area. The Budget statement contained aspects that should be teased out, as they could have great relevance to the developments that are needed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that throughout Britain, whether in new towns, traditional inner cities or former coal, textile and steel communities, the way forward for regeneration is to harness both new public and private investment and to introduce new fiscal incentives to extend the opportunities for enterprise from some of the country to all of it.
    Obviously, such issues worry us very much. I shall not deal with all the points made by my right hon. Friend, but I want to mention his six-point programme, which involved policies such as community investment tax credits, development of empty flats above shops, reclamation of contaminated land and so on, all of which are relevant to Clay Cross. What are the parameters of the six points contained in the Budget speech? Does my area automatically qualify, and if we do not, why not? I believe that we have the strongest case imaginable for being included. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recognised at the Labour party conference the particular problems of the steel, coal and textile industries and others, and referred specifically to the problems that arose in the Clay Cross area because of Biwater.
    That is why we need the matters to be fully tied together. The now derelict plant was established by George Stephenson in 1837. The site is contaminated and many difficulties are associated with it, but we want to know what will happen to it. Although it was taken over and then quickly closed by Saint-Gobain, a multinational company, Biwater still owns the land and buildings.
    Adrian White is the major mover in this respect, but we do not know about his plans for the area. Indeed, I know of no Government Department or local government department that knows about them. Speculation is rife and

    381
    people are worried that the site will be used for an environmentally unacceptable purpose. They are anxious about the possibility that it will be used for incinerators or other disposal facilities. When nothing is said, the rumour develops and as it is not contradicted, we have reason to begin to worry that that might be on the cards.
    We do not want more developments such as those that have taken place in our area in the past, which would harm any future work force and the local communities. For example, before I became a Member of Parliament in 1987, the Vinatex plant at Staveley in my constituency was closed. The Vinatex research group has now been established. Serious medical problems have arisen from the plastics that Vinatex produced.
    The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 codifies many European Union measures, but it was also influenced by other considerations, such as a visit by the Minister for the Environment to Killamarsh, another problem area in my constituency, where two escapes of acid gas had occurred. He said that powers would be made available under the 1999 Act to make directions. Therefore, if an application is made to use the Biwater site for proposals that we perceive as environmentally dangerous, there are more measures nowadays whereby we can tackle the problem. Perhaps the position could be improved further. Some of the information that has become available through research by De Montfort university into Vinatex might help to strengthen the health and safety aspects of the legislation in future.
    We must be constantly on our guard against developments being foisted upon us, and the attitude "jobs at any price", even when they could be dangerous. We want growth, and co-ordinated action by the Government to provide the necessary improvements to prosperity in an area that has been shattered by a specific development.
    Some aspects of the Budget will affect Clay Cross and the surrounding areas because of their general impact throughout the country. For example, we will get our share of the money for education and health. That will have some knock-on consequences. However, perhaps it is only in the long run that they will help such a deprived area. John Maynard Keynes said:
    "In the long run we are all dead."
    Many capitalists adopted that attitude to the operation of economic structures. Co-ordinated activity that brings together the different resources that begin to become available is important.
    I cited the part of the Chancellor's speech that referred to new public-private investment and fiscal incentives. If I was running things, I would not necessarily propound and advocate such measures. I would press for public provision and funding, and the use of Government resources to achieve results. However, I live in the world as it is, and I am trying to fight for a large corner of my constituency that has been hammered. Public-private investment and incentive schemes will exist, and I want to ensure that we get our fair whack and are not overlooked.
    Although there are many different schemes for which we can apply, sometimes in competition with other areas, we need to ensure that Government bodies, with local people, help to produce ideas for growth in the whole area. One particular body that does that is the Government office of the east midlands. Another body that is
    382
    responsible for co-ordination in Government—in addition to the Cabinet Office—is the Prime Minister's Office. There are connections to the Prime Minister's Office in relation to this matter, because we need to ensure that it is not only matters that have been in the pipeline for a while that are covered. For example, there are developments at Clay Cross, new business provisions at Coney Green and the Markham employment growth zone, from which there will he some feed-in. Clay Cross has assisted area status, which gives it access to regional selective assistance and enterprise grants.
    However, it must be realised that wider problems affect the area of north-east Derbyshire. Its unemployment difficulties make it less easy to handle the situation, and that needs to be taken into account. Some special funding arrangements, and some central planning, need to be put in place to try to address our problems.
    One such problem is an issue that other hon. Members have already mentioned: the problem of poor local government funding. In the North-East Derbyshire district and within Derbyshire county council area, ever since the Local Government Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax—the only element of that Act that was ever shifted was the change from the poll tax to the council tax—we have had ghastly funding provision in the county.
    Funding has picked up recently, and there have been specific grants from the Department for Education and Employment and others in connection with education, but generally we have been at the bottom of the list for funding provision. Before the introduction of the 1988 Act, the schools in Derbyshire had the smallest class sizes in any shire county in England. By 1997, their classes were among the largest. That was the function of the formula that was being operated.
    Two particular fiddles are involved. One is the area cost adjustment, which takes a great deal out of our money not only in terms of education but in other areas of funding. The effect was multiplied to cover other elements of provision in county council services. A lot of people in the county travel to work in neighbouring areas such as Chesterfield and Sheffield, and we lose massive amounts of money as a result I think that we are the third worst area in the country in that regard. According to something called the enhanced population figures, the daytime population figure is taken into account in an exaggerated way, rather than the resident population figure.
    That problem will not be put right until the proposals in the Green Paper take effect—despite the pressures that have been brought bear—which could mean waiting another three years for it to be corrected. Account has to be taken in the meantime, therefore, of those who have suffered seriously over the years that the problem has existed.
    We also suffer from having lost objective 2 funding, as we were near an area with objective 1 funding, which is pulling in provisions that we find it difficult to obtain. The fact that the Department of Trade and Industry did not get the position that was put to the European Union right must also be taken into account in the context of our funding provision. In certain parts of my constituency, we even do very badly in terms of lottery funding, although Killamarsh in the north has done slightly better. When the district council tries to put that right by appointing a lottery officer, it is hamstrung by not readily having the resources to run that kind of activity.

    383
    My constituency has specific difficulties, and the Budget contains an opening—apat from the general provisions from which everyone will benefit in the long run—for specific provision for area! that have suffered from bouts of loss of industry, particularly in manufacturing. I hope that our claims will be heard and fully considered, and that Ministers will elaborate on the measures that have been outlined briefly to us, so that we are fully involved. We need some central co-ordination to ensure that we get the type of provision required.
    9.35 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although Members on both sides of the Chamber hope that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will have many other opportunities to address the House, it is right to pay tribute to the service that he has given to his constituents over the years. If I may, I shall add to his name that of his helper, Gary Kent, who, in many of the activities in which the hon. Gentleman has been involved, has contributed much for the public service that is offered through politics, whether in a party sense or otherwise.
    As on other occasions, it was intresting to hear the hon. Gentleman speak about his constituency, and the House will be sympathetic over the Biwater closure. He talked positively about the need to recognise the resources within areas, which should not be taken for granted when people are considering what can be done through partnership arrangements, lottery funding or other activities, and he will agree that what appear to be less well-regarded areas containing less well-regarded people have provided, for example, thc founders of the co-operative movement, the trade unions and small businesses.
    Such people also helped to create political parties and used the extension of the franchise to found mass political organisations. We ought to learn from our forefathers and, for that matter, our foremothers.
    Mr. Forth: Is one not enough?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am trying to be politically correct for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
    On mass membership, the political parties probably have fewer members than they have had for a long time, although I suspect that the drop in membership of the new Labour party is even greater than that in the membership of the Conservative party.
    I pay tribute to a point made by the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who was right to say that we need to bring the family perspective into our analysis of Budget measures and social and economic policy. That is the only nice thing that I shall say about the hon. Gentleman. He is not here, so I should not say that the rest of his speech was pretty snide and hardly worth listening to.
    We must acknowledge the important point that, at times, people have family responsibilities, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for recognising that. The right hon. Gentleman has been able to do so because he has taken advice, which I have offered after a number of Budget speeches over a number of years, that the Department of Social Security should not be involved in setting income support or benefit levels for children.
    384
    In the traditional system, under which the Secretary of State for Social Security is supposed to get involved in negotiations with the Chief Secretary and, thereafter, the Chancellor and probably the Prime Minister, the question can arise each year, "Do you seriously want flat rate increases in child benefit or would you prefer to get more of the available money to those below the poverty line?" The sensible answer each year is, apparently, "Help the poorest." However, if we help only the poorest, the value of child benefit may hold steady in absolute terms, one year against another, but it certainly will not rise in line with average earnings.
    I am glad that the Chancellor has got rid of the fiction that the Secretary of State for Social Security in effect takes responsibility for the child benefit level. That responsibility has always, and properly, been in the hands of the Chancellor. This Chancellor has shown that to be the case and there have been significant increases, which matter. No one can claim that everyone in full-time work can earn enough to support a spouse and children. They cannot.
    If ever we try to return to raising pay so that people can achieve that, we shall end up in an inflationary spiral and pensioners and those with children will be worse off. If we want to have any kind of equity in this country, we must ensure that those who look after children or who are past working age do not suffer as those of us of working age go on an illusory chase after money that is not there.
    I shall refer briefly to the Chancellor giving himself a pat on the back about the level of public debt. He misleads himself, but not any Member who has bothered to study the figures, when he talks as though the previous Conservative Government did bad things with the national debt. They did not. In fact, during their 18 years in office, public debt as a proportion of gross national product roughly doubled in other European countries, rising from 37 per cent.—I think—to 74 per cent. In this country, meanwhile, it fell—depending on which years we choose as the starting and finishing points—from about 44 or 45 per cent. by about 10 per cent., to 41 per cent. or less.
    The Chancellor cannot really claim credit for the first year in which he held his office, as he was carrying forward Conservative spending policies. Before his 24 stealth taxes and his 20 business stealth taxes were introduced, debt as a proportion of gross national product had dropped to 35, 36 or 37 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that national debt doubled under the Conservatives, he may be right if he is merely counting the number of pound notes, but in terms of gross national product, or gross domestic product—which is the only sensible comparison, even for someone as clever as the Chancellor—he is simply wrong, and he should stop saying things that are misleading. Indeed, I wish the whole Government would stop saying things that are misleading.
    Mr. David Taylor: It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is about to commend or criticise the Chancellor's track record over the past four years, and his stated aim in relation to debt repayment over the next five years. Does he not agree that one of the strengths of the Chancellor's activities over the past four years has been his driving down of public debt, thus enabling interest payments to be diverted for more profitable and effective purposes?
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps; but if the Chancellor continues to maintain that people must turn their pensions

    385
    savings into annuities, and if the repayment of Government debt means that their return from buying Government stock goes down, he will be kicking the pensioners yet again. We should remember that the biggest stealth tax introduced by the Chancellor was the £5,000 million—probably adding up to £20-odd billion over the lifetime of the Parliament—that he obtained by withdrawing dividend tax credit from pension funds and individuals. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention has helped him much.
    The hon. Gentleman should look at table C23 on page 212 of the Red Book. He will see that in the last year of the last Labour Government public sector net debt was 47.3 per cent. of GDP, and that in the first year of the present Labour Government it was 39.6 per cent. That is a significant drop.
    It is also worth noting that when the Chancellor and the Prime Minister make comparisons with the last Conservative Government, they are often unclear about whether they are referring to the period from 1979 onwards, when we had to sort out Labour's mess, or to the period following 1992 when, as we all remember, Labour was fortunate enough not to be elected. That enabled Labour to go into the 1997 election saying, "We are glad that you did not vote for us in 1992: we were wrong on virtually every significant policy". Labour paid the greatest possible tribute to its Conservative predecessors by adopting their spending plans during its first two years in office.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman consider to be the purpose of public debt? He will note that when a Conservative Government last had a similar debt ratio, public assets amounted to around £80 billion. They are now down to £17 billion. What is the purpose of public debt and public investment?
    Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Lady wants me to use the last 17 minutes of the debate to give a lecture in economics, I shall be happy to do so. I may be a third-rate economist, but I could certainly fill in 17 minutes. I think, however, that the Minister would prefer me not to do so.
    Let me give another example of the Chancellor's not quite achieving what he was after. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It has been estimated that one cigarette in three smoked in this country carries no tax. The stealth tax on smoking—which does not feature much in Budgets—hurts lower socio-economic groups most, both because they tend to smoke more and because their incomes are lower: they are hit by a double whammy. The Chancellor increased the tax by £500 million a couple of times when he raised duty by more than the escalator.
    I am not arguing for low taxation on tobacco. However, another consequence of very high taxation on tobacco is the type of e-mail that I saw today, which states:
    "Hi, are you interested in making a saving of nearly 66 per cent. on your next purchase of cigarettes and handrolling tobacco? From only 17.50 Pounds per carton of 10 packs of 20 cigs each…Minimum order 3 cartons…delivery is fully guaranteed."
    It also lists three internet locations, which are in the Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
    That e-mail is a good example of how excessive taxation can be counter-productive. I strongly support the conclusion that the Centre for Policy Studies reached in a
    386
    paper which it will publish in two weeks. The centre analyses the Chancellor's tax increases, including the ones that he does not deal with in his Budget statement and—I am sorry to say this in front of the Paymaster General—those that are not dealt with in the press notices that are made available to Members of Parliament.
    As I said in an earlier point of order, officials serving Ministers may not have those press notices available now, but they should be available. If they are available, they should be provided to hon. Members. The Paymaster General said that, if we want them, they will be available later. I hope that, in future, everyone understands that we want them on the day of the Budget.
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman made two points, the first of which was on internet cigarette sales. Although I am sure that he will already appreciate this, we should make it clear to everyone who hears or reads our proceedings that those purchases are liable to United Kingdom tax. Consequently, people will save nothing on such purchases—which work out to be more expensive than regular purchases.
    Secondly, no Budget press releases are not available to hon. Members. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman asked for technical Budget notes. Customs and Excise has always made notes available on the day of the Budget, and the Inland Revenue has made those technical Budget notes—not press releases—available. As I said, if it will assist the House, I shall certainly ensure that they are in the Vote Office tomorrow morning, before we start our debate.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not absolutely sure that they are all technical notes. Some of them are called Budget notes and some are called Budget notices. I think that the hon. Lady may want to re-examine the expression that she has used. All I am saying to her, in the nicest possible way, is to make sure that they are in the House and in the Library and available to hon. Members. We are here to scrutinise such matters. The Government should stop treating the House with contempt. Hon. Members want to know what is going on.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer—who managed to hide IR35 and not draw any attention to it, although it has affected the United Kingdom's economic development—has shown that he cannot be trusted on these matters. Let us just put down what is gently called a marker and say, "Produce those documents in the House. Make them available to hon. Members." That is not a courtesy; Ministers should regard it as a requirement.
    I pay tribute to the public servants, from many Departments, who must have worked very hard this year, as they have in previous years, in bringing together information, working through the options, discussing the options with Ministers and—as the Chancellor and other Ministers make decisions—presenting the measures in a coherent and sensible manner. If Ministers would like a suggestion on how life could be made slightly easier, it would be that they include an index in the Red Book. In the old days, it was far easier to find specific matters in the Red Book. Now, although it is more informative, it is not very easy to find specific information. I challenge any Labour Member, within two minutes, to find, for example, where the savings ratio is dealt with in the Red Book. To save time, I shall tell them that the information is on page 170.

    387
    A table on that page, however, contains a curious feature that I hope will not be repeated in future Red Books. It is headed "Percentage changes on previous year", and includes three items: household consumption, which lists percentage changes; real household disposable income, with percentage changes; and the savings ratio, which an accompanying note specifies as "level, per cent". Although that information has been provided, it might be missed by those who read the Red Book casually.
    I also suspect that, although it might be embarrassing for the Chancellor, it would be better if the savings ratio could be dealt with separately, under I separate heading. The savings ratio does matter. A savings ratio of 3.35 per cent. is almost as low as that pertaining in the United States. I do not think that that is healthy. The Government inherited a savings ratio of about 10 or 11 per cent. Even if, in two or three years, it returns to more than 5 per cent., that would not be very comfortable.
    Besides emphasising what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in response to the Budget announcement, I also wanted to state that the illustration of the children's tax credit does not lc-lake obvious sense to those who do not know much about it. If that credit is worth £520 a year, why does the press notice put the value at £5,200? It may be that 10 per cent of £5,200 is £520, but anyone reading the notice for the first time ought to be able to understand how one figure translates to the other.
    The underlying point is that we must take into account the need of people of working age who are capable of working to be in work. I acknowledge that what happened in the final Parliament of the previous Government has continued under this Government, and that many more people on benefit who want to become taxpayers have been able to do so. To get work, they have overcome personal disabilities, or disabilities of location, or the disabilities associated with the changing industrial nature of their local environment. Most of them will have put in a great deal of effort to obtain work; I know very few people who want to remain on benefit.
    We need to widen the gap between people on benefit and those who pay tax, so that thee can be a neutral position in between. However, that becomes more difficult when poverty is defined as being on benefit. Much of what the Chancellor calls uking people out of poverty means putting them on tax benefits rather than cash benefits. That is a rather odd use of language.
    I have spoken about the needs of people of working age who are in work, but I return triefly to the matter of people who are above working age. I mentioned the importance of helping people with children, but my constituency of Worthing, West has the highest proportion in the country of people above retirement age, many of whom are healthy and self-reliant. When they turn to the national health service, they find that they have to wait more than a year for a 20-minute he Iring test. That may be a local curiosity, but when the it hearing aids are available they have to wait three and a half months for them to be fitted, and for instructions about the location of the on-off switch. That is not acceptable. Whatever the arguments are in favour of the way in which the NHS is funded and organised at present, people should not have to wait a year for hearing tests.
    I deeply regret that the proportion of people waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment in Surrey and Sussex is more than one in eight. The postcode lottery
    388
    is unjustifiable, given that in the Prime Minister's health service area the proportion is only one in 78. In almost every health authority area around the country, more people are waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment than was the case in May 1997.
    If I do not blame the Government totally for that, I blame them for it in large part. We must find a way to take queueing out of health care. It is all right to expect people to wait for many consumer goods, and to tell them that they cannot have what they want straight away, but people must be able to have the serious health treatments that they need when they need them, and without paying at the time of need. I do not believe that we can meet that requirement without a surplus of capacity and important quality improvements. However, the extra money promised in the Budget is welcome.
    My final remarks deal with savings. Unless we encourage people to save and put money by, and reward them for doing so, we cannot expect them to be more self-reliant when they retire. If we do not encourage saving, we cannot expect more people to have control over their own housing on retirement. That is true of retired people who own their houses and are economically active, and also of those who live in communities. The latter is increasingly the case for people in their late retirement years.
    That is why I welcome the alternative Budget proposals made by Conservative Front-Bench Members, which matter a lot. I believe that, like every Tory leader since the 1920s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will become Prime Minister. His speech in response to the Budget embarrassed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Conservatives have more to offer than the complacency and occasional arrogance of the present Government.
    I do not say that everything that the Government have done is wrong, because they have implemented many of the ideas that I have put forward. However, the cross-party consensus is to give more support to people with children and those above retirement age. Unless that happens, we will not make this country what it should be for people of all ages and conditions.
    9.54 pm
    Mr. David Taylor: I declare an interest in relation to one or two of the points that I will make in my brief contribution. I am a governor of two schools in north-west Leicestershire—Ashby grammar school which, despite its name, is a comprehensive, and Ibstock community college. In the four years that I have been in this place, I have remained a member of their governing bodies and have seen the pressures that schools in Leicestershire have had to endure. Most of the problems relate to the standard spending assessment formula.
    The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) have referred to the difficulties that exist in education funding in certain parts of the country. Leicestershire is at the bottom of the county league table when one expresses the SSA per primary school pupil and also per secondary school pupil. We are about 6 per cent. adrift of the average county and 13 per cent. adrift of Hertfordshire. Those are substantial sums.

    389
    We are immensely grateful for the extra investment put into education over the past four years and for that which is planned for the next three or four years. However, the relative position for Leicestershire, as for Derbyshire, Staffordshire and the F40 group of authorities, remains much as it was. It needs to be addressed and I am sure that it will be.
    The bigger direct payment that the Chancellor announced will be most welcome. I have visited all 52 schools in north-west Leicestershire and I know how welcome they have found the extra payments and direct payments when they have been available. I endorse what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. I think that the banding system is capable of significant improvement and these sums of money should be expressed on a per capita basis.
    One of the greatest improvements in education in north-west Leicestershire since 1 May 1997 has been in the infrastructure of some of our older schools. At Ibstock community college, where my children were students until relatively recently, the laboratories were in a dire condition. Despite pressure over many years, through the local education authority to the then Government, little or nothing was done about them. Like every other Member of Parliament, I receive a summary of the planning applications made to the local authority and I was very pleased to see on the planning list a week or so ago the early commencement of work on the laboratories of a school that has been waiting for improved laboratories for decades. What the Government are doing for education is warmly to be welcomed.
    One specific to which the Chancellor referred during his speech was the fight against crime and drugs. I have four daughters. Every parent worries about their children and wants to see them growing up safe from the scourge of drugs. My right hon. Friend's reference to the extra £300 million that will be spent in this area over the next three years was very heartening. That money will go direct to local crime and safety partnerships—a hallmark of the Budget and of recent Government decisions.
    I declare an interest in that I was closely involved with the creation of the north-west Leicestershire safer communities forum. I chaired it for a number of years until 1 May 1997. I know that whatever proportion of that money is available to that organisation will be wisely and effectively used in partnership with local agencies, the police, the local authority and other groups.
    This has been a positive and helpful Budget. At one end of the age spectrum, the scourge of child poverty has been addressed in a substantial way. At the other end, pensioner poverty has been tackled. Labour Members welcome that.
    There are 5 million couples who have no dependent children, either because their children have left home or because they never had any. Those 5 million couples—that is about 8,000 couples in an average constituency—are pre-retirement age, and will have lost the married couples allowance, which ceased on 5 April 2001 and which in the previous tax year was worth £195. Many of those people still feel a little sore about the loss of the allowance because they see nothing to replace it. Yes, they will in many cases have had lower mortgage interest rates, a benefit that can be worth as much as £1,200 a
    390
    year. That, of course, is to be welcomed. However, many of those married couples will have nearly paid off their mortgages, and I think that we need to do something to compensate them for the loss of the married couples allowance almost a year ago.
    In relation to peniioners—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  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 en Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  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 tim to time.
  ( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
  ( ) The quorum or the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  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 technologl or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  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 Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  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. Clelland.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Customs and Excise
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on a subject whose history goes back nearly 10 years. That may lead hon. Members to ask why I should raise the matter now. It has been precipitated by a recent court case in Liverpool, which came to an end two weeks ago last Monday, and by the press comments and speculation on that case and its history.
  In July 1993, 50 kg of high-grade heroin, with a street value of £18 million, were seized in my constituency. That led to the arrest and conviction of eight men for their part in the smuggling ring that had brought that heroin into the country. In July 1996, two of those criminals, John Haase and Paul Bennett, were given a royal pardon by the then Home Secretary—10 months after they had been jailed for 18 years on those charges.
  Having heard that those criminals were back on the street, I was about to leave my home to talk about the matter on Sky News when I was telephoned by the then Home Secretary. He asked me not to comment as it would imperil their lives and they had provided significant information to the authorities. Since then, I have discovered that only two people in the witness protection programme were involved in the case—to my knowledge. One was a woman informant who was a friend of one of the Turkish people convicted. The other person was a Customs officer, who had helped to penetrate the ring.
  The two villains were on the streets, bold as brass, and back up to their old tricks almost straight away. I deferred, nevertheless, to the privileged information and advice of the then Home Secretary and did not publicise what was happening. However, I took the precaution of telephoning the then shadow Home Secretary to tell him what had eventuated. Sky, The Observer and the Sunday Mirror all came under heavy Government pressure not to run the story, but eventually it came out.
  The intervention of the then Home Secretary came at the instigation of the trial judge—David Lynch—who had sentenced Haase and Bennett. He, in turn, was reliant upon information from Customs and Excise. That was the key to the release of those two criminals. A self-styled tough Home Secretary extraordinarily pardoned truly vicious, serious criminals, at the behest of the judge who had handed down 18-year sentences in the first place.
  I have heard all the sophistry and the reasoning behind those decisions, but the matter is not easy to explain to people on the street. All that was to protect two Customs and Excise informants—the two criminals concerned. What was their valuable information? In effect, it fell into two areas, according to their Customs and Excise handler, Paul Cook. I have in my hand his witness statement, which is the key to what eventually happened.
  One area was primarily concerned with the seizure of more than 150 weapons, including Armalites, Kalashnikovs and Uzis. The second area concerns an

  393
  alleged potential hostage taking in Strangeways prison. During the intervening years, I have examined the matter in great detail.
  In Liverpool, it was, and is, generally thought that the gun caches that were given up to Customs and Excise through the handler were an insurance policy for Haase and Bennett—something that they could trade with the authorities. A senior source in Merseyside police had confirmed that view. After all, no arrests took place in connection with those weapons seizures. It has been further alleged that all those weapons were bought for £82,000 from decommissioned stock held in a west midlands police depository and a north Wales police store, allegedly somewhere in Liverpool. I am cautious about those allegations because so many have been made. I am not interested in unsubstantiated allegations, some of which are very bizarre. However, an issue that, in my view, requires further investigation is being raised in this debate.
  The second critical area in Mr. Cook's statement to the judge involves a gun that was smuggled into Strangeways prison. Again, there is a strong case to be made that Haase and Bennett were behind that, to curry favour with the authorities. Such new arrangements were certainly recognised by Metropolitan police as having set a precedent for a new type of bargaining between the law and criminals. The behaviour of Haase and Bennett in that case was later aped in the south-east, leading Scotland Yard's directorate of intelligence to alert all the agencies—the prisons, the police and Customs and Excise—to that plea-bargaining scam.
  It is my belief that Haase and Bennett set up the arms caches in Liverpool and the smuggling of a gun into Strangeways prison. I ask the Paymaster General whether her Department, for example, has interviewed Paul Ferris about Haase and Bennett's attempts at weapons purchases. Does she know whether John Lally, Dominic Donnelly or Roger Jordan have been interviewed in connection with the smuggled guns?
  I ask that question because there is deep concern that Customs and Excise has been gravely misled by two practised liars—Haase and Bennett—who have manipulated their handlers. The evidence is there for all to see. In particular, John Haase, who went down for another 13 years in the recent case, had a long history of doing deals to extricate himself from legal problems. As I say, happily, he was sent down two weeks ago, revealing him to be the recidivist that we all knew him to be. His confederate, Bennett, is on the run, facing drugs importation charges.
  Yet Mr. Cook told the judge:
  "It is my considered opinion that such is the impact of this case on the defendants that, for differing reasons, it is highly unlikely that they would revert to a life of crime upon their ultimate release."
  How wrong he was. Since his pardon, Haase has been arraigned on firearms, drugs and money-laundering charges. He cut Peter Flanagan's throat in the view of surveillance officers and he has intimidated witnesses, but he was accepted as a credible informer.
  394
  Everything to do with Haase, in particular, remains suspect. From the original arrests in the Turkish connection drugs case onwards, there are urgent questions to be asked. I do not expect the Paymaster General to answer my question, but the Government should. What should we make of the role of Detective Sergeant Williams—the only person retired from the south-east regional crime squat on ill-health grounds, according to an answer that I received to a parliamentary question, who had been charged with stealing seized heroin, corruptly demanding money and rape? He was suspended for more than four years on full pay, before being dismissed. None of the 34 original charges against him ever went to court.
  What of the serious allegation that Haase planted a gun on Thomas Burke in Strangeways prison? The allegedly planted gun was a critical determinant in that man's conviction for murder. Although those matters are the responsibilities of other Departments, they stem directly from the handling of Haase and Bennett as informers. I specifically ask the Paymaster General whether she can tell me when John Haase ceased to be an informant.
  I have a copy of a memo—written as late as 3 August 1998—that the assistant chief investigation officer, Steve Rowton, sent to Paul Cook, his subordinate, in which he tells him to cease cor tact with Haase and Bennett because of on-going political interest in the case. I shall, of course, place the documents in the Library. That happened after I had expressed an interest and had been afforded the opportunity to meet senior Customs officers to tell them about my disquiet about what was going on.
  Has the Paymaster General been shown a report into the gun-smuggling incident at Strangeways? I understand that there was a repo report it has never been published. I wonder whether it will ever be published. If it is not published, why not? I appreciate security considerations, but major matters of public interest are involved. I also ask why there was no liaison with Merseyside police over the arms caches. Is it because they might have been seen as a set-up, which was the eventually expressed view?
  The vast majority of our law enforcement personnel, across all the agencies, do a good job in difficult circumstances, but there have been some faux pas involving Customs and Excise. I may be wrong, but I believe that officers are still suspended both in the north-east and in Yorkshire because of cases that went spectacularly wrong. The Charrington case remains fresh in my memory and, in many ways, it overlaps with the case of Haase and Bennett.
  It is interesting that the Dutch found themselves in a similar situation some years ago, with informers running their handlers rathe than the other way round. A root-and-branch reform of procedures ensured that that did not happen again. Indeed, the Dutch succeeded in locking up a major league drug dealer, Curtis Warren from Liverpool, when Customs and Excise had failed to do so. However, when the case against Warren and others failed, he was able openly to boast to the investigating officers that he had made £87 million out of the deal and that there was not a thing they could do about it.

  395
  The changes in Holland came about only after a full inquiry. I would go a lot further than having an inquiry. I propose two inquiries: one into the procedures for dealing with informers; the other into all the cases touched upon by Haase and Bennett. It is important to put on the record that many of the cases involve villains. "None of them are guilty, they are all innocent" is the clarion call that Members regularly hear in our constituency surgeries. It is never easy to divine who is telling the truth in these matters and I do not underestimate the mendacity of some of the people involved. However, even villains are entitled to justice. Such an inquiry would obviously need to be independent and transparent, so that justice might at last be lifted from the mire in which it his found itself in this sorry saga.
  Although I was not to know, it is entirely appropriate that this issue has been raised on the day that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a bold and brave initiative and lots more new funding for the fight against drugs in our towns and cities. It is appropriate that we start off with a clear idea of where we are going. Every Member in the House knows of the damage that is done by these people. I just ask us to consider the damage that was done by allowing Haase and Bennett back on the street, on the basis on which they got out. Could anything usefully have been achieved by pretending that one could handle such people?
  10.12 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) for raising this important subject, but he will appreciate that I have heard for the first time much of the information that he has put before the House. It will therefore be extremely difficult to respond in detail this evening. I am sure that he will ilso be aware that he is protected by parliamentary privilege. As a Minister, I have certain obligations and I have to balance them with my duty to provide full and frank information to the House.
  Most of my hon. Friend's allegations are against Customs and Excise, but there may be wider considerations, because he has placed much information on the record. However, I want to make it clear that the case involved all the law enforcement agencies. Whatever the rumours and allegations that are made as one agency might try to absolve itself from involvement in the case, we must recognise that all of them were involved.
  It is important that I point out that it is well established in policy and practice that, when it comes to law enforcement by the police and Customs, one does not comment publicly on whether any individual has or has not given information in confidence to the authorities. It would certainly be wrong to comment on specific allegations of confidential information that was supposedly given to the authorities. None the less, before I address the particular issues that my hon. Friend raised, I want to set out the events that led up to the release from prison of Haase and Bennett on 4 July 1996, and to say who was involved.
  As my hon. Friend said, John Haase and Paul Bennett were among nine people who wen indicted in 1993 on a charge of conspiracy to supply 50 kg of heroin. The
  396
  prosecution was undertaken by Customs and Excise and was initially in relation to an alleged conspiracy to import heroin. Subsequently, on legal advice, the charge was confined to conspiracy to supply the drug. Although supply offences are not normally prosecuted by Customs, this case was, with the agreement of the Crown Prosecution Service.
  At their trial at Liverpool Crown court in August 1995, Haase and Bennett offered guilty pleas to conspiracy to supply, as did six other defendants; the ninth was acquitted. On 22 August 1995, all those convicted received sentences ranging from eight to 18 years, according to the extent of their involvement in the offence. Haase and Bennett each received sentences of 18 years.
  Prior to sentencing, the trial judge, Judge Lynch, received representations from counsel for Haase and Bennett, in accordance with normal practice. Prosecuting and investigating authorities have a clear duty to provide to the judge material, accurate and fair, that may be relevant to the trial, including matters that the judge may wish to take into account in determining sentence. It is for the judge to decide what credence and weight he or she should give to that material. In this case, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the police, Customs and Excise and the Crown Prosecution Service provided material to Judge Lynch that confirmed the extent to which Haase and Bennett had co-operated with the police and Customs in the investigation.
  As a result of the information that Judge Lynch received, he approached the Home Office and stated that he was of the opinion that, in line with the precedent set by the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina v. Sinfield in 1981, consideration should be given to the appropriate remission of the 18-year sentences that had been imposed on Haase and Bennett. He thought that that might be effected by exercising the royal prerogative of mercy. In making his representations to the Home Office, he set out why he had not felt able to impose a reduced sentence in court. Following his approach—I emphasise that this was a judicial initiative—the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), agreed to seek the royal prerogative for remission of the sentences, broadly in line with the Sinfield precedent.
  The House should be in no doubt that the impetus for the reduction in sentence came entirely and properly from the trial judge. The material was supplied to the judge by Customs and the police, who had jointly investigated all the matters. Those authorities were properly fulfilling their obligation to the court. Indeed, in the Sinfield case, the Court of Appeal laid great emphasis on the public interest in ensuring remission of sentencing in the circumstances. It also said that, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant in that case was a major criminal, the reduction in sentence remained appropriate.
  My hon. Friend put many matters on the record this evening. I would like to study the documents that he holds and to ensure that I have all the information. I freely admit that this is the first time that I have heard much of the information to which he referred.
  As the Minister responsible for Customs, I have been assured that in this case all our officers acted entirely

  397
  appropriately throughout. The commissioners have indicated that they would certainly welcome any new information that may have a bearing on this case or related cases which may cause my hon. Friend concern. My hon. Friend has certainly provided that information this evening, and the matter is clearly causing him concern.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that I am not in a position to give him a fuller reply this evening. I hope that he will accept that I will ensure that his points are properly scrutinised. I shall ensure that he, as the local
  398
  MP and the Membey who secured the debate, is kept fully apprised of action that is taken and information that is available. I thank him again for drawing these serious matters to my attention. I assure him once more that, in pursuing the prosecution, Customs did not act alone, but properly within requirements, and jointly with the enforcement authorities. I entirely accept that he is making available additional information that requires a response, and I will ensure that he gets one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Fishing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: It is pleasing to see so many hon. Members with interests in fishing communities here on Budget day, which could be an advantage or disadvantage for this debate. In a sense, what better time could there be to put questions to the Fisheries Minister than immediately before the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his Budget? We all anticipate that the Minister's powers are such that he will make a beeline for the Chancellor immediately after this debate to resolve a number of the problems that we shall have brought to his attention.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Chancellor will say, "You again."
Mr. Salmond: I do not know whether Hansard caught that aside; I might ask the Minister to repeat it in his speech.
The disadvantage is that we run a slight risk of the debate being overshadowed, although that was not a risk for yesterday's massive fishing industry demonstration of solidarity in Scotland, which involved 167 fishing boats in a procession that stretched for 11 miles and took the best part of two hours to pass under the Forth bridges. Having had a quick look at this morning's Scottish press, I am pleased to see that the demonstration is dominating the newspapers. As far as I am aware, it was the biggest flotilla of fishing boats ever gathered, certainly in peacetime. It was one of the largest such demonstrations in history.
That should send a signal to the Minister that, apart from some of the more general long-term problems that hon. Members from various parts of the country will want to raise this morning, there is an immediate crisis in the Scottish white fish industry that needs to be addressed. Those of us from Scottish constituencies have high hopes for this afternoon?s meeting between the First Minister and fishing industry leaders, but if the crisis is not urgently addressed, much of the long-term future—and today's debate—will become redundant. We shall see, effectively, a wipeout of the most important white fish stock in Scotland; the haddock fishery.
I spoke to the Minister privately last week, but I hope that this debate, whatever else it does, will show him the strength of feeling that exists, the importance of the crisis that has befallen Scottish white fish boats and the solidarity in the industry as a whole with a view to doing something about it. Yesterday's procession was made up not only of white fish boats. As it sailed down the coast of Scotland, there was a demonstration by the
66WH
Shetland boats up at Sullom Voe. It picked up boats all the way down the east coast of Scotland, starting from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and going down through Angus and the East Neuk, which is within the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
The procession picked up boats from the south-east of Scotland, which came up from Eyemouth, and 30 boats joined at the mouth of the Forth. Even the small fishing fleet in the firth of Forth joined the flotilla at the last minute as it started to sail towards the bridges. It was a remarkable demonstration of the strength of feeling by a variety of interests and sections of the industry. I have never seen the catching side of the fishing industry as unified as it has been over the past two weeks in response to the crisis.
The realisation of the problems with white fish by those who are not immediately affected is interesting and important. As we sailed down, we received a message of support from the scallop fishermen, who are largely on the west coast of Scotland. The prawn or nephrops fishermen realise that, unless something is done to solve the white fish problem, one of the next developments to occur after the demise of the haddock stock will be pressure on the prawn fishery, and chaos and dislocation will continue in the industry.
A number of the deep-sea boats in Scotland, which are equipped to go into far waters, were also part of the flotilla. Again, they have not been immediately affected by the crisis that has hit the medium-sized white fish boats; none the less, they realised that dislocation for one part of the industry would cause problems for the entire industry.
It was even more interesting to hear last week—not for the first time in my memory, but certainly for one of the first times—the statement of support from the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and again from Will Clarke by telephone as we sailed towards the Forth yesterday. They realise that every part of the industry will have little or no future unless the problem of the slaughter of juvenile haddock is resolved. I hope that the strength of feeling that was on display yesterday will be evident to the Minister. I also hope that he will excuse my fragile condition because, although the weather yesterday was fine, being on a fishing boat through the night on the North sea is something that few hon. Members will have experienced. It was worth while to see that strength of solidarity.
I urge the Minister to respond to the demonstration, because the industry has shown unity and an awareness of the crisis over the past ten days. Above all, it has been a responsible and dignified protest that has tried to take its concerns to the heart of Government. It is incumbent on the Minister to say something positive because, as he accepted last week, the situation is urgent.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suspect that all hon. Members will agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Does he accept that one unique feature of the fishing community's present attitude is that, when it came to juvenile haddock, it voluntarily

67WH
withdrew its effort because it recognised that, if it did not, the fishing industry in Scotland would cease to exist?
Mr. Salmond: Yes, that is a vital point. In effect, we have had a voluntary tie-up of the fleet for the past 10 days or so, which has meant a substantial sacrifice on the part of the crews. They have mortgages on their boats and houses, and other financial commitments, yet they have voluntarily tied up their boats to illustrate dramatically that fishermen are sick to the heart of having to pursue a fishing strategy that will mean the decimation and slaughter of the fishing grounds.
Less than £10 million is needed to solve the immediate crisis. I am not talking about the long-term problems—which we might discuss later—or about something that many hon. Members would like to see; a step change in structural support for an industry that lags far behind those in comparable European countries. I am speaking about an immediate move to protect and preserve the vital haddock stock.
By any estimate, such a move would cost less than £10 million. As I said in the Scottish Parliament last week, that is less than the price of Tore Andre Flo, the recent Rangers star signing. Rangers fans might have a variety of views on whether that was money well spent. As one fisherman said yesterday, "It may be less than Rangers pay for a striker, but it's mair than Aberdeen pay." That is undoubtedly true, but the point is obvious. The sum needed to address the immediate problem is, at most, marginal for Government; £10 million from either the Scottish Executive or UK Government Budget would prove to be good value for the Minister.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Most hon. Members would agree that this is a crisis, but the question is whether the Scottish National party believes that it is appropriate for the Scottish Executive or the UK Government to resolve it.
Mr. Salmond: I would welcome a resolution to the crisis from the Scottish Executive in their meeting this afternoon or from the Minister this morning. Like most of my fishing constituents, I am anxious for it to be resolved. We can worry afterwards who should take the credit for resolving it. Given the billions that have been talked about as the Chancellor's potential giveaway this afternoon, less than £10 million to meet this immediate crisis seems to me a very solid investment.
The argument for dealing with the immediate crisis is that it is man-made. It is not a natural disaster, an act of God or a great calamity that has befallen the industry because of the forces of nature. It is a man-made crisis. The key grounds that the white fish boats have been pushed into by the closure of areas under the cod recovery plan have been regarded by Scottish fishermen for generations as nursery areas for young haddock and whiting. No amount of technical innovation, in which the Scottish fleet has been first and foremost, is going to help in that situation. The sea to the east of Shetland, around the Fair isle, teems with huge quantities of young fish, particularly juvenile haddock; yet that is one of the few remaining fishing grounds left open to Scottish fishermen as a result of the closure of cod areas.
68WH
It would be a substantial and fatal irony for Scotland if the attempt to address the problem of the cod fishery—that may or may not work; it has had broad support—resulted in the destruction of the haddock fishery. Let us remember that haddock is twice as important as cod to Scotland. Many hon. Members are familiar with the map that I showed the Minister last week. It illustrates that the policy of closing 40,000 square miles of fishing grounds—as opposed to areas of the sea that are not fishing grounds—where a fleet of 150 white fish boats would have been pursuing the fishery for mature cod and haddock has forced the boats into what is effectively a nursery area for young fish.
When the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries, Mr. Ross Finnie, was asked about that issue last Thursday, he said that he knew about the problem of the young haddock. I accept that he has other questions to deal with, as does the Minister. However, the young haddock are not a problem, but an opportunity. It has been many years since the sea held the vast quantity of haddock that the 1999 year class represents. If those fish are nourished, cherished and allowed to survive the next two to three years, we will regain a substantial haddock fishery in Scotland. Many of the other difficult questions that the Minister is grappling with, such as decommissioning and the structural power of the fleet, will be much less problematic if we have a substantial fishery. I will discuss the problems of the processing sector shortly, but a substantial haddock fishery would address the problem of supplies to the processing sector.
If people in the industry, both offshore and onshore, could see light at the end of the tunnel, or if they could see the prospect of a new fishery with substantial quantities, much of the current economic and financial pressure would be easier to bear. One of the biggest difficulties faced by the processors onshore and the fishermen offshore is that few people in the industry are optimistic about its future. The vast quantity of young haddock in the 1999 year class is one of the few bright lights, and that must be protected at any cost.
In the fisheries negotiations in December, the scientific advice was that the discard rate for haddock would increase as a result of the cod closure areas and might reach 2:1; that is, two boxes of dead undersized haddock discarded over the side for every box that could be landed and marketed. The ratio east of Shetland, in that part of the sea around the Fair isle, is 10:1 at present. Until the white fish fleet voluntarily stopped fishing there, 10 boxes of undersized haddock, which were illegal and could not be landed even if there were a market for them, would go over the side for every box landed. That slaughter has sickened the hearts of fishermen. That is why they have voluntarily tied up their boats and are making that economic sacrifice in an attempt to secure the future of the industry.
That remarkable demonstration is essentially about conservation and is supported by a number of Scottish environmental organisations, which issued a statement last weekend. It is also supported by the processors who have a huge stake in the long-term future of the industry. Would it not be an appropriate moment for the Government to agree that such an attitude and behaviour should be encouraged and that, in the light of this man-made crisis, things should be tided over for the next eight weeks until the closed areas are reopened? The case for action is unanswerable. It is a moral case, based

69WH
on the reasons for this short-term crisis. It is a case for the industry; we are talking about what is necessary to secure its future. I certainly hope that we get encouragement from the Minister this morning.
Before I move on to the processing side of the industry I should like to say a word about the fishing tragedy off the west of Scotland, which the fleet heard about yesterday as it sailed in the Forth. Our condolences go to the members of the largely Spanish crew who were lost on that German registered boat. Such events unite people, regardless of nationality. Fishermen are fishermen in essence. That was certainly the feeling of the flotilla that was sailing down the east coast of Scotland. I know that the Minister, as is traditional and proper in a fishing debate, will refer to the danger that is inherent in fishing as an industry. He should not underestimate the public support that can mobilise itself behind an industry which, like mining, has a special place in people's hearts because its inherent dangers are recognised. They are aware of the real price of fishing.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Naturally, I share the hon. Gentleman's regret at the loss of the Spanish fishermen. Those who survived, including the man who was in the water for an astonishing 16 hours, were wearing survival suits. Does he agree that too few of our vessels carry that vital piece of safety equipment?
Mr. Salmond: Yes. Every Member representing a fishing constituency, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and a number of others who have been through fishing tragedies in their constituencies, would support that call. We welcome the recent resumption of the grants for safety equipment on fishing vessels after they were quite scandalously interrupted. I know that Governments have pressing reasons for making cuts, but that was one of the most vicious cuts ever. We should all like to see further safety improvements in vessels. Although fishing tragedies are not necessarily the result of economic pressures, a combination of young skippers and older boats going to ever more distant waters in a desperate attempt to maintain their boats and their livelihood is inherently more dangerous. Obviously not every fishing tragedy is due to financial pressures, but they do make the industry more hazardous than it traditionally was.
Finally, I shall refer to the processing sector and I shall offer three documents in evidence. Unfortunately for my constituency—I am sure that other hon. Members will be deeply worried about processing factories in their constituencies—I have the notification from the receiver concerning Abacus Seafoods, which went into administration just before the turn of the year. There have been several expressions of interest but—perhaps unsurprisingly in the current climate—it is not clear whether this terrific factory, with its terrific facilities and first-class work force and location, will be able to maintain its position.
Although the factory has its own water treatment plants and its own access to water supplies—a common difficulty in the sector—it has yet to find a buyer. The fact that such a fine factory, at Lintlaw, has yet to find a purchaser demonstrates the problems facing the industry. We all hope for the best, but fear the worst. We
70WH
also fear that the recent announcements about Abacus and others will, unless effective action is taken, be the first of a blizzard of closures in the processing sector.
Last week, the results of the year 2000 UK sea fisheries survey were released and I want to put one of the steering group's statements on record. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) looks interested, and the statement also encapsulates much of what he frequently says on the same issue. It relates to the processing sector's response to
"the stream of legislation emanating from Brussels at local, UK and European level and the costs of compliance… making an already difficult environment even more threatening to the future of the industry. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Climate Change levy, Control Regulations, Hygiene and the Veterinary Inspection Charge are just some of the regulations. At local and national level some of this legislation has been handled by government agencies in a particularly robust manner and processors are not regarded as customers. They should help rather than hinder processors who have to compete, not only amongst themselves, but also against our European colleagues who may not always be subjected to equally stringent interpretations of necessary levels of compliance. The impact of waste water legislation will be ongoing and will directly affect not only costs but the way processing is carried out."
Every fish processor would agree with that statement from the steering group. It is the voice of the deeply depressed processing sector, which already has to struggle for supplies of fish and faces the additional burden of the heavy weight of regulations. The dramatic increase of water and effluent disposal charges has been a kick in the teeth to processors already struggling to maintain a business against difficult odds. The increase in water charges amounts to several hundred per cent. It is truly extraordinary. Whatever the Government say about private water companies south of the border and about the public agencies in Scotland, more could and should be done to help.
A company with a large factory—one of two in my constituency, but for obvious reasons, I shall not name it—has invested in new facilities and has a substantial programme for further investment. The company made that investment commitment under difficult conditions, but wanted a pause, or breathing space, in the present difficult circumstances before it proceeded. Millions of pounds were already committed to the factory, but it found that the water authority wanted to rush to court on the basis of compliance legislation. It is extraordinary that a public agency should behave in that fashion when people's livelihoods are at stake.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the co-operation of local processors in Aberdeen with the city council, other parties and the water authority in finding a solution to the problem?
Mr. Salmond: I would indeed. I was coming on to discuss the Grampian Enterprise initiative document, which expresses the hope that the same process can occur with Aberdeenshire council. "Finding a solution to the problem" may be optimistic because, although the agreement represents an improvement on a disastrous position, it is hardly a solution, as the hon. Gentleman would accept.
The final document that I submit in evidence is the Scottish fish processing action group's plan for the industry, which was completed in January and is now

71WH
with the Scottish Executive and the Minister responsible for fisheries. The document, which accurately details the problems of the processing sector, contains some good and hopeful initiatives. I particularly like the idea of a licensing scheme for processors; there are solid arguments that show that it could be of substantial help to the industry.
The document seems hidebound by the fact that its proposals must fall within existing budgets, a matter that the Minister may wish to discuss with his Scottish colleagues. The money specified in the document can be added up in several ways, but the most reasonable total—although it is still not new money—is £1.8 milllon, which will not go far in addressing the processing sector"s difficulties.
The action plans include working with companies to develop the ability to process alternative species and enter new markets, and a marketing campaign to help in that aim; that will be worthwhile and useful. Processors must be helped to adapt and marketing campaigns are important in that respect. Fish is one of the relatively few foodstuffs that is in roughly the same condition as it was 50 years ago. People can have confidence in it and be reassured; there is much evidence that pelagic fish is good for people's health. However, the problem with the admirable marketing objective is the cost—£30,000. I am not in the advertising business, but I do not think that £30,000 will buy us much space, air time or anything else to promote the action plan. The budget for that worthy and admirable initiative should go far beyond the amount specified in the document.
I have spoken before about the long-term future of the industry and most people accept that capacity must be considered. The Minister and his Scottish colleagues should take a different attitude; instead of reducing the capacity of the boats or the processors, they should consider how to increase stocks, an issue to which the Minister is deeply committed. It is a great opportunity, given the mood of the catching side of the industry. The Scottish fleet is prepared to experiment with technical measures; it is the only fleet in Europe that fishes with a square mesh panel. The mood of the industry generally is to co-operate in pursuing those measures.
The problem with the cod closure area is not that people do not accept it, but that there is no plan to deal with its consequences; despite warnings to Ministers in this House and in the Scottish Parliament that there would be a displacement effect on other areas. We must think of something for the 150 boats to do when the areas are closed. In return for the compensated lay-up scheme, which is critical in the next few weeks, Scottish fishermen are prepared for the area east of Shetland to be closed, to protect juvenile haddock and to secure the industry's future.
David McPherson, a member of the action group that met Scottish Ministers recently, died, tragically, last weekend. He was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, who will speak about him in a moment. There will be an empty chair at the action group's meeting this afternoon, and that brings home to us dramatically that people are protesting for the noblest cause of all; the future of their industry. They can see the opportunities swimming in the sea; the vast quantities of young fish stock. They may not be growing
72WH
as fast as they should, and the Minister may want to say more about the industrial fishing that is depriving the young stock of the food source that would enable them to grow faster. There is a massive stock of haddock in the North sea. I hope that the Minister will take the appropriate action, or tell us that appropriate action will be taken in time to make a difference. If the young stock is fished out, the Government will spend a lot more money on decommissioning an industry with no fish than on decommissioning part of an industry with a substantial supply of fish.
Despite the crisis atmosphere and pessimism, fishermen believe that something could be done. The processors' support for the demonstration illustrates their belief that something could be done. The Government have it within their power during the next few vital days to make or break a large section of the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister steers a wise course.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members that this debate will finish at 11 o'clock and that the winding-up speeches should begin at 10.30, commencing with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. If speeches are brief it may be possible to call all hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye.
10 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing this debate. During the past few months, we have had several debates on the fishing industry, all of which have been important and constructive.
I was a little disappointed when I came into the Chamber this morning. It is the first time I have been here since it was realigned and we seem to be back to the old adversarial system. The previous arrangement was more constructive and Members felt that they were all part of a group discussing an issue—[Interruption.] I see that there is a rebellion from Opposition colleagues.
The fishing industry is important and I want to follow the constructive approach of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I disagree with little that he said. It is important to focus on the problems and how they might be resolved.
I have been in the House for approximately nine years and have attended debates on fishing every year. There always seems to be a sense of crisis in the industry; sometimes it is real, but often the industry is crying wolf. However, there is a serious problem now. The present crisis is distinguishable from previous crises by the way in which the industry has approached the problem. The Scottish Fishermen s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is based in England, have taken a constructive approach. The processing industry onshore has also been constructive. Ministers should examine that carefully because we hear language from both sides of the industry that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. There are discussions of sustainable fisheries and the fish processors have set up an environmental committee to discuss how to achieve long-term goals for the industry. That is backed by the important report of

73WH
the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1999, which encouraged the Government to consider a long-term strategy for the industry.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan told us about the problem and it is important to focus on some of the solutions that the industry is suggesting. I am particularly pleased with the proposals from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—it is based in my constituency and I am pleased to have it—which is considering the problem in three parts. For the short term, it has proposed a tie-up scheme that covers the problem of closed fisheries and displacement to the haddock spawning grounds. The Government should consider a tie-up scheme because the proposals seem to be modest.
We must not think that this is simply a Scottish problem; the problem exists throughout the United Kingdom. The current focus is on the white fish side of the industry because of the closure of the cod spawning grounds, but it is still important to make wider points.
A decommissioning scheme is the long-term solution to the problem. In all my years as a Member of Parliament—especially when the Conservative party was in government—decommissioning has almost been a dirty word. The taxpayer has not obtained best value from previous decommissioning schemes because the industry has not played it straight. Boats were decommissioned but were later recycled, so decommissioning never led to a reduction in catching capacity.
The SFF has approached the situation constructively. It has recognised that the Government cannot pay the whole cost and that we need more than a simple decommissioning of boats. It recommends the decommissioning of the vessel catching unit, which is effectively the licence. It has recognised that there are three essential components to the value of a fisherman's licence; the boat, which has an intrinsic value, the vessel catching unit and the quota. It has come up with constructive schemes that anticipate the industry playing a part in finding finance for decommissioning so that we can get catching capacity down to a level that matches available stocks. That must be the long-term future for the industry. However, there must be Government support for such a scheme. I support that argument because I cannot see how the industry can be restructured towards a solid and profitable long-term future without Government support.
Finally, part of the long-term solution is the reform of the common fisheries policy. The SFF has come up with constructive proposals, which are not new but are in tune with Government thinking, on regional and zonal management. These would ensure that our fishermen became stakeholders, rather than being outside the decision-making process. Those are all constructive suggestions.
I shall make a brief political point to which I suspect the Conservative spokesman will refer later. The Conservative party's idea to withdraw unilaterally from the CFP is at odds with the wishes and interests of the industry; it should spend more time listening to the public.
Mr. Savidge: My hon. Friend may remember that we heard that few Conservative Members turned up to the
74WH
previous fishing debate because so many Aberdeen Members wanted to speak. Apart from the party spokesman, none of them have turned up today.
Mr. Doran: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am anxious to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible can speak in today's debate, so I intend to sit down in a moment.
My major interest is the fish processing industry because there are 2,000 jobs in that sector in Aberdeen, all of which are threatened by a shortage of product. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to the industry's work with Scottish Enterprise Grampian and the local authorities, which are working hard to help the industry through the restructuring process. Scottish Enterprise, the local Scottish enterprise companies and the enterprise companies in England and Wales are the appropriate agencies to tackle the processing industry's problems. However, I accept the need for extra finance. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today, but if he can find more money in the short to medium term it would be well spent on this side of the industry.
The statement made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that he does not care where the money comes from concerns me. He discusses the Scottish Executive coming up with the cash when he makes statements in Scotland, but when he is in Westminster he discusses the Government coming up with it. This is a UK—indeed, a European—problem.
Mr. Salmond: Given the extent of the crisis in the white fish industry, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the last thing in the minds of fishermen at the moment is where the money is coming from. If they do not get the money in the next few days, much of the future that the hon. Gentleman described will not exist.
Mr. Doran: The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and I accept it, but he does not make the same point when he writes articles for Scottish publications or makes speeches in Scotland.
As I said, this is a UK problem that requires a UK solution. I do not want the industry to be split by, say, the Scottish Executive producing one solution and MAFF in England and Wales producing another. A UK solution is important for the unity of an industry that, in a crisis, is taking a unified approach. The Government must ensure that the industry continues to take such an approach.
10.10 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall try to be brief because I do not want to be an English voice crying in a Scottish wilderness; I see that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is here to add a Cornish perspective.
All the points made by Scottish Members are equally valid in respect of the English fishing industry. There is the same feeling of bitterness and neglect, and of making representations to Government that are ignored. There is also the same desire for fishing to be treated fairly. At the moment, the focus is on support for agriculture, yet fishing has coped for decades with very little help. The industry is experiencing a crisis that in relative terms is more serious than that experienced by agriculture, but still nothing happens.

75WH
I met representatives of the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation just 10 days ago, and they were 20 angry men. They were angry about proposals to increase mesh sizes, and about burdens such as light dues, inspection charges and higher landing charges. Such burdens should not be placed on an industry that is in financial crisis, yet they are being added to by, for example, the waste water processing directive. Nothing is being done to provide relief. The industry is being fed a constant diet of hope, but nothing materialises.
Industrial fishing, whether for sand eels or other species, should be stopped altogether. It produces a huge by-catch that is deeply damaging to the marine environment. Given the present state of conservation, catching edible fish to produce fish meal is a crime. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned about animal welfare, but something also needs to be done about the seals. If the fishing quota is to be reduced, there should also be a cull of seals. The seal population at Donna Nook is expanding, and I am sure that seals take more fish than does the industry.
There is also the question of power stations. The Financial Times has highlighted the problems caused by Sizewell B. It is estimated that about 200 million fish a day are sucked into a water cooling intake that acts as a killing hole. Again, that is a crime against conservation. There is also an enforcement problem. The British enforcement police are taking an increasingly heavy approach to British vessels. The complaint has been made many times that fishery protection vessels are nowhere to be found—either they cannot be summoned or they never arrive—when friction or conflict with Dutch fishermen arises. However, there is a heavy weight of enforcement on, and constant interference with, the British fleet. Fishery protection vessels approach at night with fishing lights and board British vessels. I shall quote a couple of instances that were described in a letter from the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation. It states:
"Recently one of our members, a day boat, was boarded and inspected just before returning to port, inspected on arrival in port, and inspected on his return to the fishing grounds".
It was inspected three times in 24 hours because, according to one officer,
"the gunboat had nothing else to do".
That is ludicrous. The letter continues:
"The dangers were recently emphasised when in one incident two members of the boarding party fell in the sea in the dark."
That shows the scale of the problem. An industry that is already in crisis is being further pressed. I do not say that we should stop inspection, but should it be so oppressive, considering the industry's present state?
We have 25 vessels left in Grimsby—not many. Six are laid up, while many have to fish three-handed because they cannot afford to go to sea with more men. That is not safe. The industry faces a huge burden of debt and the banks are unhelpful and unco-operative because they know about the state of fishing. Something must be done. Operating and lay-up support is needed. A similar package to that offered to competing European industries is required. The danger is that our quotas and licences will be sold on and purchased by foreign vessels, which are kept viable because their
76WH
Governments provide them with support. That support is not provided to our industry, which has been forced into financial crisis and to sell up.
Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the new aid, announced by the Dutch Government, of $15 million—roughly £10 million—for a fleet much smaller than Britain's?
Mr. Mitchell: That completes the picture of other Governments giving support to their industries, while nothing happens here.
I am not keen on decommissioning because it would work against the interests of Grimsby. I want to retain a viable fleet in Grimsby to provide the critical mass to support the facilities there. I would like to put an idea to the Minister. Why can we not give a loan or advance to the FPOs so that the licensing of quotas can be put in escrow—in reserve to be reactivated later, like a post-fishing credit—until stocks recover? That might be a way to hang on to an entitlement locally and revive it later.
It is important that the fishing industry operates in centres that have a concentration of facilities. Something must be done. Fishing is in a crisis that could be fatal, particularly for the English industry, which is harder hit than the Scottish one, although both are badly hit. It is no lodger satisfactory to say that MAFF has problems in agriculture—for example, with BSE and foot and mouth disease—and so it is difficult to get money from the Treasury. That excuse is no longer acceptable to an industry in crisis that will fold if it does not get support.
10.17 am
Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate. I also offer my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives to the west of Shetland, and I ask the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to pass on everyone's sympathies to Mr. McPherson's family.
It is important that we address the future of the fishing industry. It is of environmental significance to our country that we maintain our biodiversity and stocks, which, if handled properly will give us an industry for life and for future generations. If we do nothing, and simply stand back to watch the crisis develop, there will be no fishing industry. Fishing will not recover unless we take action now. Fish is a quality, healthy food and maintaining the world's fishing stocks and sustaining fisheries is laudable and sensible.
An excellent paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been sent to MAFF and the Treasury and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has analysed its suggestions. It is time that we had more detail. The Minister has met representatives of the fishing industry in England, and we have heard promises of more substance in future. Time is rapidly running out. We must know what cost MAFF puts on proposals from the industry. The industry needs to know what is happening and where its future lies, otherwise it cannot respond constructively.
The document puts the point well. Many people think that total allowable catches and quotas refer to what one can catch but they are really a control on what can be

77WH
landed. That is where there is a serious problem. If one catches the wrong stuff, it just goes back into the sea until one catches the right stuff for landing. The document hints at an added danger, which is that even where there is a very restrictive quota, someone might discard much of what he catches and continue to fish until he has found the valuable catch that he wants to land. The incentives and structure of the industry could lead in a dangerous direction if there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
The technical measures are an important part of the process—the industry has bought into them—but they must be developed further for long-term sustainability. Part of the light at the end of the tunnel should be a decommissioning scheme. That must be seriously considered. The document, and the comments of scientists, have made it clear that the sustainable level of fishing that will have been achieved even after five years will not match current catching capacity. The earlier a decommissioning scheme is sorted out, the earlier the Government will want a long-term sustainable fishery to be achieved. That would also partly address the problem of overcapacity.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, the paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation sees the Government's key role as buying back licenses. That would begin a regime under which quotas could be sold, in the first instance, to the remaining boats in the fleet, within the producer organisation. Where possible, other uses should be found for boats whose licences had been bought back. There are other commercial uses for such vessels; for example, as guard ships in the North sea. If a non-fishing use could be found, it would bring in money that had not come from the Chancellor.
The SFF's figures for the Scottish fishing fleet suggest that the Chancellor would have to find £15 million for buying back the licences to underpin the package. The industry would have to find £50 million to redistribute the quota. If another commercial use were found for the vessels, there would be no further cost. If the Government insisted on destroying the vessels, another £10 million would probably be needed. We will be interested to hear MAFF's comments on those estimates.
That is the long-term picture. However, overcapacity and over-fishing mean that there might not be a long term. The Government, therefore, must seriously examine the SFF's proposals on managing the lay-up scheme. It is crucial for the Government to know how big the cheque must be, and how open-ended the scheme is. An estimated 40 vessels would have to be laid off to get a 20 per cent. reduction in white fish catching capacity. At a cost of £1,000 per day for 180 days, the total cost has been estimated as £7.2 million in the first year. That would taper off to about £ 1 million in the fifth year, because as the recovery takes place, less lay-up is needed each year, until, finally, the sustainable fishery is reached. That is the light at the end of the tunnel.
The Minister has seen the document and the figures. Does he accept them? If not, why not? If he thinks that it is too early to comment, may I emphasise that it is urgent to move on from discussing the philosophy to discussing the nuts and bolts? I hope that today's meeting in Scotland will be constructive and helpful, but we in Westminster can add our weight. The all-party
78WH
fisheries group is seeking to meet the Treasury Minister concerned. I do not know how far that request has got, but the debate has made it clear that the Treasury is at the heart of the problem.
The Minister said, in a sedentary intervention on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, that the Treasury would say, "Oh, not you again" when he turned up. Perhaps he should emphasise that he will not be speaking just on his own behalf, but on behalf of all hon. Members in this Chamber and of all hon. Members who represent fishing areas. The all-party group wants to meet the Treasury Minister to get across to him the key point; we are talking about a UK resource, we have a UK Government and hon. Members throughout the UK are concerned about this serious structural problem.
If the Government decide to wash their hands of the matter and refuse to engage with these constructive proposals, they cannot hope that the market will sort things out, as it does in industries on the mainland. There will be no sustainable future for the fishing industry if it is left to the market, with its current regime and structures. All that would happen is that bankruptcies would occur.
When someone goes bankrupt, the value of what they have is sold on at a price that the market will take. Catching capacity will not disappear through bankruptcies; it will fall back to a price at which it is seen as worth buying. When overfishing kills off more fish stocks, bankruptcy will recycle that capacity back in. If it is left to the market, capacity will remain and fishing will disappear. The long-term future for a viable industry with a sustainable, healthy fishing product will disappear as well. The Government must start to respond to the problem with some detailed solutions.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that it is customary in Westminster Hall to commence the winding-up speeches at half-past 10.
10.25 am
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief. I begin by offering my condolences to Mr. McPherson's family and to the families of the fishermen who died the other night when their vessel foundered. It is worth pointing out that those who survived were wearing survival suits. The rule in this country, by which survival suits must he carried only on vessels of a minimum overall length of 24 m, is not good enough. I have long campaigned for all fishing vessels to carry such safety equipment.
I agree with much of what has been said today. However, one bright note is the decision by the Minister's Department to award the contract for the new fisheries research vessel to Ferguson's, a yard with which I have long been associated and where several of my constituents work. The last fisheries research vessel built for the Department by Ferguson's at Port Glasgow is reckoned by naval architects to be among the top three such vessels in the world. The Minister and his officials did well to select Ferguson's.
The catching and processing sectors of the industry are in deep trouble, and our fishing communities should be given equal sympathy and consideration to that being

79WH
shown to farming communities. The media have been swamped by discussions about the terrible plight faced by many of our farmers, but let us not forget our fishing communities. The Treasury must provide financial assistance.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has a strong case on the need to protect stocks of young haddock. It would be insane to destroy those stocks. The discard problem to which he referred is difficult to tackle, but the Norwegians have given us a lead and I should like to know whether the Scotland Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believe that we can learn any lessons from them.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about industrial fishing. It is being reduced, but it should be banned altogether. It destroys valuable fish stocks and I do not believe that anyone in any maritime nation—with the possible exception of Denmark—can make a case for it. In fairness to the Danes, they are beginning to examine the question. My hon. Friend was brave to talk about a seal cull, which is another matter that must be tackled.
Our fishing communities deserve the sort of sympathy and consideration that is given to other communities, in particular farming. Let us have equality of treatment for our damaged fishing communities, which have been badly treated down the years by both Tory and Labour Administrations. We have a good Minister dealing with the industry's problems and it is time that the Treasury listened to the all-party case for assistance.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): I advise hon. Members that the Opposition spokespersons have kindly and graciously agreed to reduce their contributions, which allows me to call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
10.29 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the official Opposition for that concession. I shall be brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on his clear exposition of the crisis and I am delighted that so many hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, have attended the debate.
I want to make a local point. I am grateful to hon. Members who mentioned my constituent David McPherson of Hopeman, who tragically died at the age of 39 last weekend, leaving behind a young widow and three youngsters. Our thoughts are very much with them, because their loss is most severe and heartbreaking. In addition, our fishing communities have lost a strong advocate for the fishing industry. Over the years, many hon. Members will have been in contact with David, who fought with great dignity and vigour for his cause and always presented well-argued cases. Last week, when he spoke at the rally in the Scottish Parliament and met Rhona Brankin, our Fisheries Minister, he put his case with his usual vigour. As my hon. Friend said, there will be an empty seat at the meeting with the First Minister this afternoon.
80WH
The dignity with which David argued his case is the dignity with which we should treat our coastal communities in responding to the issues that have been raised during the debate. This is one of the most despondent times that I have experienced in the years that I have represented the beautiful fishing constituency of Moray. The fleet has been in the van of technical conservation measures. It supports 25,000 jobs in our coastal communities and has a huge impact on our economic life These small businesses—floating businesses—are critical if a way of life is to have a future.
I conclude with words that were spoken last week in Edinburgh by one of David's fisherman colleagues. He said: "How can we talk of a long-term future if we don't have a present?" We must deal with the present crisis quickly and effectively, or we will not secure the future for the industry that we all want.
10.32 am
Ms Sandra Osborne: I was not expecting to be able to speak and I have drastically cut what I intended to say. I add my condolences to those of other hon. Members.
I want to concentrate on local issues. Recently I went to Troon harbour to speak to local fishermen and learn first-hand about their perspective on the situation. That situation is slightly different from that in other areas, but as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, individual circumstances have a knock-on effect on the whole industry. I found a dismal local picture. We are down to about 20 boats. I spoke to the owners of small family businesses in Troon, including a father and son whose family has been in the fishing industry for generations. I had intended to speak in detail about their plight, but I shall not take up time in doing do as all hon. Members will be well aware of it.
Through the partnership between the Labour-led Scottish Executive and the Labour Government here in Westminster, we will do what we can—notwithstanding structural change and the fact that we cannot artificially support market conditions—to deal with these crisis situations. We will be there to offer any support that we can. We have done that with shipbuilding and various other industries, some of which are represented in my constituency. Surely that also goes for fishing. Surely, we should support fishing as much as any other industry.
I ask the Government for their support on behalf of small family businesses in Troon, which have served our community well for many years. I shall not expand on that argument, as time is running short. I shall simply plead with the Government for their support. I know that they and the Scottish Executive are considering a response to the matter and I hope that it will come soon.
10.35 am
Mr. Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on having secured the debate. He passionately expressed the united desire in Scotland to sort the problems out. He also pointed out the consequences for nephrops and distant-water fishermen.
The debate provides an opportunity to reflect upon yesterday's deaths on a German-registered vessel west of Scotland. That reminds us of the danger that fishermen face so that we can have fish on our dinner tables. We must reflect on that

81WH
The nub of the hon. Gentleman's argument was the law of unintended consequences. Closing off areas for cod fishing has pressurised the haddock fishery. The 1999 year class has not yet reached minimum landing size. He stated that the discard ratio of the catch is 10:1—I was told that 90 per cent. is below minimum landing size. If such catches continue, there will be a drastic impact on stock. We should have anticipated that that would happen although it was an unintended consequence.
The primary purpose of the debate is to concentrate on the challenges facing the Scottish fishing industry. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out that those challenges have consequences for England in general and Cornwall in particular. The basis of the case being made either to the Scottish Executive or the Government is that there is an immediate need for £10 million, which was compared to the price of a striker recently bought by Glasgow Rangers. In terms of Government expenditure, that is a relatively small sum. If that investment were made, it would have a significant knock-on effect in protecting stock around Scotland, which would have consequences for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I am interested in the Minister's response to whether such a relatively small amount of money could have such a dramatic impact. We are discussing £10 million, which sticks in the craw of fishermen who know that at least £55 million is being given away to Spanish and Dutch fishermen as a result of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 fiasco, which was botched by the Tories. Britain's fishermen believe that they have a right to compensation when times are tough because we are spending £55 million on a serious mistake. Conservative Members have not apologised and during the previous fisheries debate we heard a brazen statement from them that blamed Europe, which was not in keeping with what I believe fishermen wanted to hear. However, it might be helpful if the Conservative spokesman would shed a little light on the assistance that a Conservative Government would provide in the current climate and on their fishing policy, because it is not clear. Does it include withdrawal from the CFP and limiting fishing to United Kingdom nationals in some way? How would Tory policy help to solve the crisis in the Scottish haddock fishery? We would be grateful for information on that.
The matter is urgent and I should be interested in the Minister's comments on whether a settlement for Scotland would set a precedent throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that under article 16 of the financial instrument of fisheries grant, compensation may be paid for a biological event and loss of access to a third country. Spanish fishermen are being paid for their loss of access to a third country and United Kingdom fishermen will find it difficult to understand why they cannot receive compensation under that instrument when the Spanish can.
What assessment has the Minister made of the proposals of the World Wide Fund for Nature for long-term restructuring and recovery of the fishing industry? What assessment has he made of the estimate of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation of the cost of compensation and paying for the fleet to be laid up? What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart on the Scottish Executive about the crisis?
82WH
What consequences might arise if different financial arrangements were made in Scotland and south of the Scottish border? If the Minister has received cold comfort from the Treasury, would he welcome broad, all-party representations to the Treasury to strengthen the case for compensation for the fishing industry?
10.42 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on this timely and important debate. As the official Opposition spokesman, I pay tribute to Mr. McPherson, who, tragically, died recently. His contribution to the fishing industry was immense and his words of wisdom will be sorely missed.
This debate is narrowly focused on the immediate problems in the fishing industry, which have been precipitated by the cod fishery closure programme. This is neither the place nor the time to make political points or an election address, although the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) seems to believe that it is. It is not the place to discuss the medium or long-term future of the industry, important as that is, nor the future of the CFP. However, the debate is not concerned only with the problems of the Scottish white fish industry, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, because they also affect the English east coast ports from North Shields to Lowestoft, many of which have beamer fleets which, at this time of year, would be fishing for their quota of plaice and sole in the areas that have been closed. It is important that if any compensation is forthcoming because of the problems precipitated by the closure of cod areas, it should be United Kingdom wide. That has been pointed out several times this morning.
The problem has been caused by the cod fishery closure programme and it is important that the Minister explains exactly how that came about and whether he was fully in favour of the way in which it was done. Was it based on accurate science? If so, why was there a second draft of the proposals and why were they different from the initial proposals? Was the closure programme based on the logbooks of vessels that were fishing in the traditional way in that particular area of the sea? If so, is it not an attack on fishing effort rather than a conservation measure? Was the timing of the closure appropriate? Fishermen to whom I have talked believe that spawning—which took place in November and December—was largely over by the time the recovery programme was implemented. Yet again, we have tried to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Why did the Commission not anticipate the problems that fishermen in the North sea now face? It was surely obvious to the fishing industry that catching effort would be switched to those areas and quotas that had hitherto been ignored at that time of year. It is no surprise to Scottish fishermen, who have picked up prominent early-year-class juvenile haddock, that there have been great problems in certain areas. A discard ratio of 10:1 is obscene in the extreme and credit must go to Scottish fishermen for voluntarily deciding to tie up in such circumstances.
The Commission's conservation measures seem too little too late and they take no account of the detailed knowledge of fishermen. If consultation had taken place

83WH
earlier, some of the problems that we now face might have been anticipated and alleviated. If the closure programme was ostensibly driven by conservation considerations, why is industrial fishing for sand eels—an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members today—to be allowed to continue? Given the mesh sizes used, industrial fishing is the most environmentally damaging practice, particularly in the cod-spawning areas that we are supposed to be protecting.
There is a real crisis in the industry and the time for consultation and discussion is over. The fishing industry sees the Government responding positively to the problems in farming and agriculture and regards its own need for compensation as modest in comparison and no less warranted. If the Minister has no words of cheer this morning, he will confirm the industry's worst fear: that it is to be made dispensable.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): As with all such debates, the speeches today have been thoughtful, serious and worthy of careful consideration and a detailed response. However, my time is limited so I want to focus on the main points.
I offer my condolences to those fishermen who were affected by the recent tragedy off the west of Scotland. I also echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about the use of the survival suit. That was a truly remarkable feat of survival by the fisherman concerned. I also pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of our rescue services in finding a single person in the seas at this time of year. It was a tragedy that Mr. McPherson died as he did, particularly given that he leaves behind a young family. They and the community in which he lived will miss him, and I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will pass on my condolences.
The debate has focused on compensation, which is linked to the cod recovery programme. I should make it clear, particularly to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), that I make no apologies for the cod recovery programme. It was the right action to take and was undertaken with the unprecedented involvement of the fishing industry. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows, the European Commission's original proposals were altered because the industry itself did not think that they were justified or would achieve their objectives. The final scheme was designed with the views of the fishing industry very much in mind, and was applied in a way that kept large areas of the North sea open for fishing. Alternative fishing grounds were available, although I do not dispute that a closure of that scale has an impact on the fishing industry.
The industry's involvement was crucial to the setting up of the cod recovery programme and I very much appreciate that. It is true that issues such as spawning dates need to be addressed, especially in the southern part of the North sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) brought inshore fisherman from his constituency to talk to me about
84WH
those matters. We will take their points seriously, and consider them when we examine future arrangements about spawning dates; for example, whether there should be different arrangements for north and south, or changes to the proposed area. Such schemes are not set in stone; they are dynamic and they evolve, depending on the industry's views about how they can be made effective.
Compensation is the most important issue, and I understand that. When I have met industry representatives, I have said that I accept the case for compensation because of the pressures on the industry. I have made it clear to the industry that I will press its case, and I have kept that promise.
There have been unprecedented demands on MAFF's reserve this year, as has already been touched on. Foot and mouth, swine disease and the cost of the flooding—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will let me finish, I think that I can reassure them, because I know what they are going to say. The financial demands on MAFF have been enormous. That does not mean, however, that the fishing industry does not have a legitimate case for compensation. I am not saying that, for one moment.
Mr. Salmond: I am glad that the Minister made that last remark, because he could see the outrage of hon. Members who represent fishing communities. They do not begrudge people compensation for foot and mouth disease; no sensible person would. However, if that were a reason for giving no compensation to the fishing communities, there would be mass outrage around the coastline. The Scottish fishing fleet has been voluntarily tied up for almost two weeks. If it is driven to sea by economic pressure, as it will be, the cod recovery plan will become the dent ruction of haddock plan. That will happen because haddock fishing is one of the few remaining areas where people can make a living, although they do not of want to make a living at the expense of the future Does the Minister accept that that is the reality? Can he offer us some help for the crisis period?
Mr. Morley: I understand the point, but I do not necessarily accept that that is the case. I will turn to the reasons for that in a moment.
I return to the demands on MAFF's reserve. Many people have demanded compensation, such as those who have suffered consequential losses because of foot and mouth—including the meat industry and the processing industry—and those who have suffered because of the floods. The Government cannot compensate all of them. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not saying that because of such demands, there will be nothing for the fishing industry.
Sir Robert Smith: I think that the language used causes problems when the Treasury is approached. The Minister must understand the structural problem. Compensation is not as important as the fact that MAFF has issued too many fishing licences. MAFF must ensure that there is restraint, or market pressures will mean that only some people take action. This is not a collective industry in which everyone can be forced to do something. MAFF has issued licences, and is part of the problem.
Mr. Morley: I understand that point, and I will try and address it in relation to choices and options.

85WH
The first issue to be examined is where the money comes from. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in some ways the fishing industry is not concerned about that, and I accept that it is not its worry. However, the fact that there are devolved Administrations contributes to the issue. The Scottish Executive have their own budget, within structural funds. Two thirds of the white fish fleet is in Scotland, so much of the cost of any scheme could fall on Scotland.
I strongly support devolution, and with an element of it, different choices can be made. However, structures are available for assisting the fishing industry in both England and Scotland; I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on that. We must approach the matter on a UK basis. Although devolution means that England and Scotland can have different approaches to fishing patterns and needs, we want a broadly similar approach. I have been working closely with Rhona Brankin to find ways of doing that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Morley: I understand that hon. Members want to intervene, but I have six minutes left to try and finish answering the points.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister assure the Committee that he will do everything possible to encourage the Scottish Executive to use the funds available to them to compensate those who have joined the voluntary tie-up scheme?
Mr. Morley: I take it that the hon. Lady is not asking me, as an English Minister, to tell the Scottish Executive what they should and should not do. Devolution is about making choices and I have every confidence in my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. They understand the pressures on the fishing industry
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, English fleets—including fleets in Cornwall, which, he suggested, is merely tacked on to England—are affected too.
How can we best help the industry? A case has been made for a tie-up scheme. I have carefully considered whether such a scheme would be effective and would meet the objective—which was the main point of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—of alleviating pressure on juvenile haddock. That is an important issue. The fact that we have one of the best year classes for many years is good news; it has the potential to be a good fishery for the North sea fleet. We need to protect that fishery.
The advice from the Scottish Executive's scientists at the marine laboratory is that the 1999 year class—twoyear-old fish that are predominantly undersized—is
"widespread throughout the northern North sea".
They have no evidence of a particular concentration of two-year-old fish in the areas that have been identified. That is the scientific advice, which I must listen to. Money will be difficult to find, so we must think about the best use of resources.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morley: I have only four minutes left so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish so that I can address all the issues.
86WH
We must decide on the most effective use of resources. For example, we might feel that there is problem with the Scottish fleet catching undersized fish. If we subsidise it for three months, after which it continues to catch undersized fish, it would be a bad use of resources. [Interruption. ]
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Morley: Members will be aware that there are many ways of reducing the catch of undersized fish. Concerns have been raised about the length of extensions to nets, which, in some cases, have been more than 70 m. That will negate the effect of using a square mesh panel. One way of reducing the catch of undersized fish is by prohibiting lifting bags. I know that those practical issues are under consideration by the Scottish Executive and the industry, which knows full well how to reduce the level of discards.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister should not only acknowledge the failings, but the fact that the Scottish fleet is further forward in technical conservation than the English fleet.The fishermen who demonstrated on those 167 boats know where the concentrations of juvenile haddock are. They were fishing in those locations to make a living. They refuse to fish there now because of the circumstances. Why can that area not be closed? The Minister says that closed areas work for cod, so why can they not work for haddock? Will he make it clear that he will not stop Scottish Ministers if they decide to do something about the crisis, a crisis that the Minister seems to be doing nothing about?
Mr. Morley: If the Scottish Executive have identified closed areas and think that they will be effective, I warmly welcome that. There is a case for closed areas where they are effective.
I was arguing that tie-up grants might be a short-term fix. I am not interested in short-term fixes, but in addressing the long-term problems of the fishing industry. We should also consider over-capacity, which raises the issue of decommissioning. Decommissioning has its downside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned. If we are to go down the decommissioning route, we must consider the shape of such a scheme. I acknowledge that the federations have been thoughtful in putting forward ideas that are worthy of consideration. My officials are considering the proposals and costings. The suggestions are serious and sensible.
On seals and industrial fishing, hon. Members know where I stand. We agreed on closures, for the first time, for sand eels. Norway pout fishing is excluded from the closed areas because it has a big by-catch. There is a dispute about the impact of sand eel fishing, but we have agreed on a joint study with the Danes of the total allowable catches. We are sharing science and putting our scientists on their boats. That has not been done before.
It is too easy to look for scapegoats such as industrial fishing, seals or power stations. The principal reason for the problem is over-fishing and too much capacity and effort. My time has been too limited to deal with the

87WH
sensible points put by Members, but I will consider them carefully. There are real issues here for the fishing industry and I will take them seriously.

UN Human Rights Commission
11 am
Mr. Paul Goggins: I am delighted to introduce this debate on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is the most important annual event devoted to human rights. The 57th session is due to begin on 19 March and will last for six weeks. It is an opportunity for the world's Governments, as well as human rights nongovernmental organisations, to consider the record of Governments and international organisations and to take appropriate action. The United Kingdom Government always play an important role in the meetings. This debate gives right hon. and hon. Members a chance to raise issues of concern, so that the Minister can take them into account when preparing for this year's session.
I will raise a number of general issues before making several specific points on Colombia. First, I want to underline the important role played by special rapporteurs. I pay tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley, the special rapporteur on torture, whose very effective term will end at the forthcoming commission. I also pay tribute to Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, whose work on summary executions has required great personal courage, and to Francis Deng, who has worked to develop new standards for people who are internally displaced as a result of war and conflict.
Those people receive no salary or remuneration for the difficult and sensitive work that they do. It is vital that they can make investigative visits and prepare their reports speedily and efficiently. I hope, therefore, that the Government will support arrangements to ensure that all rapporteurs are issued with standing invitations that enable them to make visits without undue delay or obstruction.
Secondly, I urge the Government to ensure that financial support for special rapporteurs' work is placed on a stable and sustainable footing. At present, most rapporteurs must raise their own funds and have little or no administrative support. Governments create those posts, so they should ensure that the positions are properly supported
The death penalty is likely to be raised at this year's commission. An unusual medley of states leads the opposition to its abolition: the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. I urge the British Government to use their influence to ensure that we see no further retreat from the progress that has been made towards eventual worldwide abolition of the death sentence.
Child soldiers are another important subject that will be raised. I am aware that UK Ministers do not accept the international majority view on the age limits for recruitment and combat. Although I do not want to use this debate to weigh the merits of their argument, I ask that those who put our Government's position have it in mind that the Governments of other countries, such as Myanmar or the Democratic Republic of Congo, will be looking to justify their policies of recruiting soldiers who are still far too young and who should be protected from the risks involved.

89WH
The world conference on racism, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance will he held in Durban in the first week of September. The conference will be chaired by the High Commissioner on Hunan Rights, Mary Robinson, and will be the subject of considerable discussion at this year's commission. Racial discrimination is a worldwide phenomenon. Although we in the UK are beginning to get to grips with the difficult issue of institutional racism, it is as much a matter of attitudes and values as it is of policy and regulation. I hope that the conference will help to produce a renewed burst of energy and ideas so that we can make further progress.
The issue that threatens to block progress at the world conference is compensation: the claim that people descended from slaves or others who have suffered from severe institutionalised racism should be compensated for the wrong that they have suffered and for the permanent depression of living standards that resulted. Given the importance of the world conference, I hope that the Minister will agree that it should not be diverted from its central purpose. I would be interested to hear his views on how that politically sensitive matter should be handled. At the very least, and as a first step, our schools should teach children the history of that period honestly and frankly. It is part of Our past, as well as that of people in Brazil, Caribbean countries and the United States.
The commission is the main international forum in which countries' record on human rights is publicly debated. Last year, a mild resolution was passed concerning the protection of human rights in Chechnya, but the situation there is no better and access to the territory no easier, either for Russian or foreign nationals. Reporting from Chechnya has been minimal, but serious allegations of human rights abuses continue to surface. I hope that the Government will encourage a full discussion of the issue.
Other hon. Members may wish to discuss other themes and other countries. I wish now to focus on the difficult and deteriorating situation in Colombia. In doing so I acknowledge the considerable assistance I have received from ABColombia and CAFOD. Colombia has suffered internal conflict for the last 40 years between the state and guerrilla groups—including FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and ELN, the National Liberation Army—and, more recently, an increasing number of paramilitary groups. The central directorate of the judicial police announced that 25,660 murders took place last year, in a country with a population of 35 million. Despite the heroic dedication of staff in the prosecutor general's office, the superior judicial council estimates that more than 60 per cent. of crime goes unreported, while 40 per cent. of reported crime goes unpunished. Even if the conviction rates were higher, that would create separate problems because the country's prisons, which were built for 30,000 inmates, already hold nearly 50,000.
The public ombudsman reports that 314 massacres occurred between January and August 2000. During the year as a whole 3,706 people were disappeared or kidnapped and 77 trade unionists assassinated. Civilians and representatives of civil society continue to be targets, not just the accidental victims of the conflict. Last October in Medellin, Angel Quinteró and Claudia
90WH
Monsalve from the Association of Relatives of the Disappeared and Detained were themselves forcibly "disappeared".
Barrancabermeja is a town of around 250,000 people, of whom 480 were selectively assassinated during 2000. The total so far this year is 108. Last September the entire directorate of CREDHOS, a local human rights organisation, received death threats from the paramilitary group AUC. Such murders and death threats have created a climate in which anyone who stands up for human rights is likely to be labelled a military target. As hon. Members will know, that happened most recently to volunteers working with the London-based organisation Peace Brigades International.
The chilling letter from the AUC to members of CREDHOS says that its aim is to "carry out social cleansing". It claims that the human rights workers are friends of the FARC and the ELN and that
"if we eliminate them we will be building the country we desire".
I welcome the announcement in January by the Interior Minister, Humberto de la Calle, of an anti-paramilitary and anti-hitman committee to combat paramilitary forces and to respond to the deteriorating situation in Barrancabermeja. However, there have been similar initiatives in the past and that has not prevented the situation from worsening significantly.
Forced displacement is one of the great tragedies of Colombia. I well remember the displaced people whom I met two years ago in a disused basketball stadium in the town of Quibó in the Chocó region. They had been there for 27 months. Human rights organisations estimate that the number of displaced people could be as high as 2 million, with more than 300,000 displaced last year alone.
Displacement hits women and children the hardest. A third of displaced families are headed by a woman. Only 15 per cent. of displaced children have access to schools. Many settle on the outskirts of the big cities of Bogota, Medellin and Cartagena in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. Many lack access to health care. The legal requirement to respond to the needs of displaced people is not matched by the actions of a Government who are still failing to provide a systematic programme or budget.
The office of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Bogota reported that displaced people and those who work alongside them have also received death threats. Despite the recent partial implementation of law 387, many of the recommendations made previously by Francis Deng, the UN special rapporteur on internally displaced persons, remain only words. Mr. Deng reported last year that most of the recommendations that he made on a previous visit in 1994 remain relevant today. It is important that his mandate continues.
The Colombian Government have made attempts to improve their human rights record over the last year, especially in bringing human rights violations before the civilian courts. I am personally grateful for the efforts made by the Colombian ambassador to the UK, His Excellency Victor G. Ricardo, to ensure that Members of Parliament are kept up to date with developments. As recently as 23 February I received a detailed note of the action being taken in some 15 different cases.

91WH
None the less, the conflict seems to move ever more quickly and the US State Department's report on human rights for 2000 concluded:
"The Colombian Government's human rights record remained poor; there were some improvements in the legal framework and institutional mechanisms but implementation lagged and serious problems remain in many areas. Government security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings".
The report goes on to claim that paramilitary forces find a ready support base within the military, and that members of the security forces regularly collaborate with paramilitary groups by sharing information, allowing them through road blocks and providing them with supplies and arms. They also report that high-ranking police and military officers are rarely charged with human rights offences. Given such strong words, it is hard to understand why the Clinton Administration were prepared to waive the human rights conditions that ordinarily attach to foreign aid and to grant $1.3 billion to a largely military-based Plan Colombia, which places additional power and resources in the hands of the very forces that they criticise.
At Foreign Office questions on 23 January I urged my hon. Friend to take steps to ensure that he could learn directly from grassroots communities in Colombia about what was taking place in the country. The Minister announced that he had issued an invitation to Father Francisco de Roux, a Jesuit priest who lives and works in Barrancabermeja and is the director of the Magdalena Medio Peace and Development Programme. I am delighted to say that Father Francisco is in London this week to meet the Minister and his officials. I was also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and I had an opportunity to meet him earlier this morning.
I asked Father Francisco what his message was for our Government and the international community. He said the most important thing was to encourage a dialogue for peace, but added that such dialogue—fragile as it currently is—was threatened principally by the paramilitary forces. He told us in detail how they have taken control of half his city by cutting communication links and forcing local families to provide their homes for use by the gunmen. He told us about members of a women's organisation who had worked in Barrancabermeja for 25 years but were being threatened by the paramilitary and told to leave. He told us about his friend Omar Vera, his wife, Benita, and their two children who were forced to flee to Bogota because of their work for the community. He also explained how the actions of the paramilitary go unchallenged by the police and the military, who parade openly on the street: everyone knows where their headquarters are, but no one arrests or charges them.
Father de Roux gave a personal account of how he had negotiated with a local commander for a food convoy to travel to peasant communities in the Magdalena Medio area. Just 15 minutes later, the truck and the food were seized by paramilitaries. After Father de Roux complained to the commander, everything was returned and no one was arrested.
92WH
Father de Roux underlined his belief that some of the worst elements in the military have been removed, but such events suggest that considerable collusion between the military and paramilitary still takes place at all levels. I pay tribute to him and the people who work with him, who show great bravery and deserve our continued pressure for action to improve human rights in Colombia
As a last word, I make three strong recommendations to the Government in advance of the UN Commission meeting. First, we should press for more support for the office of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Colombia, including the opening of offices in regional areas. Secondly, we should insist on a strong statement from the Chair to emphasise international concern about the lack of progress on human rights and, in particular, the actions of the paramilitary. Thirdly, we should press for a commitment to monitor the impact of Plan Colombia and, in particular, the impact of crop spraying on rural communities and the level of military activity that arises from it.
I look forward to hearing assurances that my and other hon. Members' points will be carefully considered in advance of the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
11.16 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: This is the second time in the past 16 hours that I have risen to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). I am grateful to him for introducing the debate and I congratulate him on his comprehensive and excellent speech.
It is almost a year since we last debated human rights in Colombia in this Chamber on 28 March 2000. Last night I refreshed my memory by re-reading our earlier debate. On that occasion, my hon. Friend pointed out that the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights had begun in the previous week. This year we are fortunate in being able to anticipate the 57th session.
I want to concentrate on three subjects: first, the human rights disaster that may be unfolding from the distortion of Plan Colombia, which has developed into a bilateral military aid project between Colombia and the United States of America; secondly, the emerging pattern of escalating violence in Colombia, which is targeted against the brave people who work for human rights; and, thirdly the lack of improvement in the persistent problem of impunity in Colombia and its consequential effects in denying human rights across the country.
In March 2000, hon. Members warned that the plan—originally designed for the purpose of advancing the peace process, improving the economy, contributing to the fight against narcotics, reforming the judicial system, promoting human rights and supporting democratisation and social development—was already losing its way. It was in its infancy, but was already becoming dominate I by a misconceived, anti-narcotics military plan between Columbia and the United States, posing a danger to the peace process with a potentially destabilising effect on the country. We now know that our worst fears have been realised.

93WH
That did not have to be the case. United States Colombia aid legislation passed in 2000 contained strict human rights provisions, for which human rights groups fought hard. They were intended to block United States aid unless and until Colombian armed forces ceased to support the paramilitaries. It was argued that without them the funding would inevitably support massacres, killings and disappearances. Although the House and the Senate agreed with them, they were qualified to allow a presidential waiver of the human rights provisions on national security grounds.
When paying the first tranche of money in August last year, President Clinton invoked the waiver provision; he allowed the aid to go forward, even as his State Department was preparing a report that showed that the Colombian forces who would get the money were inextricably linked to paramilitary groups, were implicated in human rights abuses, were ambivalent about allowing the civilian courts to deal with military personnel who were charged with human rights crimes, and failed to prosecute or even, in some cases, suspend officers implicated in abuses. It was worrying at the time that at least one of President Clinton's spokesmen was prepared to make human rights considerations subservient to their drug war. About that time, the United States drugs tsar, Barry McCaffrey, was reported as saying, "You don't hold up the major objective to achieve the minor." However, the official justification for the waiver at that time was a plea to allow the Colombian Government to have more time to make good their commitment to improve human rights protection.
More time was given. Five months later, in January, the second tranche of aid was due for payment. The human rights situation in Colombia had deteriorated; there was documented evidence of paramilitary activity continuing throughout the country and compelling evidence of collusion between them and the armed forces. Putumayo, the state where the drug eradication efforts are concentrated, had a high concentration of active paramilitaries. In his last days in office, President Clinton ignored the mounting evidence that Colombia was failing to meet the basic human rights requirements and agreed to pay over the money without the necessary human rights certification. He relied on a technical interpretation of the legislation to enable him to do so, arguing that he was bound to do so as a result of his earlier decision.
On 17 January, an estimated 50 paramilitaries conducted a chilling massacre in the village of Chengue in the province of Sucre. They killed 124 men by crushing their heads with heavy stones and sledgehammers in the main square of the village. Two bodies were later found in shallow graves. As they left, the paramilitaries set fire to the village.
The day after the massacre, the paramilitary leader, Carlos Castano, acknowledged responsibility for the killings and on the same day President Clinton announced that human rights protections were not relevant to the payment of the second tranche of money under Plan Colombia.
The experience of the implementation of the plan on the ground is that it is worsening conditions that have already deteriorated. If the initial objectives of the plan are to work, they must be consistent with a peaceful solution and not an excuse for an increased military
94WH
presence in the guise of humanitarian assistance. The implications of the plan being reduced to a militarised anti-drug operation are being acknowledged. The Colombian Ombudsman has called for the suspension of crop spraying in Putumayo after confirming that the operations were damaging food crops. The spraying has stopped, whether in response to the ombudsman's call or not, I do not know. The European Parliament rejected Plan Colombia by a vote of 474 to one, for the same reasons and because of worries about the human rights consequences of the United States' support for that approach and its support for an army that retained links to paramilitary forces.
Alternatives are emerging. The local government of the six south-eastern Colombian provinces opposed the plan. They remind us of what we knew and debated last year—that there was no consultation with civic society when the plan was designed—and they introduced initiatives based on ways to help local peasant communities, alternative eradication methods and new infrastructure projects. The European Union and the new United States Administration now have an opportunity to assess the project thus far and to transform it into a development plan. Unless that opportunity, in conjunction with the up-coming human rights commission, is seized now we may lose the opportunity to achieve the project's initial objectives.
On average, 14 people die every day in the conflict between Government forces, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia. On 1 February, the United Nations human rights observers reported that the human rights situation in Colombia was in a state of "alarming degradation". One of the most worrying features of the violence there is the targeting of human rights workers.
On that subject, the State Department report says:
"The Human Rights Community remains under intense pressure … Human Rights monitors were subjected to a systematic campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence. According to the Colombian Commission of Jurists, five Human Rights activists were killed during the year, three Human Rights Workers disappeared. A total of 49 Human Rights Workers have been killed or have disappeared in the last five years. On numerous occasions during the year, paramilitary groups in several municipalities circulated lists of the names of persons they considered 'military targets' which included the names of local Human Rights activists, Labour organisers and politicians."
As has been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East and I were privileged to meet Father Francisco de Roux this morning. He has a deserved international reputation as a champion of human rights, and lives in the city of Barrancabermeja. We met him when we visited Colombia in 1999. Our meeting this morning reminded me of the courage and dignity shown by many people whom we met during that visit.
Father de Roux's city is of strategic importance to the continuing dialogue between the Government there and the guerrillas, particularly the ELN. Traditionally, the city is a stronghold of that rebel group. The ELN requested that the Government grant it a safe haven for peace talks, such as the one that has been granted to the FARC. The proposed site was two hours by boat from Barrancabermeja, but the paramilitaries were determined to block that proposal. They vowed to cleanse the city of guerrillas.

95WH
Father de Roux reported to us this morning that almost half his city is now controlled by paramilitaries, who are employing their well-honed tactics of terror in poor neighbourhoods. They are forcibly placing their people in houses all over the city and are disrupting communications. There is no doubt that they have informal relationships with the military and police. They openly patrol the streets and, as part of their regime of terror, target human rights workers.
This year the paramilitaries issued threats against members of the People's Women Organisation. For 25 years, that organisation has been doing good work in the poor communities of the city. Its refusal to accept the paramilitaries has led them to turn their attention to the women and pressurise communities to expel their organisation.
In addition, members of the Peace Brigades International have become targets of paramilitary violence. A Swedish citizen, Lars Emerson, who works with the PBI, has been declared a military target. The authorities in Barrancabermeja are failing in their obligations to protect their citizens and the human rights workers.
Amnesty International has launched a worldwide campaign to protect human rights activists in Barrancabermeja. In the context of the meeting of the Human Rights Commission, a strong condemnation of the Colombian Government's failure to provide the necessary security for human rights workers or to combat the paramilitaries must be a priority.
The Colombian Government have attempted to improve their record in bringing those who perpetrate the violence before the civilian courts. However, their success rate is poor. The US State Department's report for 2000 states:
"The Central Directorate of the Judicial Police announced that 25,660 murders occurred during the year compared with 24,358 murders in 1999. The press reported that, on average, one person was killed every 20 minutes. The police and the Prosecutor General's office have insufficient resources to investigate most killings adequately. The superior judicial council estimated … that 63 per cent. of crimes go unreported and that 43 per cent. of crimes reported go unpunished."
That estimate was based on a 1997 survey. In 1999, when we were in Colombia, those whom we met estimated that impunity rates were as high as 97 per cent. Just as it is proper to record that the Colombian Government have attempted to improve their record on civil justice, it is also proper to record the personal bravery and commitment of the national officers who are charged with that task. However, impunity remains a serious problem and will continue to be so until those charged with human rights abuses, whoever they are, are brought to book before the appropriate civil courts. As long as paramilitary forces have a base of support in the military, the police and local civilian elites, that will be almost impossible to achieve. To quote the State Department again:
"Impunity for Military personnel who collaborated with paramilitary groups remains common."
I do not doubt President Pastrana's commitment to human rights. He has made serious attempts to combat human rights abuses. My hon. Friend the Minister is
96WH
aware that paramilitarism, impunity and the protection of human rights workers are important issues, and he is addressing them. However, I press him to set out the steps that the Government can take, and are taking, to ensure that those issues take a prominent place in our contribution to the pending 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
11.30 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I begin by saying that I recognise the inherent difficulty that is faced by any Government—as opposed to an NGO or, indeed, a Back Bencher—in pursuing a human rights dialogue with countries with which we have a relationship that is complicated by factors other than human rights. The Government have made considerable progress in working out how to deal with such dilemmas. In the modern world, we expect a degree of consistency in the way in which we relate to countries across the board. When I occupied the Minister's role, I was always conscious of the fact that it was far easier to beat up Burma than to be critical of some of the larger states. We must try to get the balance right.
I shall refer to a number of countries with which it is genuinely difficult simultaneously to maintain a relationship and a right to criticise. That right does not spring from some automatic moral onus. We can influence the behaviour of Governments—sometimes non-Governments—who allow the systematic abuse of human rights only by exercising a proper approach and maintaining a proper dialogue.
The Geneva hearings are important both symbolically and because they bring the world community together in a human rights jamboree. However, I am tempted to say that human rights are not only for Geneva, but for life. In reality, human rights abuse in countries such as Colombia takes place day in, day out. For the victims, the erosion of opportunity—sometimes even of life—is absolute, and that is not improved by an annual jamboree. We need year-round consistency. I am not criticising the Government—they have done more than any Government of recent times to take that agenda forward.
The first country that I want to talk about is Afghanistan. It is sadly ironic that in recent days the vast attention of the media has been focused on the destruction of Buddhist monuments. Of course, it is right and proper for the world community to criticise the Taliban Government for that destruction, which is an offence against human dignity. However, they have not faced that sustained level of criticism for their systematic erosion of the rights of the population of Afghanistan—especially women, who have borne the brunt of the conflict for a long time. At one point, Afghanistan had some 6 million refugees, both internally and over the borders in Iran and Pakistan, and even now it has about 2 million people living outside its borders. The systematic abuse of the rights of women has been a consistent theme. In extreme cases they have faced death, and violence—especially sexual violence—has been part of a systematic policy of eroding their position in society.
Women do not have access to the world of work in Afghanistan. Women who have tried to work—something that we would consider to be a normal

97WH
right—have suffered extreme penalties. Taliban extremists in Kabul have attacked women who have the permission of the Taliban Government to work for international aid agencies. Families that have tried to educate their daughters suffer astonishing attacks from zealots in the Taliban community. We ought to condemn that to the Kabul Government, but I freely admit to the Minister that it is difficult to know how to influence them. We must be consistent in our approach and say that their demands cannot be distinguished by reference to Koranic provision because many Koranic scholars would condemn their activities in Afghanistan as an outrage not only against women, but ironically against the code of Islam.
I have always been conscious that western European states have sought to maintain an ambiguous relationship with China. We perceive China as an emerging military and economic super-power, which are two things that it will become. Therefore, I would argue that we want good relations with the Government and people of China. In my city there is a large Chinese community, which actively operates between modern China and modern Britain; all the bridges that it builds are good and healthy.
However, the Chinese human rights record requires comment and criticism. The Chinese Government have allowed people from various positions in their society to be tortured. Political dissidents, people who exceed family planning laws, vagrants and common criminals have all suffered. I shall quote, although my Chinese pronunciation is not good, Mr. Hon Zongbin who, as chairman of the National People's Congress Committee for Internal and Judicial affairs, is a senior representative of the Chinese state. In December 2000, he reported on the findings of the NPC teams inspecting the implications of criminal procedure law in 12 provinces. He said that torture to extract confessions is
"rather serious in certain places, causing terrible social consequences"
and must be
"conscientiously dealt with rather than tolerated."
It is important that even in the Chinese state there are people who are trying to tackle issues such as torture. Nevertheless, we have a duty to ensure that the Chinese know that in our search for the best possible relations the protection of the Chinese people from the abuse of their human rights is an important measure of its Government's progress.
People from both sides of the divide in Kashmir live in Britain. Indeed, both sides are represented in my city. The last thing that I want to do is exacerbate tensions not only in Britain, but, through British Kashmiris, back in Kashmir. Although today's debate has nothing to do with a final settlement of the situation, I must say that I applaud the ceasefire, provided that it is genuine, imposed by the Indian Government. Despite the relative period of calm, violence and abuse against the civilian population by the Indian authorities is so extreme that we must place our concerns about the Indian Government, with which we would normally have the best possible dealings, on record. When we see an erosion of human rights, our friends must know that they are not immune to criticism.
I shall finish with a reference to Colombia, but I shall not reiterate what has been said this morning. I have great affection for Colombia and its people; it has a role
98WH
to play in the world. Ironically, human rights abuse in Colombia, unlike elsewhere, is not an instrument of state policy or even accepted by the state as being incidental to its other ambitions. It is more complicated. Colombia has been involved in a civil war of many sides and there is enormous capacity for confusion in allocating blame and demanding improvement. With my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I believe that President Pastrana's ambitions are acceptable to everyone in this Chamber. However, the sad reality of every recent Colombian Government is that their ability to control significant players has been less than we take for granted in the role of a modern state.
Many senior Colombians have tried to persuade me that the civilian Government are bringing pressure to bear on senior military officers to bring pressure to bear on the middle officer ranks. The crude reality is that too often the association between the army of the state and paramilitaries is so close as to make little difference and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East referred to that. The consequence is that the activities of the state are directly involved in the mass abuse of the rights of the Colombian people. I was going to quote 228,000 displaced people last year, but my hon. Friend says that it might be 300,000. Whether the figure is 228,000 or 300,000, the scale of human suffering and misery is almost unbelievable in a modern Britain.
We must retain Colombia at the top of the United Nations hearings agenda because international witness pays dividends for public perception of how matters are dealt with back home. The hearings are important and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East for introducing the debate at this time. It is important that the Government hear what is said in the Chamber during the Geneva hearings. The erosion of human rights does not occur only in countries that have been and will be mentioned today. It is a worldwide phenomenon and this country, with its free Parliament and a happy inheritance of relatively high respect for human rights by our institutions places on us the moral onus to maintain a human rights vigil 52 weeks a year, every year. I trust that following our debate the Government will consistently maintain those responsibilities.
11.43 am
Ann Clwyd: Last week, the all-party group on human rights held a meeting and heard four excellent speakers with direct experience of Chechnya, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) for introducing today's debate. However, it should, more properly, take place on the Floor of the House, and it should be a full day's debate. It is ridiculous that we are expected to encompass these important issues in such a short time and those who initiate debates on these important issues in future should insist on a full day's debate. I should like to discuss many countries, but I shall confine my comments today to Chechnya, which is suffering a forgotten war. I am ashamed that, as my hon. Friends said, those of us who are free and living in a democracy where we can be heard sit back while terrible things happen in Chechnya.

99WH
The four speakers that we heard last week included a representative of Human Rights Watch, which is based in Moscow, an elected Chechen Member of Parliament, who, of course, has never taken his seat, and Anthony Lloyd, a reporter from The Times who was based in Chechnya. They highlighted continuing human rights abuses by both parties, and it is right to emphasise the involvement of both parties because although it is mainly the Russians who commit atrocities, the Chechens also bear some responsibility.
The general conduct of the Russian campaign in Chechnya has been a matter of concern, especially the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force against civilians. The razing of Grozny last year attracted a lot of press coverage, and it has also been reported that most of the territory within Chechnya, to which there is very little access, has been devastated. Most civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people in Chechnya, have been left to fend for themselves with practically no assistance from the Russians. The Russian forces are accused of arbitrary detention, torture, extortion, disappearances and the continuing harassment of civilians. Unfortunately, those practices are reportedly a routine part of Russian operations. The notorious filtration camps such as that at Chernokosovo—in which Chechen men were allegedly systematically raped, beaten and killed—were widely reported last year.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. When talking about Chechnya, we should not forget the four brave British citizens who were so foully murdered in that country.
Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of that incident.
I can recommend an excellent book published by Human Rights Watch, entitled "Welcome to Hell': Arbitrary Detention, Torture and Extortion in Chechnya", from which I should like to quote a couple of passages. It is reported that Russian guards said to one detainee:
"Welcome to hell. You're lost now. You will die a slow and painful death. We will teach you to respect Russian officers."
A former detainee said:
"They used the iron part of their sticks to beat me on the bottoms of my feet. They put a cloth in my mouth so I couldn't scream, and they handcuffed me. They made me lay down on my stomach with my head under the table. They took off my boots and socks, and beat my soles, especially on the heels. Then they made me stand against the wall with my hands up, lifted my shirt and beat me on the kidneys with the sticks."
Human Rights Watch has also reported the comments of the man who talked to the all-party group on human rights last week.
Last week, there was also a chilling report in The Guardian by one of Russia's most respected journalists, who writes for the Moscow newspaper Novaya Gazeta. She travelled deep into Chechnya to investigate reports of torture, rape and detention camps run by the Russian army. If there were any doubts about the veracity of the shocking stories that she heard, they vanished when she
100WH
herself was detained by Russian troops. The journalist had turned victim, and she gave a graphic account in The Guardian of the way in which she was treated.
There were further reports this week of the discovery of what appears to be a mass grave near the main Russian garrison on the outskirts of Grozny. The number of corpses found has risen to more than 50, and investigators from Memorial, the brave human rights group in Russia, have reported signs of torture. Several corpses had ears missing. Most had their arms bound behind their backs, and many had been blindfolded. Several of the dead had disappeared after being detained by the Russians at the end of last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East mentioned Sir Nigel Rodley, the UN rapporteur on torture. He has asked to visit Grozny in Chechnya but, so far, has not been told whether he can do so. That is regrettable, although the two rapporteurs responsible for children and armed conflict and for violence against women have been allowed to visit the area. I hope that the Secretary-General's other representatives who have asked to visit the area will be allowed to do so.
We are concerned about the lack of accountability of the Russian forces. The Russian Government have repeatedly refused requests for independent scrutiny of the alleged violations, except for the visits by the special representatives, and are deemed to be acting in bad faith in the conduct of their investigations. Only one agency has the authority to investigate crimes in Chechnya and, according to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, only 47 investigations of crimes against civilians have been launched. None deals with allegations of torture of civilians held in custody, which apparently was committed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs or army service men. In addition, there have been no indictments in connection with the alleged mass killings in three areas and one of last weeks' speakers referred to the black hole into which complaints that are referred to Russian officials disappear.
I pay tribute to Lord Judd, who spoke at our meeting. He is the Council of Europe's special rapporteur on Chechnya and has produced several good reports on the situation there.
All last week's speakers referred to the climate of impunity that now exists in Chechnya. Russian troops believe that they are free to do as they want because they are certain that they will not be held to account for their actions. Senior Russian Government sources refer to the elimination of terrorists rather than the elimination of terrorism and that is worrying.
Unfortunately, most other Governments have shown themselves unwilling to take effective action to ensure that the Russian Government brings those violations to an end. For example, no cases concerning alleged violations of the European convention of human rights by the Russian forces have been referred to the European Court of Human Rights. It was suggested last week that Governments should pressure the Russian Government to accept independent observers in Chechnya to investigate violations that have been reported to the authorities, especially the large number of documented disappearances on which no action has been taken.

101WH
No Governments have recognised the Chechen Government, whose election was upheld by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and former President Yeltsin. Mr. Idigov, an elected Chechen Member of Parliament, who was here last week, and former official representative of the elected President of Chechnya, told our group of his inability to meet representatives of western Governments to discuss the Chechen conflict. The Russian Government are also unwilling to talk to the rebel leadership to try to bring an end to the conflict.
Will the Minister try to give Chechen representatives an opportunity to address groups of people and Governments? If they were allowed to do so at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which will meet on 19 March, it would be a valuable contribution to a wider discussion of the issue.
The Chechen forces are responsible for violations of civilian immunity, mainly by killing, injuring or threatening civilians who work with the Russian-installed Administration in Chechnya. We must also ask what future the rebels foresee for the Chechen people and whether universal respect for human rights is part of their future agenda.
The conflict is taking place behind closed doors. Nongovernmental organisations and independent journalists face significant obstacles to gaining access to, and working in, Chechnya. Unlike in many other conflicts, there are virtually no aid organisations on the ground—we know some reasons for that—and very few witnesses to what is happening. A few weeks ago, Frank Judd said:
"The failure of Governments to act is one of the saddest reflections on the whole ugly story".
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to throw some light on the matter.
11.55 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) on securing the debate, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). It insults suffering people all over the world that we have only an hour and a half this morning to discuss the problem. We ought to have a full debate.
The proposed agenda for the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva later this month is huge. We can do no more than scratch its surface this morning. It includes many issues and mentions 22 countries where human rights abuses are occurring. I will not deal with each in detail; if I did, hon. Members would never speak to me again.
We must seriously examine the language of the agenda. It includes terms such as affirm, reaffirm, commit, ratify, adopt, eliminate and maintain momentum. Where is the action? We are always reaffirming, but we never seem to get much action. Is the commission just a talking shop? The trouble is that there is no effective penalty against states that refuse to implement human rights. We hear, and we have heard this morning, appalling accounts of torture, abuse and murder. I could add to them at length. The commissioner travels around the world—on a very sparse budget compared with the rest of the UN—
102WH
deploring and denouncing, but the UN must be reformed if it is to be a more active organisation and not just a talking shop.
I call on the world to stop the rhetoric—we could talk endlessly about human rights—and start to address the underlying causes of human rights abuse. In yesterday's debate on the International Development Bill, we talked at length about poverty. We must do more about trade agreements that discriminate against poorer countries. The AIDS epidemic, the scale of which has been recognised only in the past few years, seriously damages human rights. There is a lack of good government and democracy. There is a need to control the arms trade. Four years on, we still do not have a draft Bill about that. Where is it? The drugs trade is another huge problem.
I will not deny that there has been some progress. The International Criminal Court is good news, and the legislation for it is currently going through Parliament. When, however, will we ratify the protocol on child soldiers under the UN convention on the rights of the child? The land mine convention was an excellent move, and we were all pleased about it. However, the cluster bombs that have now come on the scene are probably doing more damage to people and their human rights than landmines ever did. There has been depressingly little progress on that front.
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe said last year, when he was a Foreign Office Minister, that in an ideal world the Commission for Human Rights would be free of country-specific texts. Sadly, it is not. Although I promised not to talk about all the countries, I will briefly mention two or three.
I endorse all that has been said about Colombia. I too have been there, and I stayed in a village in the jungle where the most appalling abuses of human rights were taking place. The drugs trade—the problem that overhangs Colombia—has not been mentioned. We must ask ourselves whether we are tackling that correctly on an international level—I merely throw that out to the Minister. The United Nations should be discussing the issue. The problems of Colombia will not be solved until we do something about the drugs trade. Even if Plan Colombia has any effect—which it will not; it will only increase the suffering of the people of Colombia—it will merely divert the growing of drug crops elsewhere in the world and create yet another problem spot. I therefore urge the Government to look at that problem.
I wanted to touch on Sudan but, sadly, there is not much time in which to do so. Colombia is one hell-hole that I have visited; southern Sudan is another, with people bumping along the bottom of existence. They have no food; they are taken into slavery, abused, burned, raped and pillaged. It is a mediaeval society about which we have done little in the 40 years since we left Sudan. The Sudanese people expect us to do something; they were our people at one time and we united the two parts of their country. However, there is precious little progress or resolve among the international community to do anything about that problem.
The main country I wanted to address this morning is China, which is a very different problem; the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) touched

103WH
on it. Last year, the United States proposed a resolution condemning China's human rights record and in response the EU tabled a no-action motion to prevent discussion—many people say that that was just to protect our trade interests. The same may happen this year. China has nevertheless ratified the UN covenant on economic and social rights. It has not yet done the same in regard to civil and political rights but there seems to be a glimmer of progress.
According to Amnesty International—and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central—the wide-ranging crackdown on peaceful dissent continues in China: 260,000 people are in labour camps, there are great abuses of human rights in Tibet, the members of Falun Gong are persecuted and 18,000 people suffered the death penalty in the 1990s. In the USA, the death penalty is still imposed on people under the age of 18. I would call such people children—and they are being killed by the American Government. Will there be a UN action against the United States for that infringement of the rights of the child? That is an important topic and the USA should lead the world on it.
China is undoubtedly changing and progress is being made. Should we support that progress and condemn the human rights abuses? Should we encourage trade and cultural contact or suppress them until China changes? Should we stop the Olympic games in 2006 because of China's human rights record? Dealing with countries such as China is a dilemma for us; what I have said applies equally to Burma, which has been mentioned, and even Turkey. Maybe we need a carrot and stick approach. Will total condemnation and isolation only make things worse? I would like to know the Minister's views on those issues.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Let me make one thing clear: it was China who tabled the no-action motion and the EU voted against it—but it was passed anyway. That is a very important point. The hon. Lady said that it was the other way around.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that. I apologise; I misread my notes.
I wish to highlight an issue that has not been mentioned, which I hope the Government will raise at the UN Commission. Human trafficking in women and girls is the most extraordinary and sickening development in recent times. Two million women work as prostitutes worldwide; there are thousands in London. Some of them pay people traffickers £25,000 to come over to work in London as sex slaves, nothing more nor less. Paul Holmes of the Metropolitan police vice squad has said how many thousands there are in London, but doing anything about sex slaves and the problem of people trafficking in London is not one of the Met's performance indicators. I know it is not the Minister's area of responsibility, but it is a worldwide problem. People are coming from eastern Europe and it is happening around us in London. The international community spends millions of pounds on tracking drug traffickers. When will we start to spend the same amount on combating people trafficking? We must have some action from Geneva.
104WH
Lastly, I remind the Minister that many of us signed a renewal of the declaration of human rights. It was first signed over 50 years ago in 1948. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) signed it. We were in the Dining Room with the Foreign Secretary. I think that we used the same pen as him, which was pretty riveting stuff. What does it all mean, if it does not result in improvements? Liberal Democrats believe that the time has come to move from the process of declaration to the implementation of our commitment based on that universal declaration.
12.6 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) on securing this debate. I also congratulate all those who have spoken. It seems to be the same crew every time, and here we are again. It is particularly apposite because the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will be held in Geneva from 19 March to 27 April. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I regret the fact that this debate is in Westminster Hall rather than on the Floor of the House and that the Government have not allocated any time for a debate before such an important meeting.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, the provisional agenda is comprehensive, covering everything from racism and religious intolerance to summary executions and the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms. Like her, I shall not read out the whole agenda. I simply ask: who will represent the UK at that meeting? Will the Minister place copies of the UK's position on each item of the agenda in the Library to summarise the lines that we will take on all the important matters that will be raised? I hope that the UK will be present throughout and will make a firm contribution. As the hon. Lady reminded us, we all signed up to a renewal of our views on human rights two years ago. This Government have made much of their vaunted ethical and moral foreign policy.
In the brief time left to me I should like to raise three specific issues. The first concerns Burma. I should like to pay tribute again to Wilfred Wong of the Jubilee Campaign, which consistently provides us with information about Burma. Recently it sent out some filmed evidence of atrocities currently being inflicted on Burma's internally displaced minorities. Would the Minister accept a copy of that video and let me have his comments on it? As I understand it, the British Government have yet to acknowledge that there is a genocide and neither has there been any financial assistance to the Kareni or the Shan. There are more than 342,000 internally displaced Kareni and Shan people in Burma, many of them hiding in the jungle from the Burmese army who normally kill them on sight.
Mr. Battle: That is not true. We are assisting them, although not in Burma as we do not deal with the Burmese Government. We are assisting in the refugee camps that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited in Thailand. That is the way to do it. That is where most of the Karen are.
Mrs. Gillan: I said that the Government have not given any financial assistance to the internally displaced

105WH
Karen. I said that they have not given any financial assistance to the 600,000 internally displaced; I was specific in choosing my wording. I appreciate that there is help in the camps, but I want to know what help is being given in the country. It is not outwith the bounds of possibility for help and assistance to be given.
Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I want to raise the issue of China, because, once again, the United Kingdom will not be sponsoring a resolution condemning China's record on human rights, for which the Conservative party has consistently pressed since it has been in opposition. When the Conservative party was in government, we co-sponsored the resolution. The United States will introduce a resolution on China's human rights practices at the meeting of the Commission's meeting in March. I hope that the Minister will say now whether he will co-sponsor the resolution encouraging China to take positive, concrete steps to meet its internal obligations to protect the fundamental freedoms and civil liberties of the Chinese people. I am not encouraged to think that the Minister will give me that assurance, which is a great shame; when asked whether he would support the resolution on the Chinese Government his weak and weedy written answer was as follows:
"We and our partners are considering the EU's approach to China at the forthcoming 57th session … This process has not yet been concluded.—[Official Report, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 562W.]
It is a little while since 23 January and I hope that the Minister will tell us today that he will sign and cosponsor the resolution; anything less is unacceptable.
Less than two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and I went to Zimbabwe, where we met some of the bravest people that it has ever been our privilege to meet. We met residents of the high-density area of Harare, whose freedom and jobs are disappearing out of the window, farmers who have been casually thrown off their farms, and workers and their children whose homes have been taken from them who are forced to live in sheds that once housed working machines. We met farmers who have not been allowed to plant seed on their farm for more than a year and whose farms are going to rack and ruin. We met lawyers—the judges in Zimbabwe are the last bastion of the rule of law. We met Morgan Tsvangirai, the brave leader of the opposition MDC party, whose offices have been bombed and activists beaten up, some just for wearing an MDC tee-shirt.
Since we left Zimbabwe, in the last few days the seventh white farmer has been murdered—Mrs. Olds' husband was also cruelly slaughtered two years ago and within hours of his death Mugabe went on television saying that white farmers were "our enemies".
Where is the voice of the United Kingdom Government in all this? We have been deafened by their silence. The Chief Justice has been thrown out of office, foreign journalists have been expelled, the economy is in free fall and there will probably be food shortages by the end of the year, but the United Kingdom has done nothing.
What has Mugabe done in the past few days? He has taken off on a tour of Europe and been fêted by our so-called European partners while we stay silent. The Times this morning reported that not only did Mugabe have an
106WH
excellent and friendly meeting with Mr. Chirac, but he was treated to a standard protocol fanfare from 75 plume-helmeted soldiers of the Garde Republicaine. Where was the protest from the United Kingdom Government at that reception?
I agree wholeheartedly with the Daily Mail editorial today, which stated that President Chirac alone is not to blame and that while the United Kingdom Government stays silent
"EU development commissioner Paul Nielson rolls out the red carpet for Mugabe, while the Belgian Prime Minister … actually invites him home. The terrorised people of Zimbabwe see their tormentor feted wherever he goes."
The livelihoods of people in Zimbabwe are slipping away from them; their homes have been taken and violence is continually threatened, yet Europe fêtes Mugabe and the UK Government remain silent. It is about time that we heard a voice from that Government. I should like to stiffen the Minister's backbone and the so-called ethical and moral foreign policy. The French and Belgians have breathed a new lease of life into a man who, by any stretch of the imagination, is clinging on to power through violence, creating chaos and destroying his country. When will the UK speak up for the citizens of Zimbabwe? When will the UK realise that there cannot be honesty in government unless we tell our European partners about our distaste for their actions and stand up for the people of Zimbabwe, who rely on us. Given the actions taken by the French and Belgian Governments, I certainly do not hold out any hope for a common European foreign policy—not that I ever did.
Today, while we discuss human rights, I am giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us on the Government's behalf where Labour's voice is and whether they appreciate freedom and hate tyranny. If he cannot in this debate condemn Mugabe's actions and join us in calling for sanctions concerning the closest supporters of Mugabe, he is practising the politics of convenience and betraying everything that this Government and country should stand for and certainly the people of Zimbabwe. The Minister is a decent and honest man, so I hope that the first words that he utters will be a condemnation of Mugabe.
12.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): My first words are that I hope that I will not be condemned for not being an honest and decent man, but I will return to the issue of Zimbabwe. It is a most serious concern, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for raising it.
I start by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who has a record of raising matters of international development, justice and peace. I am tempted to say to him that, as other hon. Members know, campaigning on human rights in other parts of the world is not always popular when we are trying to be re-elected and to represent our own constituents. I do not mean that cynically in relation to the immediate election, but raising international affairs is not the easiest job in our society, and I compliment all those who do so regularly.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about the same old crowd, but I am impressed by this morning's turnout. I also share the view that we

107WH
should be debating the issue on the Floor of the House. I will take that suggestion back to my Department, because there are ways in which we can demand a full debate. Whether in the parliamentary Labour party or as Ministers, we can raise themes to debate properly on the Floor of the House. This debate is taking place before the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, so it is timely.
This year, I held a meeting in the Foreign Office with a range of NGOs to get their input. We talked to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, Anti-Slavery International, Article 19, the UN association, Disability Awareness in Action, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, minority rights groups, the Refugee Council, Save the Children, Amnesty, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Index on Censorship and others. I cannot name them all, but there were more organisations. The purpose of the meeting was to hear their voices, to see what issues they wanted us to discuss and to ask them to suggest amendments that we should work towards in getting consensus and resolutions passed by the UN. Those organisations warmly welcomed that.
Having recognised the input of NGOs, perhaps we should do more to recognise the input of right hon. and hon. Members. As we have heard this morning, they have real expertise to offer on these matters. I will happily take back with me the proposal that we have a serious debate every year on the Floor of the House in anticipation of the commission, which would allow us to decide what our key themes should be. I will say why. Amnesty International's first priorities were Russia, Chechnya, Colombia, Sierra Leone, China and Saudi Arabia. Zimbabwe was not on that list, but perhaps it should be. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham for her contribution on Zimbabwe, which raises serious concerns. Many other countries were listed, as well as themes such as torture, the death penalty, forced disappearance, children, abduction and slavery in Sudan. The range of the agenda was there at the meeting, but perhaps we need to extend the parliamentary debate. Next year, we may be able to work together in different ways to achieve that.
The forum was a welcome contribution and we must not underestimate the wealth of knowledge and experience of NGOs and others who help us—Members of Parliament and Ministers—to understand what is happening on the ground. In the age of the e-mail and the fax, we can learn much more about the impact of the denial of human rights on local communities. We do not have to wait for telegrams from embassies, which should no longer be regarded as the source and fount of all knowledge about a country. We can receive direct information from our global communications systems—a helpful tool to encourage us to be more alert and responsive. We need to take further action, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said when she encouraged us earlier to move on from resolution-based politics.
We have tried hard; we shall continue to do our best to put human rights at the heart of foreign policy; but we have a long way to go. I do not resile from the task; promoting human rights is one of my passions. Of
108WH
course we promote British interests and pursue British values, but they must be based on the rights enshrined in the developing corpus of international human rights law. Getting the laws and the words right is one thing, but I accept that implementation is crucial.
In its 2000 audit of the Government's foreign policy, Amnesty International referred to
"a record of real achievement—including the constructive role the UK has periodically played around the world, the passing of the Human Rights Act and the increasing importance accorded to human rights and international justice in UK diplomacy abroad."
We would have a solid delegation at the UN session. Yes, and our delegation will be led by Mrs. Audrey Glover CMG, the former head of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and a former senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal adviser. She will do a fine job; I hope to be there alongside her at the meeting. I shall address one of the sessions on 22 March. We will be there, and I can confirm that we shall be fully engaged in all the issues that are debated.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister attend for a longer period than it takes to deliver his speech? How many days will he spend at the conference?
Mr. Battle: We are sending a full team to negotiate the wording and it will be in place for the whole period. Different sessions take place on different countries among different teams, so I could not physically attend every workshop to debate the wording the whole time. That is not the role of Ministers, but I shall be there as long as I can. I am going there to listen as well as speak.
Mrs. Gillan: How long?
Mr. Battle: I think that my diary will confirm that I shall be there for two full days. I am more than keen to attend for as long as I can. The hon. Lady might like to know that I am probably due to answer parliamentary questions on the Floor of the House and that I have other responsibilities in Parliament. I repeat that I want to attend the session for as long as I can, and that I have every confidence in the team. I want to move on because I have so much ground to cover in my remaining time.
Britain lobbied hard to be re-elected to the 53-member Commission on Human Rights and we secured a place last May for another three years. We were elected top of the western group and we should not take our place at that table for granted. We have to campaign for it and we need a respected track record to be there. Only six of our EU partners are on that commission, not including the current presidency.
We are keen to ensure that we retain a good track record. We shall actively contribute to EU initiatives on Sudan, Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories, Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, East Timor and Colombia. We shall also campaign on the death penalty and rights of the child. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned trafficking in people, an issue that is thankfully moving up the agenda. It is every bit as serious as the international drugs trade. All those matters will be on our agenda and I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's representations are heard.

109WH
A key UK objective in all UN human rights forums is to uphold the human rights principles that all Governments signed up to at the world conference on human rights in Vienna in 1993. It is increasingly understood that human rights are the legitimate concern of the international community. Human rights are universal, a seamless garment applying equally to all human beings everywhere. Everyone with a name and a face has a right to be represented in terms of basic human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East praised the work of the special rapporteurs, which I welcome. However, I should pick him up on one small point. He paid tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley, and I endorse that praise. However, I understand that Sir Nigel Rodley has no plans to step down at this session of the Commission on Human Rights, even though he has recently been elected to the Human Rights Committee. We will work closely with the Danes on their draft resolution on torture, which will renew the special rapporteurs' mandate. It is not a fait accompli—he has not finished his work yet, and I do not want to give that impression.
A number of countries—Norway, Canada, Iceland and the Czech Republic—have indicated that they will issue standing invitations in respect of UN thematic procedures. NGOs have been lobbying EU member states to do the same. We are in favour of the practice of issuing standing invitations and have been consulting other Departments to ensure that they are happy with that arrangement. I am optimistic that, when I get to Geneva, I will be able to make a positive announcement on that issue so that we can move the internal workings on to make them more implementary rather than simply resolutionary.
It is our policy to encourage all Governments to ratify the core UN human rights treaties with minimum reservations, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Internationally, emphasis and attention must now be given to implementation. Governments have freely undertaken obligations under the treaties, and they must fulfil them and co-operate fully with UN mechanisms. The UK is no exception: all our Departments have to respond in detail to the questions of special rapporteurs, and so they should.
We want to continue our efforts to eradicate torture and will continue the Foreign Secretary's anti-torture campaign, the second phase of which was launched in December 2000. We want the World Conference against Racism to be successful. It has been set up, and we want to follow it through and be actively engaged. I would like to go myself—if that would make the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham happy, it would make me happy—but events before the date of the conference might preclude that. We try to do as much as we can to ensure that as many countries as possible open their doors to UN rapporteurs and scrutiny. Openness to scrutiny is a start along the road of implementation.
We are committed to taking preventive action at all levels to protect children caught up in armed conflict. We have ratified International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for armed conflict. We are
110WH
working with the ILO and NGOs on a global lobbying campaign aimed at achieving universal ratification of ILO convention 182.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Battle: I have three minutes to reply on Colombia. I have the whole world to cover, and Colombia was a key focus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned China. We raise the matter of human rights regularly with China. Dialogue took place in February and, when Mary Robinson was there, there was some progress on China. We will not step back from pressing the Chinese on Falun Gong and the treatment of people who practise Falun Gong and are being harassed, even in this country. I personally raised that with the Chinese ambassador. We insist that they answer for a list of people in China whom we know are being tortured or are missing, and we will not step back from that. It is important to keep momentum behind that dialogue. We have the mechanism to push it, but there has not been sufficient action. We are not happy with progress on that matter.
Mrs. Gillan: What about Zimbabwe?
Mr. Battle: If the hon. Lady would stop nattering, I would be able to get to the points that need to be addressed. I will ensure that our positions and resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights are available in the Library for hon. Members to read. That back-up will enable me to respond in detail on all the countries that have been mentioned.
I met Father Francisco de Roux in Colombia. I do not have time to respond in full to the two hon. Members who raised the issue of Colombia, but I thank them for doing that. That situation has worsened. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is on her way to Washington, where she will discuss the implementation of the American Plan Colombia.
Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mrs. Michie. Is it right that a Minister should reply to a debate, even in Westminster Hall, and ignore some of the main points that were made? The Minister has failed to reply to urgent questions on the Government's attitude to Zimbabwe. Is it in order for a Minister not to respond to a debate?
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): What the Minister says is entirely up to him. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Battle: If the hon. Lady would but listen, she would know that I have made it clear that we take the situation in Zimbabwe very seriously. I cannot go into detail on that because I want to reply to the hon. Member who introduced the debate. I am prevented from doing so by the hon. Lady, who is hijacking the debate.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Railway Crossings (Stone)
12.30 pm
Mr. William Cash: Level crossings on public highways are causing my constituents serious problems. There is one in Hixon, three in Stone, one in Barlaston and another at Blythe bridge. There is also a level crossing on a private road at Wedgwood. Each has its own characteristics, but there are overall serious safety issues, particularly in the light of the proposed high-speed trains that will travel at 125 mph on the west coast main line. Serious traffic congestion problems are also causing my constituents enormous inconvenience. I am informed that in 1997, Railtrack confirmed to the highways committee of Staffordshire county council that it intended to remove all level crossings on the north Staffordshire branch of the west coast main line. That is the best solution. In late 1998, Railtrack still wanted to remove crossings wherever possible but asked the county council to investigate other options. The Health and Safety Executive requires the upgrading of all crossings to manual operation, with full-width barriers monitored by closed circuit television.
I shall give details of the crossings involved. There is an automatic half-barrier at Hixon, which was the scene of a major rail disaster in 1967; there have been two accidents in the past 18 months, with collisions between trains and cars, one of which was fatal. I am glad that Railtrack, in conjunction with the county council, has decided to provide a £2 million bridge for pedestrians and vehicles. That is an important precedent. There is an automatic half-barrier at Aston-by-Stone which raises serious safety concerns, particularly for children and local residents. It is adjacent to a major housing estate of 700 houses. The crossing at Church lane lies on the only access point to the local housing estate and the barriers fail frequently, cutting off the estate—and access for emergency services. The crossing at Meaford is manually controlled from an adjacent signal box. The one at Barlaston cuts the village in two, causing heavy traffic delays and congestion. The one at Wedgwood is normally closed outside the working day. At Blythe bridge, the crossing system fails periodically and repair staff from Nottingham can, I am told, take up to two hours to arrive. There should be a bridge or underpass at Aston-by-Stone and an alternative route provided at Church lane. Meaford crossing requires at least a traffic management scheme and, if possible, an alternative route. Further analysis is needed at Barlaston, with the option of bridges or other routes; in the short term, closed circuit television systems must be provided immediately.
I am grateful for the representations that I have received from Staffordshire county council, Stone town council and Railtrack. I have also had replies from Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator and Sir Alastair Morton of the Strategic Rail Authority but as yet no reply to my letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. All the proposed improvements cost money. Excepting the bridge at Hixon, which is going ahead at a cost of £2 million, the county council has estimated that the bridge at Aston-by-Stone would cost £3.5 million, the one at Church lane £1 million and at Barlaston £2.5 million. That is a total of around £8.7 million.
112WH
Yesterday I took part in the debate on the special grant report, which supports local authority private finance initiative schemes, including that of Staffordshire county council, one of the list of 74 authorities. The Under-Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, by whom I mean the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who responded to the debate in Committee yesterday, said that approximately £8 billion is being provided in credits, the maximum amount of grant in any one case being £160 million. I asked the Under-Secretary to confirm in principle that the special grant could be made available to Staffordshire county council to fund the closure and the radical solutions needed to deal with all the level crossings in my constituency, given the safety and traffic congestion problems. I doubt whether many constituencies have as many as eight level crossings in such a confined area, a situation crying out for special treatment. Indeed, road schemes, bridges and tunnels are all specifically mentioned in the nightmarishly complicated, explanatory notes relating to the private finance initiative. The Under-Secretary is investigating the matter and will write to me about it.
We are about to hear in the Budget speech about the massive war chest of billions and billions of pounds that the Government hold. That has been generated by increased taxation, some of which has fallen on my constituents. I therefore urge the Government to provide the necessary money for their safety and convenience. Where trains travel at 125 mph, there is a general rule that crossings should be closed—a point that was confirmed to me by the Rail Regulator. That is why, in 1997, Railtrack proposed to the highways committee that all the crossings should be closed.
There should not be an ultra vires problem with the PFI route, because once the bridge, tunnel or other route had been provided, the railway would continue unaffected, and the special grant procedure would apply to the provision of the new facility standing on its own. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary said that if, having investigated the matter, she found that a problem was caused by a railway crossing with a railway running one way and a road running the other, that would be a potentially hybrid situation that could present legal obstacles to providing the money by special grant. My answer to that—which is a reasonably good one, given that I have specialised in ultra vires problems for some time—is that once the crossing and apparatus had been removed and the bridge provided, what would have been provided in terms is of PFI would be a new facility, the bridge, owned by the county council and connected with the highway on both sides. The problem of the involvement of the railway would thus be eliminated. The railway would still be there, but it would go under the bridge, which would become vested in the county council as part of the local highway.
It is essential to bear in mind the fact that the county council or Stafford borough council could fund schemes themselves. However, I have a written reply dated 27 February from the Under-Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), which gives the figures for levels of spending on highways per head of population in Staffordshire compared with other counties. It reveals that, for 2000–01, Staffordshire has, by a massive margin, the lowest level of capital

113WH
expenditure per head in the entire country, at £1.39. That is a disgrace, the responsibility for which lies with the Labour Staffordshire county council and the Government for their appalling failure to remedy Staffordshire's inadequate funding under the standard spending assessment system. Responsibility also lies with Railtrack, which, as we know, is cutting its investment programme. If it was prepared in 1997 to propose the closure of all the crossings because of high-speed trains, surely the money must be found as an urgent priority.
I have been in detailed communication, in correspondence and conversation, with the Rail Regulator, Tom Winsor. He has told me in writing that the Strategic Rail Authority could include the level crossings in the SRA's incremental output statement programme. I wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, and received a reply yesterday in which he stated that the local authorities, including the Labour county council, have not been in contact with the Strategic Rail Authority about improving the level crossings. I regard that as extraordinary and disgraceful, because improvements for level crossings are primarily a matter for the local highways authority and for Railtrack.
Mr. Winsor also wrote to me, saying that
"under condition 7 of its network licence…Railtrack is obliged to maintain, develop and enhance its network in accordance with best practice in a timely, efficient and economical manner so as to meet the reasonable requirements of its customers and funders to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances including matters of financing. In that respect, therefore, the first question is whether Railtrack is already being funded to do the relevant work on the level crossings in question. Generally, as part of my periodic review of Railtrack's access charges (announced on 23 October 2000), Railtrack is funded to operate, maintain and renew the existing network, with enhancements (such as new capacity) being funded separately and in addition to the sustained network.
If Railtrack is already funded for these level crossing works, I have powers of enforcement under the Railways Act 1993, sections 16A-I (as inserted by section 223 of the Transport Act 2000) and section 55. If it is not, and the access charges and network grants which the company is to receive in the next five years do not finance these improvements, it is of course open to anyone else to provide the necessary funding."
Hence my earlier remarks. Mr. Winsor continues:
"This could be a local authority, one or more train operators or the Strategic Rail Authority."
As I have pointed out, I have been in touch with the Strategic Rail Authority and discovered to my grave concern that the local authorities have not made contact. Mr. Winsor continues by pointing out that, under the statutory arrangements, he is able
"to compel Railtrack to carry out the necessary works on terms, including as to price and quality, determined by me. You will see from section 16E"—
the statutory provision in question—
"that, before I order Railtrack to do the work, I must be satisfied that Railtrack would be adequately rewarded. In essence, this means that it will be paid a fair price. That process of determining adequate reward would take account of the efficient cost of the works, any financing costs which would be incurred and any benefits which will accrue to Railtrack."
He then repeats the statutory provisions.
The Minister will appreciate that the concentration of railway crossings constitutes a serious problem, and there is also an enormous problem with safety and traffic
114WH
congestion. Ultimately, the question is one of funding. The Rail Regulator has the power to require Railtrack to complete the work. Railtrack itself had originally intended to close all the crossings, but as a result of pressures on finance that will not happen.
My constituents and I are grateful for the provision of a bridge at Hixon, which has set a precedent. However, the fact remains that, as Mr. Winsor said,
"Railtrack is obliged to … develop and enhance its network in accordance with best practice".
He has made it clear that, if Railtrack is funded, he can enforce the necessary changes. He adds that
"elimination of level crossings is necessary"—
I should be grateful if the Minister would grasp this point
"where linespeeds exceed 125 mph".
I would strongly argue that the dividing line between 125 mph and 126 mph should not he allowed to affect my constituents' safety. Under the Transport Act 2000, if Railtrack is given a fair price for doing the work, the Rail Regulator can take action, as we have seen. The situation regarding level crossings cannot be allowed to continue.
Cost must be weighed against safety and convenience. The Labour Government, the Labour county council and the Labour borough council can combine with Railtrack to solve the funding problem, but only if they have the will to help my constituents by tapping into the monumental sums at the Chancellor's disposal on this Budget day. There is no excuse for inaction, so if the normal financial channels are not available because the county council has inadequately funded the highways, and if Railtrack is reluctant, why not use the special grants under the private finance initiative?
One way or another the money is there, so I trust that the Minister will promise to find a means by which to tap it.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing this important debate on safety at level crossings in north Staffordshire. I also thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the detailed matters that he wanted to raise. However, I must chide him for his unreasonable complaint about the failure of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reply to him. The hon. Gentleman wrote only nine days ago, on 28 February, as part of what is evidently a late flurry of activity on his part. I assure him that he will receive his reply shortly.
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate gives detailed guidance on safety provision at level crossings, which determines the standard of crossings in relation to the type of railway operation. The Level Crossings Regulations 1997 are an order-making procedure enabling level crossings to be upgraded. In general, orders would be confirmed under delegated powers by the railway inspectorate. However, if the orders were subject to objection, they could be referred to my Department and the Secretary of State for decision. In other words, the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in such matters. Hon. Members will therefore

115WH
appreciate that Ministers are unable to comment on current cases. More significant improvements, such as removing a crossing and replacing it with a bridge, would generally be subject to planning permission or transport and works Acts orders. The Secretary of State determines those orders, so Ministers are unable to comment on the merits of individual cases.
The west coast main line, which passes through Staffordshire, is one of the country's main rail arteries, linking London with the west midlands, Merseyside, Manchester, north Wales and Glasgow. The crossings that concern the hon. Gentleman are on the north Staffordshire line. Renewal and upgrading of the west coast main line is probably the largest, and certainly one of the most complex, investments in railway infrastructure in the world. The current estimate of the total cost of the project is £5.8 billion, which will enable Virgin Trains to run more, faster trains on the fast lines and make enhancements to meet the Strategic Rail Authority's requirement for additional capacity for local and freight services on the slow lines. Faster trains create a requirement to upgrade level crossings to ensure safe operation. Replacing the level crossing with a bridge, upgrading from a half barrier to a full barrier or, in some cases, closing the crossing and diverting the road can achieve that.
The six crossings on the north Staffordshire line between Colwich junction and Stoke-on-Trent especially concern the hon. Gentleman. Railtrack has identified level crossings on this section of the west coast main line as being unsuitable for anticipated increases in train speeds and has developed proposals to respond to that. It has discussed its proposals with the county council, the railway inspectorate and other public bodies, and it has issued a press notice indicating its intentions at each crossing.
I propose to discuss in turn each crossing that concerns the hon. Gentleman. First, Hixon is the most southerly of the level crossings, and provides the most direct route between the villages of Hixon and Stafford. The crossing takes the form of an automatic half-barrier. Railtrack has decided to replace the crossing with a bridge, and planning permission has already been obtained.
Secondly, the Aston-by-Stone level crossing is on the B5027, on the edge of Stone. The residents of approximately 700 houses must use that crossing to reach Stone. It is an automatic half-barrier crossing, unprotected by signals on the railway line or closed circuit television.
Mr. Cash: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is relying, to a certain extent, on the same briefing paper that I used; I can hear it being repeated. We do not need to cover all my points again, but I would like to know what will be done about funding. That is the crucial element. I am not arguing for the issue to be dealt with according to the county council's suggestions, but we need a solution, and that will entail money, whether it is for a bridge, a tunnel or whatever.
Mr. Hill: It is important to put on the record the proposals that are being made so that we can
116WH
understand the scale of additional works that may be necessary. I am attempting to outline those proposals so that we can clear out the brushwood before we deal with the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman raised the large and complex issue of funding arrangements only in the past 24 hours, and the Government need time to consider those serious proposals in detail. I want to give him some assurance, but he must let me make my speech so that we may all understand what we are talking about.
If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, I will return to the subject of the Aston-by-Stone level crossing. For operational reasons, that type of crossing is effectively closed to traffic for two minutes, compared with 40 seconds for the existing half-barrier crossing. The extended closure time for the full-barrier crossing would cause delays to road traffic. That is of great concern to local residents, who consider that a bridge should be provided.
The county council has conducted a feasibility study for a bridge, which is estimated to cost £3.5 million. Railtrack concluded that that cost was excessive. It subsequently decided that, to minimise delays to road traffic, it would not increase the line speed through the crossing, thereby maintaining safety without inconveniencing local residents.
Thirdly, the Meaford full-barrier crossing is in the centre of Stone. The county council and Railtrack agree that a bridge would be impractical there. Railtrack plans to improve the safety of the crossing by adding CCTV, which will be linked to the signal box. It is also considering whether the introduction of new traffic management systems in the vicinity of the crossing will improve safety further.
Fourthly, the Church lane crossing affects the only access point to approximately 100 houses on the edge of Stone. The current CCTV system has proved unreliable, and residents have expressed concerns about being cut off from their homes at some times. Railtrack is committed to replacing existing equipment to improve reliability without increasing the time in which the barriers are in operation.
Fifthly, the next crossing, adjacent to Barlaston station, is manually controlled. Railtrack has considered a bridge option at a cost of £2.5 million, but has announced its decision to upgrade to a CCTV system.
Finally, Railtrack has proposed to upgrade to a CCTV system another manual crossing on the private roads serving the Wedgwood factory and visitors' centre.
Mr. Cash: I also mentioned Blythe bridge.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman signalled in advance his intention to talk about Blythe bridge. I am glad to be able to respond by saying that I am aware of the two incidents that occurred at Newtons level crossing at Blythe bridge, which has a user-operated level crossing with a telephone. In two separate incidents on 17 June and 9 July 1998, trains struck stray cows on the line. A further incident occurred on 27 October 1998 at Blythe bridge when a car obstructed the line. However, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate considered that none of those incidents was worthy of investigation. Therefore, I do not expect Railtrack to take any action.

117WH
The hon. Gentleman has raised important issues concerning the possibility of special grant through the PFI, but I have said that we are considering bridges and alternatives to level crossings. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this part of Staffordshire has an unusually large number of level crossings, although I was surprised to learn the extent of the problem. We are discussing significant sums of money, and there are limits in the PFI structure on borrowing powers by local authorities. In December, the Government announced generous arrangements that more than double local transport planned provision for local authorities, and we cannot move rapidly to commitments on such significant expenditure.
Mr. Cash: I hear what the Minister is saying and I am encouraged by his positive approach and recognition of the problem, which would have to be accompanied by resources if a result were to be achieved. However, I must remind him that capital expenditure per head in Staffordshire is the lowest in the country at £1.39, and that is the Minister's figure, given in reply to a question only a few days ago. That is phenomenal, and is clearly connected with the lack of provision that I am seeking to redress.
Mr. Hill: Allocation of resources is, as the hon. Gentleman implied, a matter for local highways authorities. However, in general terms, the Government believe Staffordshire to be an enterprising and successful local transport authority, which makes its own judgment on whether it puts funding into integrated public transport schemes or road maintenance. We have more than doubled the funding available for road maintenance and investment under local transport plans, and I expect to see important consequential increases in investment in roads in Staffordshire.
118WH
To sum up, the Government are committed to the development of an efficient, customer-friendly and safe national railway network. The upgrade of the west coast main line is a key part of that overall strategy. The core investment programme to modernise the infrastructure of the west coast main line, including renewal of track, signalling, electricity supply and structures is the basis for the modernisation plans. Work is already under way to bring about the necessary improvements. Major work at Birmingham and Euston has recently been undertaken, and approximately 30 per cent. of the work has been completed at a cost of £800 million.
On detailed provision for specific level crossings, I must again make it clear that this is initially a matter for Railtrack and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate in discussion with local interests. However, legislation on level crossings requires the Secretary of State to determine orders when there are substantial objections.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, I am sorry. I want to complete my speech.
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has made a submission to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on level crossings, and my officials are considering the information prior to advising Ministers on that important issue. I have already said that while those submissions are under consideration, and prior to a decision by the Secretary of State, I am unable to offer any views on the merits of any of the alternatives in specific cases. However, I confirm the undertaking already given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to write to the hon. Gentleman on the possible PFI arrangement for the crossings. Meanwhile, I remain grateful to him for his contribution to this debate and deepening the Government's understanding of the issues.

Ethical Education
12.59 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: The object of my debate is to raise the issue of moral education. I wanted to raise the issue in a general way, but the Table Office told me that I had to make it specific to a Department, so I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for coming here to field my remarks in so far as they relate to schools.
My central claim is that morality is a complex subject worthy of our attention. That is not a trivial point. Our aim should be for all children leaving school to be able to understand the complexity of morality. They should be able to grasp key moral ideas and understand the structure of ethical arguments. They should be able to make moral judgments and understand how the capacity to engage in moral discourse is integrally related to the development of moral character. The exploration of morality has occupied philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, historians, poets, novelists and political scientists. Any one of us has but a shadowy grasp of the world of ethics, but we should all aspire to develop such an understanding of the subject as would enable us to live a good life.
Although morality is complex, the list of "ists" that I gave of those who have sought to understand it would leave most of those who graduate from our schools numb with boredom. The view of many of them is that morality is trivial. They see it as a sphere in which there are many conclusions but little use of reason, and which produces much certainty—as contributors to "The Moral Maze" evince—but involves little mutual understanding. While most school graduates know that much study is required to explain why a table can support a vase of flowers, most think that they are experts on morality. They feel that they need use little reasoning power to form conclusions about whether their own, or their mates', behaviour conforms to the moral law. Although they might not put it that way, comments such as, "It's just not on", or "He's gone too far", can function as moral judgements.
Our educational system and our society trivialise the complex subject of morality. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should pay attention to that paradox and that there should be new initiatives in education explicitly to address the matter. I sought this debate because of the demand that the father of little Damilola Taylor made for moral regeneration in our society. If we can stop trivialising morality, perhaps it will be taken seriously.
There are two particularly strong agencies of trivialisation, which may serve partly to explain why Parliament has so far failed to react to Mr. Taylor's impassioned request. Our children are failed by an education system that marginalises ethical inquiry, but they are failed, too, by a press that trivialises morality, particularly by sexualising it. The press, for the most part, sees the realm of the ethical as the realm of the sexual, not least because that seems to be a recipe for exciting the curiosity of a large readership.
One reason why morality is seldom broached in Parliament is because no Department has specific responsibility for it. Moreover, hon. Members who raise
120WH
the issue are liable to be subject to malevolent treatment by the press. Someone who talks in public about morality is viewed as a target to be shot down, even if that requires extensive inquiries into his or her past, which will, of course, produce stories of the "Moralising MP stole lollipop from nursery friend" variety. Such malevolent trivialisation often takes a sexualised form, as in the "Minister had love nest" sort of story. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I was thinking not of her, but of religious ministers. I do not deny that each of us can use the fact that others are sexually attracted to us to hurt, degrade, denigrate, betray and exploit them, but the immorality lies in the hurting, degrading and exploiting, not in the fact of seeking out and having a sexual relationship.
Perhaps because of such pressures, we end up with a Parliament that does not broach this subject. That is partly because the last time that such subjects were raised, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), those who did so were ridiculed, and partly because their credentials as a source of ethical authority were vilified. As it happens, I think that the idea that one could conduct a sensible ethical debate under the slogan "back to basics" or the rubric "a return to common sense" was hardly more sophisticated than the trivialisation it sought to transcend. Nevertheless, to take on the debate at all showed courage, and the fact that it ended in dismal failure is now taken as a warning that the area of the ethical is one that politicians enter at their peril. The result is a society that acquiesces in the ignorance of our young people about the subjects that are most important.
It is perhaps contentious to describe this subject as the most important of all, but what I want for my own children and, though I am naturally attracted to the idea that they will pass zillions of exams, what would make me most proud, is their turning out to be good people. Contrary to the tabloid model, by "good people" I do not mean that I do not want them to have a sexual identity. A propensity to sexual activity is a normal part of life, and the more extreme religious systems notwithstanding, to be a sexual being is fully compatible with being a good person.
Young people emerge from our schools with a trivialised understanding of moral ideas. Talk of virtues is regarded as antiquated. Literature written by great practitioners such as Milton, George Eliot and Dickens, in part to explain the formation of moral character, is regarded as dull, over-lengthy and out of date. The word "wicked" is a term of commendation, and young people in the public eye who might function as models for behaviour—such as Eminem—are more likely to describe their abuse of another person than to recommend an attitude of care and considerateness. We are left to live with some of the consequences of that neglect of the ethical. Those who graduate from school are often far more interested in earning a great deal of money than in constructing a life that will involve service to one's fellow human beings. It is becoming progressively harder to recruit to caring professions—teaching, the police, social work—and ever easier to recruit to causes and careers that are handsomely rewarded monetarily. In the late 18th century, Mandeville wrote an ironic text in which he argued that virtue is vice and vice is virtue, but only at the end of the

121WH
twentieth century did "Greed is good' become a slogan for a way of life. Those who try to teach ethics are referred to by terms of abuse such as "moraliser", "preacher" and—after investigation of the contrast between what they say and what they do reveals the inevitable character flaws that we all share—"hypocrite". Given the cultural propensity to denigrate morality, it is astonishing to discover the resilience of core ethical ideas. In my constituency, for instance, 115 young people have signed up to devote a portion of their spare time to helping others through a young person's volunteer bureau. Last week, so many people turned up to the funeral in my constituency of Martin Lynch, who was both a head teacher and man of virtue, that the service had to be held in a cathedral. They, at least, had been set the example of a good man. Although our society is morally abstentionist, the human capacity to do good still emerges. We must re-establish as an explicit aim the moral education of our young people, so that such facts are not remarkable but commonplace.
What form does the trivialisation of the ethical take? From my experience, as a university teacher, I found that it took two forms. I found that most of those who arrived at university had emerged from school with a view that ethics was subjective, a matter of taste, and, hence, that it is a waste of time to discuss the realm of morality. There was a pathetic ethical theory of the 1930s that gave some vestigial intellectual support to that view. One might call it the "hurrah-boo" theory of ethics, which held that if one said that an action was morally good, one was only saying, first, that one approved of it and, secondly, hurrah! That reduced ethical argument to the level of a pub discussion between a fan of Rangers and a fan of Celtic. You, Mrs. Michie, might be an authority on such discussions.
The second strong influence on our schools and culture is the obedientiary view of ethics, which means that all one need do to be moral is obey. That has strong roots in the religious tradition in so far as it is authoritarian. In that tradition, to say that an action is good is to say that God has commanded it, and, hence, one must do it, which is a view accepted by most religions. Although that view of ethics works well for young children—I approve of it for that purpose because it lifts them up so that they can stand on the first rung of the ethical ladder—by the time a pupil has reached the age of 12 or 13 obedience to authority has less hold, regardless of whom, be they parental or transcendental, the young person is being enjoined to obey.
An obedientiary model may be reasonable for a five-year-old—"You must do it because I am your father." It may, however, prove uncompelling to a 15-year-old"—Just who are you to lay down the law?" It is imperative, therefore, that we ask what kind of ethical understanding we seek to engender in young people. Only if we address that question, can we provide a clue to schools and colleges about how, they might manage the transition from an obedientiary ethic to one based on a footing that will help older children and adults to understand that ethical judgments are substantive.
Some people will say that the Government are addressing the issue. There is, for instance, the citizenship agenda. I welcome that because it addresses part of what it is to have a developed ethic. I was canvassing recently and spoke to a man whose door was
122WH
slightly obstructed by toys, which I thought might belong to his children. I told him that I was his Member of Parliament, to which he replied, "Not interested." I was unable to resist saying that it was just as well that some people were interested, or the social system of yesteryear, which ensured that the children of most people were denied educational opportunity, would still be in place. He said, "Look, mate, I'm only interested in number one." Indeed, he said that aggressively enough for me to vacate his doorstep shortly afterwards.
Perhaps the citizenship agenda will produce people who understand what a local council does, how democracy works and what one gets for paying taxes. I do not doubt that that will be a massive improvement on a society that was democratic in name, but which relied on tabloid newspapers and radio shock-jocks to tell people these things. It is hard to be a citizen if one does not know of what one is a citizen. The fundamental flaw is that one cannot use a course in citizenship to teach ethics because some people are citizens of states that require them to behave in immoral ways. The citizen should always be empowered to judge ethically the state of which he or she is a member. The standard example of an immoral state is the Nazi regime, but it may be sensible to admit that the phenomenon is quite common. An education in ethics transcends an education in citizenship, because it gives people the tools by which they might judge with confidence whether the state actually deserves their compliance.
The Government have introduced critical thinking into the curriculum. I welcome that initiative, not least because I taught it for many years. The ability to anatomise an argument, to understand its structure and to ascertain the extent to which its conclusion is justified is a crucial skill that empowers pupils and students to base their judgments on something more than prejudice and dubious authority. However, critical thinking is not enough. The most crucial use of the power of reasoning is on moral subjects, and there is strong evidence that critical thinking courses will not provide the pupil or student with an understanding of ethical theories that would make possible the application of such skills to the ethical domain. Between citizenship and critical thinking, the Government have produced a tasty sweet. The sweet, however, is a Polo mint, and ethics is the hole in the middle.
I do not have time to spell out the implications of the trivialisation of ethics on our wider society, but it has repercussions, even in Parliament. I was struck by recent debates on the use of embryonic stem cells for research, during which the Government's spokesperson used, primarily, a utilitarian ethical system—which she then explicitly disavowed. The debate on Alder Hey children's hospital primarily employed a deontological, or rights-based, ethical system. My own view is broadly Kantian, which is bound up with the idea that one should not use one's capacity for free action to do things that curtail a similar freedom for others. An essential respect and reverence for other human beings is involved in that. In view of the time allowed, I cannot do more than hint at my own moral position.
What I have sought to do is show that ethics is a complex matter that should not be treated as trivial. Some will say, "Who are you, to make such claims?" I would respond that, just as one does not have to understand the whole of human history to be able to

123WH
teach history, one need not be omniscient about ethics, or be morally perfect, to be able to transmit some ethical wisdom to the young. We, the older generation, often relinquish that responsibility too readily because it is thought of as too difficult. We then end up with young people who lack the capacity to conduct a moral discourse or to consider ethical judgments rationally. That some young people behave so well, given the poor grounding that we give them, says something for human ethical resilience.
One result of pupils understanding the complexity of morality may be a heightened respect for moral law. Such respect would require many parties—teachers, politicians, parents and editors of newspapers—to recognise that trivialising morality renders a grave disservice to our fellow human beings. The father of Damilola Taylor called for moral regeneration in our society. I ask the Minister to help that process by ensuring that both the citizenship and critical thinking curriculums give explicit attention to ethical subjects. That might help the next generation to be better at teaching, parenting, publishing and politicking than we have been. The memory of a little boy who died because some people did not see him as a human being, but as an object, deserves nothing less.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. As he pointed out, the debate is very wide. It stretches beyond any single Department and into the realms of individual and family responsibility and how our communities and other influences, such as the media, operate.
For that reason, it is not possible for schools and the education system to be the sole forum for dealing with the problems that my hon. Friend rightly identified. Because we know that our teachers and schools can be effective, we must ensure that our schools and education system provide opportunities for young people to learn about ethical and moral dimensions. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I use the remaining time to concentrate on what schools and the education system can do.
I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring that young people are taught about ethical, moral and philosophical issues. As a Government, we have taken broad strides forward in the education system, especially by investing in developing pupils' critical thinking. We have introduced a new national curriculum, which includes, for the first time, a framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship for all children from the ages of five to 16. For the first time, a statement of values forms an integral part of the national curriculum. Part of that statement of values in the national curriculum handbook relates to the self. It states:
"We value ourselves as unique human beings capable of spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical growth and development."
That clearly sets the context for what we expect our schools to deliver and our children to learn within the national curriculum. Of course, ethical issues are also
124WH
covered in a wide range of curriculum subjects. Certain aspects of science, history and geography develop children's cognitive abilities and investigative skills. However, I want to concentrate on ethical education.
There are already good examples of schools that are developing in young people the skills that enable them to make the kinds of decisions that my hon. Friend described. Schools that teach those skills demonstrate respect for the individual pupil, resulting in less disaffection. For example, Mason Moor primary school in Southampton has demonstrated the value of an emotional literacy strategy derived from philosophy in giving pupils appropriate means to express their emotions, rather than using verbal or physical violence. Pupils as young as five and six are developing a rich spoken and written vocabulary within the literacy hour, making the important curriculum link. The school has reported the impact of this work on behaviour—it is reflected in increasing attendance and reduced exclusions.
My hon. Friend said that he wants his children to leave the education system not only with the high standards of education towards which the Government strive, but as good people. I remind him that the Green Paper, "Schools building on success", which the Government published last month, explicitly set out our plans to promote standards and education with character. It emphasises the importance of creativity, flexibility, reasoning, logical thinking, and social and moral responsibility through citizenship. It stresses the need for schools to develop a positive, respectful and can-do ethos. Ethical education has a key role to play in future education provision.
A major step forward since my hon. Friend last introduced a debate on moral and philosophical issues—an interesting and wide-ranging debate that I was able to read before coming here today—has been our new personal, social and health education and citizenship framework. I shall turn to some of the shortcomings that my hon. Friend identified. However, I should point out—as we are talking about something that has to make a practical difference in schools—that the framework is supported by £12 million of standards fund money this year and £15 million next year. We are not asking schools to deliver progress without the necessary support and funding to spend on curriculum materials, resources and training.
Our new personal, social, health education and citizenship framework will provide children with the opportunities identified by my hon. Friend to think seriously about moral, social and political issues. It will encourage the development of inquiry, reflection and debating skills. It will enable young people to learn to take responsibility for themselves, to understand the implications of certain actions on a day-to-day level and for society. Young people should be taught at every age to consider social and moral dilemmas. For example, pupils aged between five and seven might learn about fairness and the difference between right and wrong. Between the ages of eight and 11 they might be taught about respect and understanding between different races and how to deal with harassment. The ages of 12 to 14 are particularly important as children grow and develop, so they could learn how their choices as consumers affect other people's economies and environments. At key stage 4, 15 to 16-year-olds could

125WH
consider social and moral dilemmas such as genetic engineering. The personal, social and health education framework emphasises the development of respect for other people and the sort of attitudes that my hon. Friend identified. I shall refer to that later.
My hon. Friend suggested that citizenship covers only political literacy. Important though that is, I would argue that the citizenship curriculum has been framed to provide important opportunities for spiritual and moral development through awareness and understanding of meaning and purpose in life and of different values in society. It also supports moral development by helping pupils to develop a critical appreciation of issues of right and wrong, justice, fairness, rights, and obligations in society. It also places an important emphasis on active involvement. My hon. Friend gave examples of young people volunteering in his constituency, and that is important as we develop our work to promote citizenship education in schools. We are emphasising those three strands. Political literacy is important, but so is the active involvement of young people in decisions about themselves, their schools, their community and broader moral issues. From September 2002, citizenship education will be a statutory entitlement for all children in secondary schools.
My hon. Friend referred to sex, and I accept some of his points about the way in which our society deals with issues concerning sex, which are reflected in the Government's decisions to improve sex and relationship education. Many young people believe that their previous sex education put too much emphasis on the
126WH
mechanics and too little on the importance of developing relationships, and research supports that view. Through personal, social and health education, and our guidance to schools, we are putting greater emphasis on developing the important skills for relationships and respect for themselves and others.
It is worth referring to the Government's policy on bullying. It is important that all schools have a policy for tackling bullying. The revised guidance that we issued last year emphasised that and the importance of schools involving young people in discussion and debate on how to operate policies on bullying most effectively. Personal, social and health education and the way in which that is reflected throughout the school provide an important opportunity for young people to engage in discussion about their own behaviour, the way in which they treat other people and the rules and decisions that are necessary in a school to make it the sort of environment that we would want for all our young people.
The debate is wide ranging. I have addressed only the areas where the Government, schools and teachers are playing an important part in developing young people who are able to make the kind of moral decisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead outlined. That is not a job for schools alone. We have a wider responsibility as individuals, parents and in our communities. However, I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that not only the Government, but the education system that we support, will continue to play an important role.

Agriculture (West Dorset)
1.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for coming to the debate, especially as she has probably realised that my main aim is to lobby her.
I shall begin by explaining the current situation in relation to foot and mouth in West Dorset. For the record, I want to say that I have spent much of the morning, in between commentaries on the Budget, receiving calls from constituents enraged by the decision of the Jockey Club. It might have been insensitive to raise that, and I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility or fault, but I want the Jockey Club's authorities to register that if they had wanted to earn the disfavour of the agricultural and rural communities, they could hardly have taken a better step.
In a sense, foot and mouth is non-existent in West Dorset. We are—or, at lunchtime, we were—among the privileged agricultural areas that do not have any cases. Some are very close, and my own house lies within the 8 km range around some cases near Chard. However, it is not foot and mouth itself that is affecting West Dorset. That makes the situation all the more important and interesting from a national perspective. We have seen the extent to which, even where foot and mouth itself has not struck, its effects have struck deeply.
I am profoundly grateful for the short-term relief provided by the licensing scheme. I was involved in trying to enable one of my local abattoirs to receive licensed stock, and that has now happened. I pay tribute to the officials in the veterinary service in Taunton for enabling that. I would not want any of my remarks to be construed as an attack either on officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on the Minister herself. However, the effects of foot and mouth on agriculture in West Dorset can be described, without hyperbole, as disastrous.
The examples that I could give of the disaster number hundreds, rather than dozens. One example is a constituent from Monkton Wyld, near Bridport, who is a lowland sheep farmer. In a letter to me, he said:
"Due to the export ban, which normally accounts for 30 per cent. of our lamb sold, market prices have crashed by more than 25 per cent. … We have now lost a huge export market … The loss of this export market and consumer confidence is a huge"—
and possibly terminal—
"hit to our industry."
That is purely symptomatic of a range of correspondence that I have received.
We have seen serious effects in both the sheep and beef sectors. As the Minister will be aware, there is a heavy concentration of dairy production in my constituency. The long-term effects of the previous beef export ban meant that there was not a huge amount of beef exporting, but such as there was has now ceased again. The long-range effects of the current crisis, added to the previous difficulties, will be severe for the beef sector.
My constituency also has some of the most efficient pig producers in the UK, including advanced process industries that combine dairy production with pigs in processes that run in cycles. The pig industry in West
128WH
Dorset suffers from exactly the same problems as the beef and sheep industries. There is a near disaster in all those sectors, and in the last week or two it has been for some of my farmers not just a disaster, but the end.
There will also be the cost of restocking, which one can expect will be greater than the original cost of stocking, because of the effects of this crisis. There are also ricochet effects on a much wider range of businesses outside agriculture. I have received a letter from a constituent in Poyntington near Sherborne who is a livestock and general haulier. He writes:
"We are a small family run livestock haulier. Five years ago we ran a flourishing business with 6 lorries and 8 staff. Due to the BSE crisis, the pig industry on its knees a few years later, the fuel cost rising 42 per cent., we had no choice but to sell 4 lorries and make all our staff redundant, many of whom were very experienced livestock handlers."
That business now faces a further attack on its profits. My constituent writes:
"We feel that with all the knocks and bumps we have had, especially this week"—
that was last week—
"where we will not even earn a single penny due to the livestock movement ban … we are now surely entitled to compensation."
I have heard that call from many quarters.
Everything that I have said so far, not necessarily with particular reference to West Dorset, but as part of a general national phenomenon, will be well known to the Minister. West Dorset is no different from many parts of the UK in the current crisis: farmers face catastrophic or near catastrophic demise. Why has this single, and as yet not too prolonged, crisis had this effect? The answer lies in the background.
I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate on agriculture in West Dorset in April 1998. The Minister's predecessor, the current Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), said:
"It is expected that the situation in agriculture will be temporary … I accept that there are difficulties in all sectors of agriculture, but we expect them to be temporary."—[Official Report, 20 April 1988; Vol. 310, c. 569–70.]
He was entirely honest. That was the genuine expectation al that time. As the Minister knows well, however, the difficulties have not been temporary. They have not been permanent, but, as Keynes famously remarked, in the long run we are all dead, and this has been a very long run. We have seen persistent drops in farm incomes from levels that, two or three years ago, we thought would be the nadir. They now look close to a zenith.
Throughout West Dorset an increasing number of young people are deciding either to leave the industry or not to enter it. We have seen problems in every sector of farming simultaneously. That is the worst feature of what is now a prolonged crisis. It is not the case that one thing has gone badly and another well so that farmers can switch from one mode of production to another. My farmers are not whingers. I have never met a group of people more inclined to be upstanding, entrepreneurial and effective, and to look after themselves without complaint. I do not mean that they do not complain about the weather or whatever, but those complaints are is not serious. They get on with the job. They intend to look after themselves and to provide for their families.

129WH
They work hard. They have been working uphill these past three or four years and many are now crawling uphill, as an emperor once had to do to see the pope.
Against that background, what would have been a severe disruption to the industry or a serious inconvenience, has become a disaster, I am grateful that some steps have been taken. I am grateful that the efforts that some of us made to ban people walking across fields have resulted, in my own area, in action by Dorset county council over the past 48 hours to stop such people.
I am grateful for the agrimonetary compensation; my farmers will welcome it with open arms. I am also happy that efforts have been made to relieve some constraints on movement across roads from one field to another. Although it is a pity that it was not pre-planned, I am also grateful that so much work was put in so quickly and effectively to the construction of the licensing scheme, which is a lifeline for some of my farmers.
I want to take this opportunity to offer a laundry list—perhaps I should rephrase that. I beseech the Minister to consider a series of moves that I believe are necessary. Some of them are short-term, some medium-term and others long-term. All would have a significant impact on the disaster in the agriculture industry in West Dorset.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for using some of the contingency reserve to meet precisely the kind of civil emergency that contingency reserves are designed to deal with. I accept that the agrimonetary compensation is helpful, but considerable additional compensation will be necessary in the light of what is happening in export markets. Without that support, many of my pig or sheep farmers will not survive.
The Minister might have made a start on this, but we need to address urgently the question of a fair market price under the licensing scheme. It is a problem about which I have received many calls and correspondence in recent days. I make no accusations against the abattoirs or supermarkets; it would be irresponsible to do so, and I am sure that they are doing their best. However, our farmers believe that they will be subject to serious pricing problems, unless a market price is established. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is already considering mechanisms by which some kind of proxy market could be established by next week, and I urge that to be done at full speed. I offer my co-operation, and I am sure that hon. Members from nearby rural seats would offer their help, in getting those mechanisms agreed and established.
We also need to widen the relaxation of the restrictions on animal movements on welfare grounds, and I will give the Minister some examples that have come to my attention in recent weeks. There is still an urgent need for sheep to get back to the main holding for lambing, which is not permitted under today's loosening of cross-road restrictions, and for calved heifers to get back to dairies for milking. Of course, my farmers accept that it will be necessary for movements to be carefully controlled in those areas. In the pig industry, the transport of weaners to fattening units presents exactly the same problems. Such problems are an inconvenience for a few days, but they are becoming a crisis. Action must be taken now.
130WH
I will now turn to the medium term and to problems that have been raised with me over the past few months and years by farmers. Action was needed anyway, but the need has increased as a result of the present crisis. Almost all my farmers in the dairy sector are extremely worried by the continued increase in the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the good guy in that debate, but I fear that its hand is not yet sufficiently strong in Whitehall. The BSE inquiry referred to compelling evidence of a connection between badgers and bovine TB. We understand that the Krebs experiments are not yet complete, but the fact is that bovine TB is, in effect, putting farms out of business in West Dorset. I would be happy to take the Minister around some farms if she wanted to see for herself. If action is not taken, we could see a crisis that is parallel in parallel in dimension to the current and BSE crises.
I have repeatedly raised country-of-origin labelling with Ministers, and so have other Members who represent rural constituencies. It is a persistent, and justified, gripe among farmers in my constituency that there is no clarity about the genuine origin of meat processed in the United Kingdom, and many consumers believe that they are buying welfare-friendly animal products when they are not. I admit that the Meat and Livestock Commission is not blameless, and I will ask why it is not doing more about the red tractor arrangements.
The Farm Business Advice Service is widely welcomed in West Dorset, and is all the more needed in the current crisis. More farmers will be on the edge, and the advisory service may help them to get over the edge without descending down the abyss, if I may mix my metaphors horribly. Alas, it is not available: the experience of farmers in my constituency is that they cannot get any more help from the service; 81 farms in Dorset—3 per cent.—have received help, but many others have been told that funds are not available.
On the subject of cattle passports, despite my repeated efforts and those of others, the British Cattle Movement Service remains a serious bureaucratic difficulty for farmers. I shall not trouble the Minister by quoting from letters that I have received from farmers with problems because the BCMS does not work correctly. There is no ill intention; it simply does not work well.
A radical review of the operation of BCMS and urgent consideration of the system of inspections is required. It is a paradox that the current disaster was not prevented by a highly intrusive system of inspection, although I accept that not everything can be prevented. One pig farm in my constituency was completely disrupted for about a week recently while an inspection was carried out. I do not deny the need for careful inspection, but it is being done in a way that makes it extraordinarily difficult for many farmers to continue their ordinary business, and that must be looked at.
I welcome progress in the organic aid scheme, but it is still not right and there is not enough aid. I have had prolonged correspondence on behalf of constituents with various levels of its bureaucracy; it seems that the strictest interpretation is always applied, and people find themselves excluded from the scheme.
The disposal of fallen stock is a disaster waiting to happen. I will not enter into the hunting debate, but the Minister knows that the steps that her Government have

131WH
taken mean that the problem of fallen stock will probably be exacerbated by a ban on hunting. It is already a serious problem. We are trying to gather the forces of the National Farmers Union and the county council and so on, but central assistance is needed. MAFF must make an effort to catalyse local discussions. It is difficult to imagine how we will resolve the problem of fallen stock without incineration, and, alternatively, of how to get incineration without the local population objecting to it. It is a conundrum, and we need help from Whitehall.
Crisis-ridden as they are, my farmers welcome the statement that there will be a long-term review of agriculture. They would not want it to start tomorrow, and nor would the Ministry, which, like the farmers, has plenty on its hands at present. Such a review is needed, however, and if it is to be effective, it needs to consider the deep causes of the current problems. It must also consider renegotiation of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy and asymmetric legislation between this and other countries on animal welfare, as, at present, animal cruelty and jobs are merely being exported. It must consider the failure of the milk market, which I know has been examined before, but not adequately. The long-term relationship between environmental protection and agricultural subsidy must also be assessed. I persist in believing that agricultural subsidy is not justified on industrial grounds. The correct industrial configuration is a free market. Agricultural subsidies are justified in terms of environmental protection. This country has yet to undertake a serious analysis of the costs of maintaining the rural environment without farming and of the extent to which farming is diminishing rather than increasing the need for subsidy. The subject must be analysed with great care; without that, we shall never reach a stable view of agricultural subsidy.
I apologise for speaking for longer than I had originally intended and hope that the Minister will forgive me for squeezing her time to reply. In a sense, it is more important that these messages reach her Ministry than that we hear her reply. Doubtless, similar messages will come from other parts of the country. Actions must be taken in the short, medium and long term. If they are not, what is presently a crisis, and what has been, alas, a crisis for the past four or more years will lead to the gradual evaporation of agriculture in West Dorset and similar places. A whole society and a way of life will be lost. Farmers, my whole population and I do not want that to happen.
1.51 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on securing the debate—his second on the subject, as he told us. I fully understand why he chose this subject for an Adjournment debate. He said that he wanted to lobby me, which is not an unusual experience for agriculture Ministers. I have taken note of his various points and shall endeavour to respond to as many as I can. I am also happy to write to him if he wishes.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the farming community in West Dorset, and I appreciate the manner in which he advanced them. No one could
132WH
disguise the fact that these are difficult times for farming. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the current foot and mouth crisis is compounding other hardships that the farming industry has had to face across the country, not least severely depressed farm incomes, which are at their lowest level for many a year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the earlier debate and to the replies of my right hon. Friend, the former Minister of State. The strength of our currency—perhaps I should say the weakness of the euro—meant that economic problems persisted much longer than many people anticipated. Developments in world commodity prices meant that downward pressure continued. Some agricultural sectors experienced improvements. Although farmers went through a difficult time, pig prices recently improved. The situation has not been entirely static, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's basic point that farmers experienced difficulties for much longer than anyone imagined or predicted.
Unsurprisingly, the hon. Gentleman spent some time reflecting on the problems caused by the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease and its effects on farmers in his constituency. He pointed out that although no cases have been confirmed in West Dorset, its farmers have, like others, been badly affected by the necessary movement restrictions and other measures that have come into force. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he lived in an exclusion zone. Although I live in an urban area, I, too, am in such a zone, because farms very much on the fringe of the urban area in which I live have also been affected and there have been confirmed cases there. I therefore understand from a personal point of view—as well as from the point of view of an Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister—the situation that he has described.
The number of confirmed cases stands, I am told, at 81, and thousands of animals have been destroyed. I welcome the strong support that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Opposition have given to the measures that the Government have taken and the general support for the containment, control and eradication strategy that is under way. I also welcome what he said about the fact that we have managed to get some animals moving to slaughter and therefore some British meat back on the shelves in our shops and supermarkets. Those issues have been discussed at both national and European level in recent days. It will interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, at yesterday's meeting of Europe an vets in Brussels, our approach was endorsed and that the slaughter policy, which has come under debate, was felt by them to be the most appropriate policy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties that have been raised with me by sheep farmers about the imminence of lambing and the difficulties that that is causing, particularly when ewes are in locations where it is not desirable for them to lamb. We are very much aware of that issue and are considering it as sympathetically as we can, while recognising the need for constraints to ensure that we do not help to spread the disease further.
We urge farmers to be responsible and supportive, as we believe that the overwhelming majority has been. We also continue to urge the general public to keep away from footpaths on livestock farms. I welcome what the

133WH
hon. Gentleman said about some of the controls on footpaths that have been introduced in his area. It is fair to point out that, in considering foot and mouth disease, we must try to learn the lessons of the previous large-scale outbreak that we had in 1967. The number of cases started to drop after that time, and we then had a lull. Unfortunately, however, because the controls were not as effective as they should have been, we had a renewed and very damaging further series of outbreaks. Therefore, despite our sympathy for the farmers' very real need to be able to move animals in certain circumstances, everyone would want us to be absolutely sure that any lull does not lead to a relaxation of measures that could create massive problems in the long term.
The hon. Gentleman referred, understandably, to the losses being experienced by farmers in his constituency. The policy of successive Governments has certainly been not to pay consequential losses, because of the difficulties of drawing a line on where they begin and end, of defining them and of the public bill involved. None the less, we are considering ways in which we can help the rural communities and farmers most affected.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the payment of agrimonetary compensation. I believe that it is helpful; it is certainly helpful to some of the livestock farmers
134WH
who have been affected. I hope that, like me, he will welcome the fact that we have not only agreed to pay that money but have entered into an arrangement with the European Commission by which we can pay the money much more speedily than is normal. The Commission has accepted that we are in a unique position and that it is important to be able to make the payments over the next few weeks, rather than having to wait four or five months, which would have been the normal arrangement in such circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman referred to pig farmers in his area. They do not benefit from agrimonetary compensation, because the European rules do not cover them. For that reason, we have been considering ways of making the pig industry restructuring money available to meet the circumstances of pig farmers been affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of exports that parts of the agricultural industry in his area are experiencing. Again, that points to the fact that we need—
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ronald Maddison
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he has received a recent request from the Wiltshire Coroner to hold a fresh inquest on the death of Ronald Maddison at the defence research establishment at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [152378]

  The Solicitor-General
  Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has requested the Attorney-General's consent for a fresh inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison which occurred in 1953. The Coroner has been asked to provide further information.

  The procedure is governed by section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. Only the High Court may order a fresh inquest to be held. The Attorney-General's consent is required for the application to the High Court for that fresh inquest.

  The application for the Attorney-General's consent will be considered when the further information he has requested arrives. If the Attorney-General grants his consent the Coroner will then be able to make the necessary application to the High Court.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Places
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons being built in England and Wales; when each is expected to open; and how many inmate places there will be at each. [152679]

  Mr. Boateng
  One prison is currently under construction, Dovegate prison, and is due to open on 9 July 2001. There will be 800 prisoner places, of which 200 will form a therapeutic community.

  Asylum
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in the UK have been rejected on non-compliance grounds in each of the last three years; and how many of those claims have subsequently been given substantive consideration(a) prior to an appeal hearing and (b) following a successful appeal. [151625]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information on the number of non-compliance decisions is given in the table.

  Statistical information for each of the last three years on the consideration of non-compliance cases following an initial decision but before appeal is not held centrally and would therefore only be available through examination of case records at a disproportionate cost.
  216W
  We have not generally reconsidered claims following a successful appeal, although it is open to the Department to challenge the outcome of an appeal through the tribunal.

  Non-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim, including non-attendance at a substantive interview within a reasonable period. From November 1991, these include refusals for failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity under the measures introduced then.

  Refusals of asylum on non-compliance grounds in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1998 to 20001, 2

  Refused on non-compliance grounds

  Year

  Number of decisions

  Cases under normal procedures

  Cases under backlog criteria3

  1998

  31,570

  2,995

  5—

  19994

  33,720

  1,085

  1,275

  20004

  110,065

  26,630

  1,335

  1 Information is for initial decision, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 Includes cases decided under measures announced in the White Paper.

  4 Provisional figures.

  5 Nil.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason and by what amount Wandsworth prison's budget was cut last year; what other prisons received notification of budget cuts and what the amounts were in each case; and if he will make a statement on the budgetary control system for prisons. [152325]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the 1998 comprehensive settlement review (CSR) settlement, the Prison Service was required to make cash-releasing efficiency savings of £18 million, equivalent to one per cent., in 2000–01. Prison establishments were required to contribute efficiency savings towards this target, and their budget baselines adjusted accordingly. The table shows the amounts by which individual establishments' baselines were reduced.

  The 1998 CSR also provided an additional £226 million over three years for the Prison Service to manage population increases and provide purposeful regimes for prisoners designed to prevent their reoffending. This money was allocated to individual establishments for specific purposes related to this aim.

  It follows, therefore, that in some cases establishments will have experienced reductions in their baseline at the same time as they received additional CSR funding. The reductions in the baseline reflected required efficiency savings in performing existing functions, while the CSR allocations were to facilitate specific new work.

  The allocation of budgets and the efficiency savings required of individual establishments are designed to achieve the most equitable allocation of resources across the service in the context of tight financial constraints and the requirement to make efficiency savings.

  217W

  Establishment

  Efficiency savings 2000–01

  Acklington

  60,000

  Albany

  80,320

  Ashwell

  50,000

  Askham Grange

  50,000

  Aylesbury

  91,300

  Bedford

  69,890

  Belmarsh

  288,000

  Birmingham

  160,000

  Blantyre House

  20,570

  Blundeston

  82,010

  Brinsford

  70,000

  Bristol

  153,950

  Brixton

  163,430

  Brockhill

  25,000

  Bullingdon

  126,370

  Bullwood Hall

  37,320

  Camp Hill

  79,620

  Canterbury

  63,230

  Cardiff

  110,540

  Castington

  45,000

  Channings Wood

  90,810

  Chelmsford

  86,730

  Coldingley

  54,660

  Cookham Wood

  30,160

  Dartmoor

  124,970

  Deerbolt

  50,000

  Dorchester

  42,080

  Dover

  56,750

  Downview

  61,860

  Drake Hall

  60,000

  Durham

  95,000

  East Sutton Park

  16,480

  Eastwood Park

  61,550

  Elmley

  137,910

  Erlestoke

  53,520

  Everthorpe

  60,000

  Exeter

  87,560

  Featherstone

  60,000

  Feltham

  162,800

  Ford

  53,120

  Foston Hall

  25,000

  Frankland

  227,000

  Full Sutton

  231,000

  Garth

  230,000

  Gartree

  77,510

  Glen Parva

  85,000

  Gloucester

  59,250

  Grendon

  93,690

  Guys Marsh

  71,010

  Haslar

  24,790

  Hatfield

  50,000

  Haverigg

  60,000

  Hewell Grange

  25,000

  High Down

  162,070

  Highpoint

  123,190

  Hindley

  70,000

  Hollesley Bay

  84,480

  Holloway

  177,700

  Holme House

  170,000

  Hull

  150,000

  Huntercombe

  68,980

  Kingston

  39,170

  Kirkham

  200,000

  Kirklevington Grange

  35,000

  Lancaster Castle

  60,000

  Lancaster Farms

  85,000

  Latchmere House

  22,680

  Leeds

  245,000

  Leicester

  310,000

  218W

  Establishment

  Efficiency savings 2000–01

  Lewes

  91,030

  Leyhill

  58,070

  Lincoln

  105,000

  Lindholme

  200,000

  Littlehey

  86,880

  Liverpool

  860,000

  Long Lartin

  203,000

  Low Newton

  35,000

  Maidstone

  97,010

  Manchester

  600,000

  Moorland

  210,000

  Morton Hall

  25,000

  New Hall

  95,000

  North Sea Camp

  35,000

  Northallerton

  60,000

  Norwich

  118,420

  Nottingham

  95,000

  Onley

  99,760

  Parkhurst

  103,810

  Pentonville

  185,780

  Portland

  88,240

  Preston

  180,000

  Ranby

  110,000

  Reading

  53,630

  Risley

  160,000

  Rochester

  77,060

  Send

  37,510

  Shepton Mallet

  39,720

  Shrewsbury

  50,000

  Stafford

  220,000

  Standford Hill

  50,280

  Stocken

  80,000

  Stoke Heath

  50,000

  Styal

  60,000

  Sudbury

  50,000

  Swaleside

  118,620

  Swansea

  64,740

  Swinfen Hall

  40,000

  The Mount

  95,580

  Thorn Cross

  95,000

  Usk/Prescoed

  50,100

  Verne

  79,750

  Wakefield

  197,000

  Wandsworth

  203,160

  Wayland

  87,370

  Wealstun

  95,000

  Weare

  —

  Wellingborough

  79,610

  Werrington

  25,000

  Wetherby

  110,000

  Whatton

  25,000

  Whitemoor

  222,000

  Winchester

  104,480

  Woodhill

  108,000

  Wormwood Scrubs

  188,580

  Wymott

  190,000

  Total

  13,384,220

  Prisons Activities
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons operate industrial workshops; how many prisoners are employed in such workshops; what the income and expenditure of each prison workshop is; and if he will make a statement. [151210]
  219W
  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 2001, c. 492W]On 31 March 2000 there were 9,527 employed in public sector workshops, not 1,041 as previously stated.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Redundancies)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if training of new replacement recruits will be completed before redundant RUC officers leave. [152384]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officers began to leave the RUC under the terms of the early retirement/voluntary severance scheme in January 2001. The first police trainees will join the Police Service of Northern Ireland in September 2001, and are expected to have completed their training by February 2002.

  Force Research Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Chief Constable of the RUC requested an investigation into the operation of the Force Research Unit; how many items of correspondence he has received from the RUC on the subject of the FRU in the past 12 months; and at how many meetings this subject has been discussed. [150579]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 19 April 1999 the Chief Constable asked Sir John Stevens to investigate the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane plus associated allegations contained within the British Irish Rights Watch report on the subject. An investigation into the activities of the FRU is an important part of Sir John's investigation. In the last 12 months neither the Secretary of State nor his predecessor received any correspondence from the RUC specifically on the subject of the activities of the FRU. In that same period the Stevens Inquiry has been discussed at ministerial level in a number of meetings held with a range of individuals.

DEFENCE

  Warrior Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Warrior armoured vehicle. [153038]

  Mr. Spellar
  I announced on 30 November 2000,Official Report, columns 726–27W, that a number of precautionary operating restrictions had been put in place on the use of the Warrior armoured vehicle following the failure of the driveshaft system in some vehicles. A technical solution to the problem has now been developed and the fitting of modified parts commenced on 5 March 2001. The operating restrictions are being lifted from individual vehicles as they receive the modified driveshafts. The programme to convert all Warrior vehicles is expected to be completed by July 2001.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where ex-servicemen who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder can be treated; [152007]
  220W
  (2) if he will ensure that the Duke of Kent Hospital at Catterick offers treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder to ex-servicemen who require it; and if he will provide the necessary funding; [152006]

  (3) if he will make funds available for the hospital treatment of ex-servicemen who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. [152008]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ex-service personnel seeking advice on post-traumatic stress disorder from the Ministry of Defence's veterans advice unit are referred to a variety of contacts for assistance, including their own national health service (NHS) GP and ex-service welfare organisations, especially those that specialise in stress-related disorders. However, if any treatment was necessary, it would be carried out by the NHS, as it becomes responsible for the health care of personnel when they leave the armed forces. There are no plans to change this arrangement. The NHS has a range of psychiatric services available, including those that specialise in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Current NHS guidance provides priority for out-patient and in-patient treatment to be given to war pensioners, where they require treatment for the condition for which they receive their war pension.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by specialty and rank the number of Defence Medical Services personnel on operational duty in Sierra Leone in September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [151799]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Defence Medical Services personnel on operational duty in Sierra Leone during September 2000 is set out. The majority of these personnel deployed to provide initial medical support to UK troops. A surgical team also deployed briefly to Sierra Leone in support of the UK military operation which successfully freed six members of the Royal Irish Regiment on 10 September, and this is included in the details as shown. Medical support to UK forces was also provided by the UN hospital which was then run by the Indian armed forces.

  Lieutenant Colonel—Consultant General Surgeon

  Lieutenant Colonel—Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

  Lieutenant Colonel—Consultant Anaesthetist

  Lieutenant Colonel—Medical Officer

  Lieutenant Colonel—General Medical Practitioner

  Major—Consultant Anaesthetist

  Captain—Medical Officer

  Captain—Medical Officer

  Flight Lieutenant—Nursing Officer

  Warrant Officer Class 1—Operating Department Practitioner Class 1

  Warrant Officer Class 2—Combat Medical Technician Class 1

  Staff Sergeant x 2—Operating Department Practitioner Class 1

  Sergeant—Regimental Medical Assistant Class 1

  Sergeant x 2—Operating Department Practitioner Class 1

  Sergeant—Registered General Nurse

  Sergeant x 3—Combat Medical Technician Class 1

  Corporal x 3—Combat Medical Technician Class 1

  Corporal—Environmental Health Technician Class 1

  Corporal x 2—Operating Department Practitioner Class 1

  221W

  Ranger x 2—Regimental Medical Assistant Class 2

  Lance Corporal—Combat Medical Technician Class 1

  Lance Corporal—Regimental Medical Assistant Class 1

  Lance Corporal—Operating Department Practitioner Class 1

  Lance Corporal—Regimental Medical Assistant Class 3

  Senior Aircraftman—RAF Medical Assistant

  Private—Combat Medical Technician Class 1.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by specialty the number of Defence Medical Services personnel who will be deployed as part of Exercise Saif Sareea 2 stating in each case how many are(a) regular and (b) reserves; and if he will make a statement. [151808]

  Dr. Moonie
  Requirements for medical support to Exercise Saif Sareea 2 have not yet been finalised. Consequently, we are not yet able to determine the numbers and specialties of the Defence Medical Services personnel who will be deployed, nor whether they will be regular or reserves.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no fly-zone in Iraq have released ordnance in response to violations from 12 January to date, stating in percentage terms (i) the nature of the threat, (ii) the category of the target attacked and the tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target in proportion to the overall tonnage released; and if he will make a statement. [151804]

  Mr. Hoon
  Between 12 January 2001 and 28 February 2001, coalition aircrew conducting legitimate humanitarian patrols in the southern no-fly zone were directly threatened by Iraqi air defence forces on 39 occasions and responded in self-defence on six occasions against Iraqi military facilities posing a direct threat to coalition forces. UK aircraft released ordnance on four occasions. Details of the threats to coalition aircraft, targets and UK ordnance, in percentage and weight terms as appropriate, are as follows:(i) Nature of threat:
  Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Surface to Air Missile firings—100 per cent.
  (ii) Category of Target Attacked:
  Integrated Air Defence System—100 per cent.
  (iii) UK Weapons Released Against Integrated Ground Based Air Defence System
  (A) By tonnage—6.6 tonnes
  (B) By per cent.—100 per cent.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what legal powers recent international military intervention took place in Iraqi no-fly zones. [152460]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 26 February 2001,Official Report, columns 620–34, about coalition operations to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 January 2001,Official Report,
  222W
  column 878, concerning oversight of the firing programme of DU shells at the Dundrennan range, if he will specify the nature and extent of the oversight. [151868]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials from the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its predecessor organisations were consulted before test firing began at Dundrennan. Inspectors from both organisations have visited the site on several occasions and are kept fully informed of all activities on the site.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium shells were fired in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [152628]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: No depleted uranium rounds have been fired in Wales in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received on the long-term effects of depleted uranium ammunition on the troops responsible for using the ammunition and recovering vehicles damaged by depleted uranium ammunition. [152155]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 558W; to the independent analysis by Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel in Science and Global Security, 1999, Volume 8.2, pages 125 to 161; and to the Ministry of Defence paper "Depleted uranium—Documents explaining the Ministry of Defence position on the risks and health hazards", a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 25 January 2001. The Ministry of Defence is also in the process of compiling a list of risk assessments we have undertaken to assess any possible dangers to the environment and human health arising from the use of depleted uranium-based ammunition. That list will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Road Accidents (Balkans)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the UK has paid out in compensation because of road accidents to non-UK persons for road accidents involving UK personnel; how many civilians have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in such accidents in (i) Bosnia and (ii) Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [152596]

  Mr. Spellar
  A total of £808,674.78 has been paid in compensation to non-UK persons involved in road traffic accidents involving UK personnel in Bosnia. This sum includes compensation in respect of five fatalities and 50 cases of personal injury. No compensation has been paid so far in similar circumstances in Kosovo.

  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research facilities exist at the Centre for Defence Medicine; how much money has been earmarked for the development of research facilities; and if he will make statement. [151801]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Centre for Defence Medicine will develop medical research opportunities which are relevant to the Defence Medical Services in close conjunction with its partners, in particular the University of Birmingham. It will also work closely with other elements of the
  223W
  Ministry of Defence concerned with medical research activities. No dedicated military medical research facilities are currently envisaged.

  MOD Establishments (Security)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the state of security at his Department's bases and headquarters in the UK and the steps taken to deter unwanted intrusion; what review of security procedures at his Department's bases and headquarters he plans to undertake; what the remit of the investigations will be; which bases and headquarters will be investigated; when he expects investigations to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [151805]

  Mr. Hoon
  Security at Ministry of Defence (MOD) establishments is given the highest priority and procedures are kept under constant review. For obvious reasons it is not the practice to discuss MOD security measures publicly. However, I can assure the right hon. Member that wherever a security incident occurs, it is speedily investigated and remedial action is taken if appropriate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many breaches of security were reported at his Department's bases and headquarters in each of the last five years; how many arrests and prosecutions have resulted; and if he will make a statement. [151806]

  Mr. Hoon
  Taking breaches of security incursions on to the Ministry of Defence estate, the figures for each of the last four years were: 1996–97 67; 1997–98: 87; 1998–99: 182; 1999–2000: 239; central records were not kept prior to 1996–97. The figures cover sites in Great Britain (excluding USAF installations) and Germany. The great majority of the incursions related to anti-nuclear demonstrators, whose activities have increased over the last two years. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member with the numbers of arrests and prosecutions recorded by the Ministry of Defence police. Information on incidents dealt with by local constabularies could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parental Leave
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to give mothers and fathers the right to work reduced hours after the birth of a child. [152279]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice", published by the Government in December 2000, sets out a number of options to help parents balance their family and work responsibilities. It includes three options on a right to work reduced hours:whether there should be a right for mothers to work reduced hours during the period of maternity leave,
  whether fathers should have a right to work reduced hours during the period of maternity leave,
  or whether both parents should have a right to work reduced hours when the mother's maternity leave ends.
  224W
  The options included the fact that the impact on employers would be minimised through giving employers the right to refuse requests if to grant them would unduly disrupt the business and an exemption for employers of a certain size.

  The Green Paper makes it clear that not all options can be pursued. Employers, large and small, and parents have been invited to indicate which options are of greatest priority to them. The closing date for comments is 7 March 2001. Responses to the consultation are being considered carefully.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce flexible paid parental leave. [152282]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice", published by the Government in December 2000, sets out a number of options to help parents balance their family and work responsibilities. It invites views on whether paid parental leave should be introduced, although it notes that the cost to employers and the State of doing so would be considerable. Another option is whether funding should be available to help employers develop more flexible parental leave schemes.

  The Green Paper makes it clear that not all options can be pursued. Employers, large and small, and parents have been invited to indicate which options are of greatest priority to them. The closing date for comments is 7 March 2001. Responses to the consultation are being considered carefully.

  Mercedes-Benz
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have held with (i) Mercedes-Benz (UK) and (ii) the Retail Motor Industry Federation on the future plans for the sale of Mercedes-Benz cars in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [152097]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  (i) Neither I nor my officials have had any discussions as yet with Mercedes-Benz (UK) on the future plans for the sale of their cars in the UK.

  (ii) My officials have had preliminary discussions with the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF) on the future plans of Mercedes-Benz. The Retail Motor Industry Federation has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, requesting a meeting to discuss this subject along with other issues pertaining to the retail motor industry. This is in the process of being arranged.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposals by Mercedes-Benz (UK) for their planned future car sales structure in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [152096]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have had no discussions as yet with the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposals by Mercedes-Benz (UK) for their planned future car sales structure in the UK. I understand that Mercedes-Benz Dealer representatives have sent a letter to DaimlerChrysler UK calling on the company to justify or withdraw the termination notices, failing which the Dealers intend to commence legal proceedings.

  Miners' Compensation (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Warrington, North have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [152458]

  Mr. Hain
  In the area of Warrington, as defined by the postcodes WA2, WA3, WAl2 and M44, which encompasses the Warrington, North constituency, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 274 claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease and 176 claims in relation to Vibration White Finger, VWF. To date, there have been 65 individual payments totalling £236,000 in respect of respiratory disease and 59 individual payments in respect of VWF amounting to £358,000.

  Directors' Remuneration
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he intends to take forward the proposals in his Department's consultative document on directors' remuneration. [152845]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department received 140 responses to its consultative document on directors' remuneration. Most respondents supported the Government's proposals to promote a more effective linkage between performance and boardroom pay. The Government have now decided to introduce secondary legislation under the Companies Act 1985 which will require quoted companies incorporated in Great Britain to publish a report on directors' remuneration as part of the company's annual reporting cycle. Companies will be required to disclose within the report details of individual directors' remuneration packages, the role of the board's remuneration committee and the board's remuneration policy, including information on performance linkage, directors' service contracts and compensation payments.

  The Government recognise that it is also important that directors are accountable to shareholders in this area, not least because boards of directors face a conflict of interest in relation to directors' remuneration. The Government continue to be concerned that many quoted companies are failing to respond adequately to the best practice recommendations on accountability, but they are also aware that the Company Law Review is looking at a number of issues in adjacent areas. I will therefore take a final decision on how to improve accountability on boardroom pay, including whether or not to introduce a compulsory vote on the board's remuneration report, in the light of the Review's wider recommendations on company law reform.

  Ahead of this there is of course nothing to stop institutional investors taking action now. I have had helpful discussions with the Association of British Insurers and the National Association of Pension Funds and with some of their members about the action they are taking to improve compliance with best practice in this area. In particular, I will be looking to see further evidence that:
  remuneration committees are composed exclusively of independent non-executive directors;
  companies are complying with the spirit of existing best practice on accountability and that shareholders are fully involved.

  Foresight
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Foresight was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular (i) non-departmental and (ii) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for Foresight on a full-time basis. [152037]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Foresight was established, and the first round launched in 1994, with a second round starting in 1999. All the reports produced by Foresight are in the public domain.

  No departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in the work of Foresight. (However, special advisers give advice to Ministers on the programme and its outputs from time to time as they do for any other Departmental activity.)

  There are currently 40 people in the Foresight Secretariat in the Office of Science and Technology/DTI, and these are the only people fully occupied on Foresight. They are made up as follows:

  Organisation

  Full-time

  Part-time

  DTI

  24

  3

  Other Government Departments

  3

  —

  Research Council Secondees

  2

  —

  Industry Secondees

  1

  1

  Consultant

  1

  —

  Temporary/Agency Staff

  5

  —

  In addition, of the 500–600 people who were members of the 14 Foresight Panels and 64 associated Task Forces in the current round, 18 were DTI officials and 72 were officials from other Government Departments and the Research Councils.

  Respiratory Disease Compensation Scheme
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been received by former miners in the Cannock Chase area under the respiratory disease compensation scheme; and how many of these claimants have received(a) interim payments and (b) full and final payments. [152412]

  Mr. Hain
  In the area of Cannock, as defined by the postcodes WS11, WS12 and WA15, which encompasses the Cannock Chase constituency, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 1,961 claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease. To date, there have been 539 interim payments made, including bereavement awards, and 42 full and final settlements totalling together £1,685,000. Until now, it has not been possible to make full and final settlements in all cases because compensation for some heads of damages, e.g. pensions, had not been agreed. This has now been settled, as I announced last week, and more full and final awards can be made.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the post offices that have been closed in(a) North and (b) South Wales in the past year. [150521]
  227W
  Mr. Byers
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the post offices in Wales, indicating those he defines as rural. [150520]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of individual post offices are maintained at a local level and a centralised listing of the type requested is not available.

TREASURY

  Government Investments
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's investments. [152738]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following a detailed review of the gold sales programme, which considered the recommendations made in the recently published National Audit Office Report on "The sale of part of the UK gold reserves", we have today confirmed our plans to sell 120 tonnes of gold in 2001–02. As in previous years the sales will be made through Bank of England auctions. There will be six auctions during 2001–02, which will be held every other month starting in May. The auctions will be of approximately 20 tonnes and will continue to be conducted on a single price basis.

  Hourly Earnings
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of workers on adult rates of pay in part-time employment have hourly earnings, including and excluding overtime pay, that are less than(a) £5, (b) £6, (c) £7 and (d) £3.60 in (i) Scotland, (ii) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) Great Britain, broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers; what the average weekly earnings are, including and excluding overtime, for part-time workers in (A) Scotland and (B) each of the local unitary local authority areas in Scotland for (X) all employment and (Y) non-manual employment. [152153]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Douglas Alexander, dated 7 March 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on average weekly earnings and hourly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland (152153). I am replying in his absence.
  In order to address the issue of weekly pay, I have used data from the New Earnings Survey (NES). This survey can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided the available data for average weekly earnings for part-time workers for Scotland and the unitary authority areas in Scotland. These are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.
  228W
  For hourly pay, I refer you to estimates which have been developed to measure low hourly pay more accurately. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly low pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, and the number of jobs paid at less than National Minimum Wage rates for Spring 2000, desegregated by gender and full and part time. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the NES and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. These estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at:
  www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp.
  The improved methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and the LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the areas and population sub-groups requested.
  Whilst it is possible to produce estimates for the proportion of employee jobs earning less than the specified hourly thresholds from the NES, the NES underestimates the number of low pay jobs since it does not provide a comprehensive picture of the lower end of the earnings distribution.

  Average weekly gross earnings, excluding overtime, for part-time employees for Scotland

  £

  Average earnings

  All employees

  Non-manual

  139.1

  All

  121.7

  Average weekly gross earnings, excluding overtime, for part-time employees for unitary authority areas in Scotland

  £

  Average earnings

  All employees

  Non-manual

  Edinburgh, City of

  136.7

  Glasgow City

  130.2

  All

  Edinburgh, City of

  122.4

  Glasgow City

  117.4

  South Lanarkshire

  111.4

  Average weekly gross earnings, including overtime, for part-time employees for Scotland

  £

  Average earnings

  All employees

  Non-manual

  145.6

  All

  128.2

  Average weekly gross earnings, including overtime, for part-time employees for unitary authority areas in Scotland

  £

  Average earnings

  All employees

  Non-manual

  Edinburgh, City of

  143.4

  Glasgow City

  134.9

  All

  Edinburgh, City of

  128.5

  Glasgow City

  122.7

  South Lanarkshire

  118.3

  Tobacco and Alcohol Smuggling
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest assessment is of tobacco and alcohol smuggling and its impact on Government revenues; and what action he is taking to tackle it. [153056]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In March 2000, Customs and Excise forecast that tobacco duty revenues for 2000–01 would be £7.4 billion. In fact, tobacco duty revenues for 2000–01 are now expected to be £7.5 billion, the first time in four years that the forecast yield has been exceeded.

  Last March, the Government announced their "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, which is designed first to slow the growth in tobacco smuggling, which has been on a strong upward trend, and then to put it into decline within three years. The strategy provided £209 million for investment in 1,000 extra staff and a national network of X-ray scanners. This strategy is at an early stage but it is already beginning to show results. In the first nine months of 2000–01, Customs have seized more than 1.4 billion cigarettes in the UK and helped overseas enforcement agencies seize nearly 700 million cigarettes en route to the UK. Customs investigators have also broken up 38 major organised crime gangs involved in the smuggling and supply of huge volumes of illicit cigarettes. As more front-line staff are put in place, new X-ray scanners come on line, and tobacco pack marks come into force, Customs will be able to take even more effective action against the criminals involved in tobacco smuggling.

  As part of the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, Customs are pursuing a target for 2000–01 of holding illicit market penetration to 21 per cent. of the UK cigarette market, equating to £2.8 billion in lost revenues. Customs' assessment for the calendar year 2000 suggests that 22 per cent. of the UK cigarette market is made up of smuggled cigarettes, equating to £2.9 billion in lost revenues. Customs also estimate that 70 per cent. of cigarette consumption in the calendar year 2000 was of UK tax paid product and 8 per cent. was legitimately purchased for personal consumption free of UK taxes.

  Detailed estimates of revenue lost (excise and VAT) through cross-border shopping and smuggling of alcohol and tobacco for the calendar year 2000 and revised figures for 1999 are contained in the tables. In reaching these estimates using the best information currently available, Customs' assessment is that overall cigarette consumption in 2000 was approximately 81 billion cigarettes.

  Table 1: Revenue lost through all forms of tobacco smuggling

  £ million1

  1999

  2000

  Cross-Channel smuggling of2:

  Hand rolling tobacco

  670

  890

  Cigarettes and other tobacco

  320

  470

  Total cross-Channel smuggling of tobacco

  985

  1,360

  Tobacco smuggling by air passengers, Internet and parcel

  110

  120

  Freight smuggling of cigarettes3

  1,600

  2,300

  Assessment of all forms of tobacco smuggling and evasion4,5

  2,700

  3,800

  1 Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown. Figures for freight smuggling and the overall assessment are rounded to the nearest £100 million.
  230W
  2The 1999 cross-Channel smuggling figures have been revised to take into account new data on traffic flows from the ONS International Passenger Survey.

  3Freight smuggling of cigarettes is calculated as the residual after the other forms of revenue loss have been subtracted from the overall assessment.

  4Customs have only published assessments of all forms of tobacco smuggling and evasion for 1998 and 1999. Estimates of cross-Channel smuggling were first published in 1996.

  5A comparable table of overall alcohol losses is being prepared and will be published in due course.

  Table 2: Revenue lost through cross-border shopping of EU duty paid tobacco

  £ million

  Product type

  1998

  1999

  Cigarettes and other tobacco products

  n/a

  185

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  n/a

  35

  Total

  85

  220

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown.

  2. The figures shown for revenue lost assume that 100 per cent. of all tobacco purchased abroad substitutes for similar purchases in the UK.

  3. The increase in the cross-border shopping estimates between 1998 and 1999 reflects the effects of the abolition of intra-EU duty free sale in July 1999. Prior to abolition duty free sales were not included in the estimates of cross-border shopping: from July 1999 onwards duty free sales have largely been replaced by EU duty paid sales, which are included in cross-border shopping. Because the switch from duty free sales to EU duty paid sales does not involve an additional revenue loss, the measured increase in cross-border shopping between 1998 and 1999 overstates the net additional loss of revenue.

  4. Prior to 1999 the split between the different tobacco products was not robust enough to publish.

  Table 3: Revenue evaded and revenue lost through cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol

  £ million

  19991

  2000

  Product type

  Revenue evaded

  Revenue lost

  Revenue evaded

  Revenue lost

  Beer

  190

  140

  245

  185

  Wine

  45

  30

  65

  50

  Spirits

  20

  15

  15

  15

  Total

  255

  190

  325

  245

  1Revised

  Table 4: Revenue lost through cross-border shopping of EU duty paid alcohol

  £ million

  Product type

  1998

  1999

  Beer

  55

  60

  Wine

  180

  220

  Spirits

  50

  90

  Total

  290

  370

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown.

  2. The figures shown for revenue lost assume that between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all alcohol purchased abroad substitutes for similar purchases in the UK.

  3. The figures exclude any amounts for revenue lost on alcohol products smuggled in freight consignments or diversion fraud.
  231W
  4. The 1999 cross-Channel smuggling figures have been revised to take into account new data on traffic flows from the ONS International Passenger Survey.

  5. Prior to abolition duty free sales were not included in the estimates of cross-border shopping from July 1999 onwards duty free sales have largely been replaced by EU duty paid sales, which are included in cross-border shopping. Because the switch from duty free sales to EU duty paid sales does not involve an additional revenue loss, the measured increase in cross-border shopping between 1998 and 1999 overstates the net additional loss of revenue.

  Government Finance
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the Government's financing plans for 2001–02. [152844]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information concerning the Government's financing plans for 2001–02 can be found in the "Debt and Reserve Management Report 2001–02", which has been published today. Copies of the Report are available in the Library of the House.

  EU Growth and Stability Pact
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with reference to Protocol 5 of the Maastricht Treaty concerning budget deficits and the document known as the Stability Pact, he will list(a) the last published paper issued by Her Majesty's Government containing the text of the Protocol, (b) the Treaty Base of the Stability Pact and the date on which it was (i) first published and (ii) approved by the Ministerial Council, (c) when it was presented to Parliament, considered by a Committee of either House and reported upon, and (d) the debates held or Resolutions made in respect of the document in either House of Parliament. [151496]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure is annexed to the Treaty Establishing the European Community, as a result of the Treaty on European Union agreed at Maastricht on 9–10 December 1991. Royal Assent was given to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 on 20 July 1993, amending UK law, following its third and final reading in the House of Lords.

  Detail on the legal bases used for the Stability and Growth Pact and background on the submission of the proposals for UK parliamentary scrutiny is contained in the comprehensive Explanatory Memorandum which covered them, submitted to Parliament by HM Treasury on 3 June 1997 (6946/97 and 6947/97).

  The House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation noted, in its Second Report of the 1997–98 Session, that the documents had been the subject of a full day's debate on the Floor of the House, and had cleared scrutiny by virtue of the Resolution come to at the end of that debate. I refer my hon. Friend to column 896 of the Official Report on 9 June 1997. The House of Lords Scrutiny Committee confirmed that these items had cleared scrutiny in their 11 June 1997 Progress of Scrutiny Report.

  The draft Resolution was adopted by the Amsterdam European Council on 16 and 17 June 1997, which invited ECOFIN to adopt the two regulations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency (Chief Executive)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is the practice of the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to sign the substantive replies to hon. Members who have written to him on behalf of constituents. [152615]

  Mr. Bayley
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Winnick, dated 6 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if it is the practice of the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to sign the substantive replies for honourable Members who have written to him on behalf of constituents.
  The commitments I have as Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency means that I am at several of the Agency's locations throughout the week and I am therefore not always able to personally sign the substantive replies to MP's letters. I sign in the region of 40% of the letters I receive from MPs each week. When I am unable to sign the reply myself, I ask a Director to sign on my behalf.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the outcome of the Government's consultation on the future of the minimum funding requirement. [153039]

  Mr. Darling
  I am setting out the Government's proposals on the future of the minimum funding requirement in a joint DSS/HMT paper "Security for Occupational Pensions: The Government's Proposals", which I am placing in the Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many firms have said they intend to replace their existing occupational pension scheme with a stakeholder pension. [152440]

  Mr. Rooker
  No firms have contacted us to say they intend to replace their existing occupational pension scheme with a stakeholder pension, and we would not expect them to do so.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if(a) a British pensioner living in France and (b) a French pensioner living in Britain is entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment. [152352]

  Mr. Rooker
  Winter Fuel Payments are one of the initiatives in our commitment to tackle fuel poverty in Great Britain. They are not only paid to pensioners and are not linked to receipt of State Retirement Pension.

  Winter Fuel Payments are paid to people aged 60 and over who satisfy the qualifying conditions during the relevant qualifying week. One of the main qualifying conditions is that a person should be ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

  Pension Credit Consultation Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people requesting copies of the Pension credit consultation paper have been told that it was out of stock; for what periods it was not available; and if he will extend the consultation period to take account of such periods. [152353]

  Mr. Rooker
  The consultation paper has been continuously available since November 2000 on the internet. During this period 4,233 copies of the consultation document have been issued. Due to the high demand for copies, the Department ordered a second print of the command paper to replenish stocks. Printed copies of the document were not available for a short period of 12 days while delivery was awaited. During this time 441 orders were placed for 515 copies.

  Electronic Signatures (Benefit Payments)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the(a) Benefits Agency and (b) Benefits Fraud Inspectorate will accept the use of electronic signatures by claimants as valid. [152421]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department does not currently accept the use of electronic signatures on claims or other applications. It is envisaged that electronic signatures will be accepted as soon as the necessary legal, security and authentication issues have been resolved.

  Departmental Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total cost of advertising campaigns run by his Department and its agencies in each year since 1992 and the projected cost for the current year. [151453]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated increase in spending on Advertising for the year 2000–01 takes into account the work being undertaken by the Department around the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign, Pensions Education and anti-fraud activity.

  Cost of advertising campaigns since 1991–92

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1991–92

  4,834,813

  1992–93

  4,452,277

  1993–94

  5,964,988

  1994–95

  3,597.308

  1995–96

  6,383,467

  1996–971

  3,691,170

  Average Yearly Cost

  4,820,671

  1997–98

  1,430,698

  1998–99

  4,671,862

  1999–2000

  2,788,062

  2000–01

  11,336,000

  Average Yearly Cost

  5,056,656

  1Figures only available for the Department's Headquarters.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the past 20 years(a) the number of National Insurance numbers, (b) the number
  234W
  of National Insurance numbers created, (c) the number of National Insurance numbers cancelled and (d) the population aged 16 years or older. [151921]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The information for the past 12 years is in the tables. There is no confirmed information available for earlier years.

  There are currently 82 million NINOs in existence. This includes:
  approximately 13.5 million deceased records kept in case spouses make a claim on their partner's contribution. These cannot be used for fraud as they have a death date on them;
  approximately 12.5 million Child Reference Numbers for all children included on claims to Child Benefit. These become proper NINOs when the child reaches 16;
  of the remainder the vast majority are people who have moved abroad some of whom will return and need their NINO.

  National Insurance numbers (NINOs) held

  Million

  Year

  Total of NINOs at 31 December

  1989

  58

  1990

  60

  1991

  61

  1992

  71

  1993

  75

  1994

  76

  1995

  77

  1996

  77

  1997

  79

  1998

  80

  1999

  81

  2000

  82

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest million.

  Number of national insurance numbers created per year

  Year (January to December)

  NINOs created

  1989

  894,000

  1990

  1,862,000

  1991

  1,146,000

  1992

  9,765,000

  1993

  3,292,000

  1994

  1,057,000

  1995

  1,008,000

  1996

  979,000

  1997

  1,018,000

  1998

  1,027,000

  1999

  1,023,000

  2000

  996,000

  Notes:

  1.Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2.The reason for the large increase in NINO creation for years 1990–93 is:

  During 1990–91 NINOs were created for all those customers in receipt of retirement pensions where the customer did not have a NINO.

  During 1992–93 Child Reference Numbers (CRN) for all children included on claims to Child Benefit were allocated. CRNs become NINOs when the child reaches age 16.

  Number of national insurance numbers removed per year

  Year (January to December)

  NINOs removed

  1989

  13,000

  1990

  18,000

  1991

  19,000

  1992

  21,000

  1993

  19,000

  1994

  15,000

  235W

  Number of national insurance numbers removed per year

  Year (January to December)

  NINOs removed

  1995

  16,000

  1996

  55,000

  1997

  58,000

  1998

  38,000

  1999

  61,000

  2000

  182,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest million.

  2.The varying figures for removals are due to the varying Data Cleanse exercises (i.e. not all of the exercises involved the removal of records).

  Estimated mid-year resident population aged 16 and over, 1979–99

  thousands

  Mid-year

  UK population over age 16

  1979

  43,210.1

  1980

  43,535.9

  1981

  43,814.7

  1982

  44,028.1

  1983

  44,311.1

  1984

  44,620.2

  1985

  44,931.8

  1986

  45,183.0

  1987

  45,439.7

  1988

  45,625.8

  1989

  45,811.3

  1990

  45,942.4

  1991

  46,071.3

  1992

  46,161.4

  1993

  46,231.5

  1994

  46,325.6

  1995

  46,505.0

  1996

  46,708.0

  1997

  46,906.6

  1998

  47,126.5

  1999

  47,387.0

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 552W, on national insurance numbers, what reasons underlay the increase in the number of national insurance numbers removed from the Departmental Central Index. [152442]

  Mr. Rooker
  The primary objective of the Departmental Central Index (DCI) Data Cleaning Project was to undertake an analysis of the DCI database to identify specific data issues which would need to be resolved to clean up the DCI database.

  The Project removed 182,000 National Insurance Numbers (NINOs) during this financial year—more than in the whole of the last Parliament. The increase in the number of NINOs removed is due to the Project designing various enhanced IT scans which identified high risk records and continued to target duplicate records. Since the Project commenced only 10 fraudulent NINOs have been discovered, the vast majority were duplicates.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new national insurance numbers have been(a) created and (b) cancelled in each year since 1992. [148487]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 February 2001, c. 552 W]: The information is in the table.
  236W

  January to December

  NINOs created on DCI

  NINOs removed from DCI

  1992

  9,765,000

  21,000

  1993

  3,292,000

  19,000

  1994

  1,057,000

  15,000

  1995

  1,008,000

  16,000

  1996

  979,000

  55,000

  1997

  1,018,000

  58,000

  1998

  1,027,000

  38,000

  1999

  1,023,000

  61,000

  2000

  996,000

  182,000

  Note:

  Departmental Central Index (DCI)

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152106]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department will provide information on timber procurement to DETR as part of the Green Ministers' Committee reporting process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much certified timber has been purchased by his Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152146]

  Mr. Battle
  Figures on timber procurement are not readily available. The interdepartmental timber working group is working to develop a common reporting template which will form the basis for future reporting on timber procurement. New FCO guidance has been issued to help buyers to work to ensure that timber procurement is in accordance with international agreements such as CITES and bought from sustainable legal sources.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the resources his Department devotes to international science and technology work. [152947]

  Mr. Battle
  As part of their contribution to the Government's competitiveness agenda, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds and manages a Science and Technology Network currently based in 10 countries. As a result of the 2000 Spending Review they can now allocate an additional £3 million to Science and Technology work over the next three Financial Years (2001–04). This will mean doubling the number of countries in which our diplomatic posts have specialist Science and Technology staff, and the creation of a dedicated Science and Technology Unit in the FCO.

  Zanzibar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with representatives of the Commonwealth regarding the situation in Zanzibar. [151693]
  237W
  Mr. Wilson
  We remain in close touch with the Commonwealth Secretariat over the situation in Zanzibar. We have encouraged the Commonwealth Secretary General to become personally engaged in the search for a solution to the continuing political impasse on the islands. We have reiterated our support for the implementation of key provisions of the Commonwealth brokered agreement between the parties, which we continue to see as the best way of achieving a durable solution.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the Government of Tanzania discontinue the harassment of opposition politicians on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. [151694]

  Mr. Wilson
  We were shocked by the killings, mass arrests and other human rights abuses carried out by the security forces on Zanzibar at the end of January against civilians exercising their democratic right to peaceful assembly.

  We believe that progress can be made only through serious dialogue between the Government and the Opposition.

  When I saw the Tanzanian Foreign Minister on 15 February I urged him to ensure that the security forces acted with restraint and that the Governments of Tanzania and Zanzibar entered into dialogue without preconditions with the Opposition.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is in respect of the elections held in Zanzibar in 2000; and if he will press for a re-run of the elections. [151695]

  Mr. Wilson
  The organisation of the elections on Zanzibar in October and November 2000 was inadequate. International observers noted numerous irregularities, including the excessive use of force by Government forces against opposition supporters.

  A re-run of the elections in the same circumstances would be unlikely to advance the cause of democracy in Zanzibar. The only way forward is through the establishment of serious dialogue between the Government and the Opposition, to enable needed reforms to the Zanzibar electoral and judicial systems to be discussed and implemented. I made this point to the leader of the Zanzibar Opposition when I saw him on 1 February and also discussed it with the Tanzanian Foreign Minister at my meeting with him on 15 February.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to prevent human rights abuses on the islands of(a) Zanzibar and (b) Pemba, following the arrests and deaths of political opponents of the Government of Tanzania. [151696]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the shocking incidents in Zanzibar and Pemba over the weekend of 27–28 January 2001, the EU issued a statement condemning the actions of the security forces and calling on the Government of Tanzania to ensure respect for human rights. We also raised our concerns with the Government of Tanzania and pressed for swift humanitarian access to those injured and detained on both islands. The ICRC have since been given access to Zanzibar and Pemba.
  238W
  I reinforced these concerns when I saw the Tanzanian Foreign Minister on 15 February. We believe the Tanzanian Government have a duty to find a peaceful solution to the political impasse on Zanzibar that respects the human and democratic rights of all Zanzibaris.

  EU Council of Ministers
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many technical committees and working parties of the EU Council of Ministers have been(a) attended and (b) led by Scottish Executive officials in a UK capacity since 1 July 1999. [152354]

  Mr. Vaz
  This information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Stem Cell Research
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on companies involved in(a) germ line therapy, (b) stem cell techniques and (c) transgenic technologies. [146859]

  Yvette Cooper
  Stem cell techniques are very widely used in human and animal cell research. During 2000 over 4,000 scientific papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. Applications for stem cell research involving the use of embryos require a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. No companies have applied for a licence.

  Transgenic techniques are used in many areas of scientific research including work with plants and animals. All transgenic techniques involving animals and plants fall under the definition of "genetic modification" as defined in the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000. This includes germ line therapy in animals. All premises where genetic modification is undertaken have to be notified to the competent authorities (CA) under these Regulations. Where the genetically modified animal or plant poses a greater risk to humans than the non modified animal or plant, the activity must be notified to the CA. For England and Wales the CA comprises the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. For Scotland the CA comprises the HSE and Scottish Ministers.

  When transgenic techniques are used in humans these are for the purpose of gene therapy. A list of all United Kingdom gene therapy trials is published in the annual report of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Germ line therapy is not permitted in humans.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of(a) 5 October 2000, (b) 31 October 2000, (c) 22 November 2000, (d) 29 November 2000, (e) 9 January and (f) 8 February relating to her constituent, Mr. S. Russell of Wormley. [150335]
  239W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: A reply to the hon Member's letter was sent on 5 March 2001.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts that exist between Serco

  Period

  Value (£)

  Coverage

  Leicestershire Royal Infirmary (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust)

  August 1996-July 2003

  40 million over seven years

  All non-clinical support services

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  April 1994-March 1999

  20 million over five years

  Full Facilities Management contract (catering, estates, portering, transport, switchboard, domestic). Contract partially cancelled July 1998 except catering and domestic which continued until the end of the contract in March 1999

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  January 1999-December 2001 (option to extend to December 2003)

  7.5 million over two years

  Domestic, portering and ward beverage service. Contract is for existing hospital

  August 2001-July 2006

  11.1 million per annum

  Soft services within the PFI new hospital Services include grounds maintenance, domestics and portering, catering, waste disposal, laundry, car parking and security, non-emergency transport and utilities dealt with as they pass through

  Premier Health NHS Trust

  October 1999-September 2002

  (a) £48,000

  (a) Wheelchair modification

  (b) £22,000

  (b) Preventative maintenance

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals

  October 1999-September 2002

  (a) £69,000 (indexed) per annum for repair

  Wheelchair services

  (b) £33,000 (indexed) per annum for annual inspection

  Birmingham Specialist Community Health

  April 1994-September 2001

  130,000 per annum

  Wheelchair repair service

  Worcestershire Community and Mental Health

  April 2000-March 2003

  67,000 per annum plus £13.65 per hour for modifications

  Repair service for all wheelchairs and minor modifications

  Rampton Hospital Authority

  September 2000-August 2001

  Estimated at £2,000. Time charge basis as and when required

  Authorising Engineer Services for three disciplines—high voltage, low voltage, pressure systems

  University Hospitals of Leicester (LRI, Leicester General and Glenfield

  August 1996-July 2003

  7.2 million per annum

  Full facilities management comprising of: Estate service, catering, domestic, car parking, switchboard, portering, security, reception, linen service, post room service.

  North East Essex Mental Health

  1998-ongoing

  10,000 per annum

  Serco subcontract gardening services from the trust to fulfil contract with new possibilities

  New Possibilities NHS Trust

  Rolling Contract

  500,000 per annum

  All non-clinical services

  Southend Hospital

  January 2001-ongoing

  6,000 per annum

  Medical Records Storage

  Ashford and St. Peters Hospitals NHS Trust/Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust

  April 1994-March 1999

  20 million over five years

  Facilities and Estates Management

  Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust

  Rolling contract

  1,000 per annum

  Wheeled Bin Collection Service for commercial waste

  Eastbourne Hospital NHS Trust

  1 June 1995–7 September 1998

  33,543.28

  Trust contract van hire

  1 April 1996–10 March 1999

  104,862.31

  ECS contract van hire

  30 April 1998–11 May 1999

  5,585.89

  Contract van hire and excess mileage charge

  240W
  and the Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151345]

  Mr. Denham
  NHS bodies with contracts for goods or services provided by Serco since May 1997 are:
  241W

  Period

  Value (£)

  Coverage

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Rolling contract until 5 March 2001

  4,222.40 per annum

  Refuse disposal at Bexhill Hospital and Rye Clinic

  Medway NHS Trust

  Rolling contract since 1995

  7,500 per annum

  Staff discount scheme at local leisure centre

  Kent Ambulance Service

  Rolling contract since 1997

  100 per annum

  Waste Collection—Herne Bay

  Rolling contract since 1997

  200 per annum

  Waste Collection—Canterbury

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  April 1999-March 2004 (option to extend to 2006)

  574,000 per annum

  Wheelchair maintenance

  South West London NHS Trust

  April 2001-March 2006

  430,000 per annum

  Wheelchair maintenance

  Others

  The Department, its agencies and associated public bodies, have also used Serco for a number of very small one-off payments.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has taken since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 of its implications for the exercise of his powers of ministerial decision on proposed developments within the NHS to which community health councils have lodged official objection. [151257]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 it is unlawful for a public authority, including the Secretary of State, to act in any way incompatibly with the rights under various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. When making any decision, the Secretary of State will consider and seek appropriate advice on any relevant human rights issues, in particular whether his actions would be compatible with those Convention rights.

  East Surrey Health Authority
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional funding above the GDP deflator will be available to East Surrey Health Authority for the 2001–02 financial year; and what the change in cash resources will be available to East Surrey Health Authority to spend at its discretion in meeting local health priorities above the GDP deflator for the 2001–02 financial year. [151687]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: East Surrey Health Authority (ESHA) will receive a total cash increase of £22,572,000 for the 2001–02 financial year. This is a 8.46 per cent. total cash increase or 5.82 per cent. in real terms. In monetary terms the additional funding in real terms is £15,516k.

  The total cash increase figure includes the increase owing to the extra £140 million resources issued in February plus cost of living and performance fund elements. This gives the total recurrent/non-recurrent cash increase available to ESHA.

  East Surrey health community, in line with all other health systems is currently implementing the NHS Plan at a local level through its annual planning process. The local priorities are set out in the East Surrey Health Improvement Programme and demonstrate robust close partnership working.
  242W
  The new NHS Performance Fund, worth £250 million for 2001–02 and rising to £500 million by 2003–04, is being made available on a fair share basis to all health authorities. It will provide resources for locally developed and designed incentive schemes across each health economy, tailored to the particular needs of each area but aimed overall at supporting implementation of the NHS Plan.

  Fishery Product
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comments Her Majesty's Government have made on the recommendations made in the Mission report (ref. XXIV/1042/99 MR Final 22–26 Feb '99) to the Food and Veterinary Office on 26 April 1999; what visits Her Majesty's Government have received from EU officials to discuss the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs and of fishery products in member states; what future visits have been notified to Her Majesty's Government under the EU's FVO Missions Programme for 2001; what progress has been made in implementing recommendations made to Her Majesty's Government following previous inspections; and if he will make a statement. [152094]

  Ms Stuart
  The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) wrote to the European Commission following receipt of the draft Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) report of its mission to the United Kingdom to evaluate implementation of Directive 91/492/EEC. A number of comments were submitted both to correct inaccuracies in the draft report and to provide clarification on certain points. The CVO commented on two issues which had been identified as requiring immediate corrective measures. These concerned the immediate closure of production areas following the detection of diarrhoeic shellfish poison and the coverage of the phytoplankton and biotoxin monitoring programme in England and Wales. Action has been taken on these two recommendations. The CVO also welcomed the Commission's evaluation of the Directive within the European Community and indicated that the UK would play a full and active part in the proposed commission working group to discuss further some of the issues which were identified during the inspections visits to member states.

  Apart from the visit by FVO inspectors in February 1999 Commission inspectors visited the UK in October 1995 and in May 1996 to evaluate implementation of Directive 91/493/EEC. No specific dates for a future visit to the UK have been decided but the FVO programme of

  243W
  visits for the first half of this year indicates that the FVO will visit the UK to carry out inspections of fishery products and bivalve molluscs.

  Following all visits, in those cases where deficiencies were noted by the inspectors in individual establishments, the relevant local food authorities were asked to ensure that corrected action is taken. In those cases where the recommendations are addressed to the competent authority, action has generally either been taken or is being considered as part of a wider strategy.

  Hypodermic Needles
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual cost is of equipping the NHS with conventional hypodermic needles; what assessment he has made of the annual cost of equipping the service with safer needles; and if he will make a statement. [152074]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Sales of hypodermic syringes and needles to the National Health Service via the NHS Logistics Authority total £15.5 million per annum. This may not be the total figure because some NHS trusts may have their own contracts for these items for which records are not held centrally.

  The cost to the NHS to introduce safer products and to replace the standard ones already available could be anything up to five times this amount depending on the type of product selected (from simple needle guard protectors to highly sophisticated products which automatically retract the needle into the syringe barrel).

  There is not one single, optimum product which will meet everyone's needs.

  Hospital Pharmacists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library information relating to(a) the number of hospital pharmacists, (b) their recruitment and retention rates, (c) the number employed and the number of vacancies in each trust and (d) their pay scales in 2000 and 2001; and what plans he has to review the status and pay of hospital pharmacists. [152058]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. Information requested about hospital pharmacists' recruitment and retention is not collected centrally.

  Offers have been made to health care pharmacists in line with those for other non pay review body staff of pay increases from 1 April 2000 of 3.25 per cent. or £300 if greater, and from 1 April 2001 of 3.7 per cent. or £380 if greater. We are working closely with unions and employers on a new pay system for National Health Service staff, and future arrangements for determining the pay of health care pharmacists are the subject of those negotiations.

  Needlestick Injuries
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many settlements the NHS has made for needlestick injuries; how many of these cases were settled out of court; and what the total value of cases settled was in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [152075]
  244W
  (2) how many needlestick injuries have been reported in the NHS; what the estimated figure including unreported needlestick injuries is; what proportion of those reporting injuries developed a blood borne infectious disease; and how many of these developed (a) hepatitis and (b) HIV in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [152072]

  (3) how many days have been lost by NHS staff that have suffered a needlestick injury; and what the cost to the service was in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [152076]

  (4) if he will list the 10 NHS trusts with the (a) highest and (b) lowest rate of needlestick injuries, indicating how many in (b) use safer needles; [152073]

  (5) how many NHS staff are recorded as having lost time off work following a needlestick injury due to anxiety and stress in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [152077]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answers 6 March 2001]: Data on needlestick injuries to National Health Service staff and any absence resulting from such injuries, are not collected centrally unless the incident involves the risk of transmission of a blood borne virus. Information on needlestick injuries would be reflected in incident reports held locally by individual NHS employers.

  Data collected as part of the National Surveillance of Occupational Exposure to Blood Borne Viruses in Health Care Workers between July 1997 and December 2000 indicated that 1,044 NHS staff were exposed to blood borne viruses during this period.

  NHS Working Conditions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in providing more flexible working conditions for NHS staff; and if he will make a statement. [151942]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: We are fully committed to investing in National Health Service staff. We recognise that a modern NHS must offer staff a better deal in their working lives including the provision of more flexible working practices.

  The Improving Working Lives Standard, launched in October 2000, has been developed to set a model of good employment practices against which NHS organisations will be measured. NHS organisations are required to provide a portfolio of evidence showing that they are delivering more flexible working for all staff by April 2003.

  Evidence of flexible working is a component of trusts' pledge to achieve Improving Working Lives accreditation. In a number of trusts including Warrington General Hospital, where a ward pilot is currently taking place, a self-rostering system has been introduced to give staff more control and flexibility in their working lives. Team based self-rostering is also evident in Blackburn, North Manchester and Stepping Hill Hospitals.

  The NHS has received funding of £1 million to support Improving Working Lives during 1999 and again in 2000. The NHS Plan announced investment building up to over £30 million by 2004 to boost child care arrangements and give parents more affordable, accessible, good quality child care.

  Health Care Assistants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards setting up a registration system for health care assistants; and if he will make a statement. [151944]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: We are consulting the other Health Departments with a view to publishing the De Montfort University report on support workers shortly, and expect to follow this up with proposals for the effective regulation of support workers later this year.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to introduce to prevent the use of oral tobacco products from overseas sources. [152455]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: So long as oral tobacco from overseas sources does not fall within a banned category, complies with United Kingdom Customs and Excise duty regulations and carries health warnings, its use in the UK is not illegal.

  However, we want to ensure that people have information about health risks. We are, therefore, seeking to develop greater awareness of the health risks associated with oral tobacco as part of our tobacco information strategy. We are working on a dedicated campaign, focused on high risk ethnic minority populations, to address the health risks of smoking and the use of oral tobacco in order to decrease demand for these products. We are also training trading standards officers in this area.

  Angiographers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended level of angiographers per 1,000 head of population is; and which health authorities are(a) above and (b) below this level. [152627]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: There is no recommended level of staff performing angiographs per head of population.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish its framework document. [152682]

  Ms Stuart
  We are pleased to announce that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's framework document has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regeneration Initiatives
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the criteria for assessing applications for financial support for economic and physical regeneration initiatives for funds administered by his Department; and how they take account of(a) the
  246W
  variation in the availability of previously developed land and buildings and (b) other considerations of environmental capacity. [152340]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I do not administer any regeneration initiatives, although many public bodies in the culture and leisure field, including many funded by DCMS, participate in them.

  Dance
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are being taken to improve the efficiency of the funding system for dance projects which are of benefit to public health. [152533]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: My Department, the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards all recognise the clear links between dance and public health. The Arts Council funds a wide range of dance organisations, many of which have developed extensive education programmes which have a particular relevance to public health. These include organisations such as Green Candle Dance Company, the Foundation for Community Dance and The Place National Dance Agency. Support from the arts funding system also usefully functions as a lever for funding from sources such as local health authorities and health action zones. The efficiency of the funding system is kept under continuous review.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if BSE prions are live in rendered material produced under the OTMS. [151809]

  Ms Quin
  Current rendering methods do not completely remove prion infectivity. OTMS material must therefore be incinerated regardless of whether or not it has previously been rendered.

  Hill Farm Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department notified farmers of the stocking densities affecting their eligibility for hill farm allowance. [151742]

  Ms Quin
  Following extensive consultation with interested parties, a minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock units per hectare in the hills was included in the proposals which were submitted to the Commission in January 2000. This was retained in the revised proposals sent to the Commission last August, and approved in October. These were matters of public record at the time and known to NFU and farmers organisations, although farmers were not notified individually until guidance notes were distributed in December 2000. These notes included an explanation of how the stocking density would be calculated to allow farmers to work out the position on their own holdings.

  Imported Meat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received
  247W
  calling for imported pig products to match the same health and hygiene standards as the UK's domestic pig industry. [151670]

  Ms Quin
  Representations on this issue are received from time to time. Animal health and meat hygiene standards are established in EU legislation and apply in all member states. In addition, there are harmonised rules for the import of pigmeat and pig products from third countries approved by the EC to export into the Community.

  EU Tobacco Subsidies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid in subsidies out of the EU budget in the latest available financial year to tobacco growers within the EU. [151899]

  Ms Quin
  The last year for which figures are available is the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund financial year ending 15 October 2000 when 984.5 meuro (£592.1 million1) was paid in subsidies out of the EU budget to tobacco growers.
  1£1 = 1.6631 euro

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the recommendations of the Phillips report about preventing the spread of TB from badgers. [152285]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The report of the BSE inquiry (the "Phillips Report") contained no specific recommendations about preventing the spread of TB from badgers.

  Farming Legislation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many items of primary and secondary legislation relating to farming matters have been introduced since May 1997. [152306]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Out of 461 statutory instruments which the Ministry has laid since May 1997, some 330 might be said to relate to farming matters. Many of these are amendments to, or revocations of, previous instruments. In the same period the Ministry has introduced four Bills, three of which can be related to farming matters and have been enacted.

  Veterinarians
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many registered veterinarians employed within his Department and its agencies are engaged in clinical diagnosis, epidemiological management and statutory control of animal disease. [151923]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: 404 registered veterinarians employed by MAFF and its agencies are involved in one or more aspects of clinical diagnosis, epidemiological investigations and statutory control measures in relation to animal health and welfare.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that exclusion zones are lifted as soon as a suspected case of foot and mouth disease produces a negative test and the farm in question is found to be clear of the disease. [151929]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: In the event of a negative test result for foot and mouth disease, restrictions on a suspected premises will be removed as quickly as possible. This will include any associated `Form C' area restrictions in an eight kilometre zone.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the application of the foot and mouth disease restrictions on importers of non-EU origin meat and dairy products who process it for immediate re-export outside the EU. [152514]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Provision has been made in EU and UK legislation concerning the foot and mouth disease export restrictions for such trade to take place under tightly controlled conditions. Information has been made available to the trade about these requirements and can be found on the MAFF website at http://maffweb/animalh/int-trde/misc/foot/fmd.htm.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has(a) undertaken and (b) plans to commission to assess the effects of the large scale closure of small slaughterhouses on the geographical and chronological spread of foot and mouth disease. [151872]

  Ms Quin
  The reduction in the number of small abattoirs does not appear to be a factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease during the current outbreak. The main cause for the spread of the disease appears to be the movement of sheep for trade purposes. However, detailed epidemiological studies into the outbreak will continue.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Travellers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was spent by the Highways Agency in respect of their site occupied by travellers near the A50/A38 junction in Willington, Derbyshire on(a) clearing waste, (b) erecting barriers and (c) maintaining security in the last 18 months. [151813]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 7 March 2001:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about costs incurred by the Highways Agency in clearing waste, erecting barriers, and maintaining security following its occupation by travellers in April 2000.
  The costs were £13,800, £3,700 and £17,200 respectively.

  Public Safety Zones (Biggin Hill Airport)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the status is of the maps and co-ordinates issued by his Department showing public safety zones for Biggin Hill airport; what consultation preceded their publication; under what powers public safety zones are established; and upon what information the designation of the public safety zones is determined. [151995]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Public safety zones have no basis at present in legislation, although reference to them is included in Department of the Environment Circular 2–92 and they have existed near an increasing number of airports since their introduction over 40 years ago. Following a review of public safety zone policy and its administration, my Department carried out public consultation in 1997–98 on a proposal that public safety zones should be redefined on the basis of risk contour modelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), the then Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, announced on 31 July 1998,Official Report, columns 638–39W, that public safety zones would correspond essentially to the areas which might be expected to experience an individual risk of death from aircraft accidents of one in 100,000 per year or greater, based on broad assumptions about the numbers and types of aircraft expected to use the relevant airports in 15 years time. She announced on 15 June 1999, Official Report, column 86W, that public safety zones would be defined on this basis at the other airports for which modelling work suggested that this would be justified. On the same day my Department issued for public consultation a draft circular containing guidance to local planning authorities for considering planning applications arising within public safety zones.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), then the Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, announced on 19 April 2000, Official Report, columns 495–496W, that public safety zones would be established for the first time at Biggin Hill and several other airports. On 26 May 2000 my Department asked local planning authorities to apply the guidance in the draft circular on an interim basis when determining planning applications within these zones. Biggin Hill is one of 26 airports for which public safety zones have so far been established and Ordnance Survey grid co-ordinates issued, based on airports' forecasts of the numbers and types of aircraft expected to use the respective airports in 2015. I hope to issue the final version of the guidance and definitive maps of the zones in the next few months.

  Policy Planning Guidance Notes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages in combining PPGs 15 and 16; and if he will make a statement. [151864]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have made no such assessment and we have no current plans to combine these planning policy guidance notes.

  One NorthEast
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding was made available to One NorthEast and its predecessor bodies engaged in regional regeneration in each year since 1995. [152472]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The predecessor bodies of One NorthEast that were engaged in regional regeneration were English Partnerships North East Regional Office, the Northern Regional Office of the Rural Development Commission, the Northern Development Company and the Government Office for the North East. The funding to these bodies from central Government from 1995–96 to 1998–99 is shown in the table:

  From 1 April 1999 One NorthEast was funded by grant in aid from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, from European programmes and from receipts generated from the management and disposal of its land and property assets. For 1999–2000 the grant-in-aid was £93,479,000 and for 2000–01 it is currently estimated to be £105,799,000.

  £ million.

  Year

  Government Office for the North East1

  English Partnership2

  Rural Development Commission3

  Northern Development Company4

  1995–96

  80

  34

  3.332

  1.800

  1996–97

  158

  32

  2.674

  1.813

  1997–98

  142

  47

  2.463

  1.823

  1998–99

  20

  43

  2.322

  1.826

  1The funding relates to the Single Regeneration Budget that was administered by the Government Office for the North East until 31 March 1999. The funding relates to the relevant SRB bidding round and for approved schemes for up to seven years.

  2English Partnerships funding is a mixture of grant-in-aid and income generated from assets. Funds from all sources were pooled and allocated to each English Partnerships region.

  3The figures represent spending on the Rural Development Commission's Rural Programme for the North East region.

  4The figures represent funding received from the Department of Trade and Industry for inward investment and Regional Supply Office activities only.

  Regeneration Initiatives
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria for assessing applications for financial support for economic and physical regeneration initiatives for funds administered by his Department; and what account they take of(a) the variation in the availability of previously developed land and buildings and (b) other considerations of environmental capacity. [152338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The assessment of applications for financial support for regeneration initiatives is based on a project appraisal. Guidance on appraisal is provided in the Treasury Green Book (1997) and in "A Framework for the Evaluation of Regeneration Projects and Programmes" (EGRUP, 1995). The basic requirements for an appraisal include assessing:

  need for the project;

  the project's fit with local regeneration strategies;

  251W

  sustainability;

  aims of the project;

  alternative options;

  costs, values and benefits of a project, including environmental and economic effects;

  timing of these costs, values and benefits;

  value for money;

  additionality of outputs—looking at what additional outputs are delivered above those that would occur anyway;

  project viability and risks to the project, including details as to how these risks will be minimised.

  The appraisal should assess whether there are any suitable brownfield sites on which to locate the project before considering greenfield sites.

  The Single Regeneration Budget supports schemes run by local regeneration partnerships, which can include economic and physical regeneration projects. It is for the partnership to decide the criteria for supporting a project, subject to it linking to the overall scheme objectives agreed previously with the RDA; limits under EC state aid regulations; and rigorous project appraisal, which would include all of the above.

  Cycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres of dedicated cycle paths have been created in each year since 1992. [152345]

  Mr. Hill
  Information about the lengths of cycle lanes created on the carriageway and cycle tracks away from the road is not held centrally.

  We are encouraging all local highway authorities to increase the provision of cycle facilities in accordance with a cycling strategy as part of their Local Transport Plans.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by Government on dedicated cycling infrastructure in each financial year since 1992–93. [152344]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  As far as local authority schemes are concerned, no separate funding is made available to encourage cycling. It is for individual authorities to decide the amount to spend on cycling from their overall total allocation of funding. Total allocations, from which spending on schemes to encourage cycling could be made, have been as follows.

  £ million

  Year

  Amount available

  1992–93

  109

  1993–94

  125

  1994–95

  70

  1995–96

  128

  1996–97

  118

  1997–98

  79

  1998–99

  85

  1999–2000

  160

  2000–01

  250

  2001–02

  559

  252W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by Government on schemes in the Cycle Challenge project in each financial year since its creation. [152347]

  Mr. Hill
  The Cycle Challenge project was a one-off initiative. Payments were made only in 1995–96 and 1996–97. The Department spent £1,989,694.00 on 74 projects spread around the country. All the projects were designed to promote cycling at a local level.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by Government on(a) research into promoting cycling and making cycling safer in each financial year since 1992 and (b) the marketing of the National Cycling Strategy in each financial year since its creation. [152346]

  Mr. Hill
  Government spend since 1992 on research into promoting cycling and making cycling safer is shown in the table.

  Spend by financial year on cycling research projects

  Year

  £000 (gross)

  1992–93

  186

  1993–94

  156

  1994–95

  239

  1995–96

  432

  1996–97

  508

  1997–98

  606

  1998–99

  283

  1999–2000

  493

  2000–01

  1302

  1Part year spend only

  The Highways Agency also conducts research into promoting cycling and making cycling safer, on which we work collaboratively. The estimated spend last financial year was £100,000.

  A contract to market the National Cycling Strategy was let in April 2000 and is due for completion in March 2002. The contract, which aims to deliver the main objectives of the Strategy to key decision makers in the public and private sectors, is worth £350,000. In addition, a further £35,000 was spent in 2001 on the production of a promotional video.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres of the London Cycle Network have been created in each year since its creation; and how much has been allocated to London boroughs for the London Cycle Network for each financial year since its creation. [152348]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures for kilometres created in individual years before 1997 are unavailable. In 1996–97 the London Cycle Network (LCN) was 908 kilometres long.

  Length (km)

  1996–97

  908

  1997–98

  147

  1998–99

  161

  1999–2000

  129

  253W
  The LCN is currently some 1,345 kilometres long.

  The following table provides details of the resources that my Department has allocated for the LCN under the Local Transport Settlement. Future allocations will be made by the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Allocation (£ million)

  1995–96

  3.00

  1996–97

  14.00

  1997–98

  4.00

  1998–99

  5.00

  1999–2000

  5.50

  2000–01

  6.00

  Total

  27.50

  1Includes £1 million for London Cycling Initiative

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable and interim targets are for completion of the London Cycle Network; and if he will make a statement. [152343]

  Mr. Hill
  Responsibility for the London Cycle Network has transferred to the Mayor.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable and interim targets are for achieving the National Cycling Strategy's objective concerning the proportion of journeys made by bicycle; and if he will make a statement. [152342]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government endorsed the targets in the 1996 National Cycling Strategy, to double the number of cycle trips by 2002, and to quadruple them by 2012. To achieve increases on the scale envisaged, major improvements need to be made in the infrastructure for cycling. It has become increasingly clear that the interim target for 2002 did not allow enough time for such improvements to be planned and implemented. The Government remain committed to the target for 2012, and in the 10-Year Transport Plan we have set a new interim target of trebling cycling by 2010.

  Housing Investment (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the(a) percentage change and (b) cash change in real terms in the housing investment programme for each London borough in each year since 1996–97. [152333]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Planning Officers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms exist for members of the public to complain about the conduct of planning officers; and what remedies exist in respect of complaints which are upheld. [152264]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Complaints about officers' conduct should, in the first instance, be directed to the local authority concerned, to be handled in accordance with its complaints procedures and disciplinary code. If, after receiving the local authority's response, the complainant wishes to pursue the matter, it could be put to the Local 254W
  Government Ombudsman, who is the independent and impartial body charged by Parliament with investigating complaints of maladministration causing injustice.

  The Ombudsman may deal with complaints by correspondence or issue a report which the local authority must consider. Remedy may involve the payment of compensation, review of the authority's policy and procedures, or both.

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in place on the rail network at the end of each month since October 2000; and how many are anticipated at the end of March and April 2001. [152358]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Railtrack report the number of temporary speed restrictions at the end of each month as:

  Number

  October 2000

  346

  November 2000

  852

  December 2000

  456

  January 2001

  422

  February 2001

  307

  March 20011

  177

  April 20011

  61

  1Plan

  This covers temporary speed restrictions imposed since Hatfield because of gauge corner cracking and adverse weather, and addressed in the company's National Recovery Plan of 18 January 2001. It excludes speed restrictions in force at any one time for other reasons (including some gauge corner restrictions imposed since 18 January 2001).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all the speed restrictions on the London to Norwich railway line will be lifted by Easter. [152361]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Railtrack is removing the remaining speed restrictions on the London-Norwich line in accordance with its National Recovery Plan, but some of the less severe restrictions will remain in place into the summer. Additionally, as with other parts of the network, the London—Norwich line will continue to be affected by speed restrictions imposed for other reasons.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the effect of speed restrictions on journey times on the London to Norwich railway line. [152360]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Association of Train Operators reports that current average journey times for London to Norwich are between two hours 10 minutes and two hours 15 minutes. The normal timetable time is one hour 47 minutes.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  255W
  representations he has made to Railtrack about the continued enforcement of speed restrictions; and when he estimates that the final restrictions will be lifted. [152355]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Rail Recovery Action Group, chaired by my noble Friend the Minister for Transport, is pressing and helping Railtrack to ensure that temporary speed restrictions imposed in the light of the Hatfield accident are removed as soon as possible, consistent with high safety standards. Many other speed restrictions imposed for other reasons will remain, and so the group has not estimated when all restrictions might be lifted.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many speed restrictions are still in force on the rail network; and on which lines. [152349]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: As of 5 March, 287 temporary speed restrictions imposed in the light of the Hatfield accident remain in force at various points on the rail network, including on 32 of the 45 strategic routes identified in Railtrack's Network Management Statement:

  West Coast Mainline

  East Coast Mainline

  Great Western Mainline

  Reading and Bristol to Penzance

  Midland Mainline

  Channel Tunnel Routes

  Derby to Bristol and Didcot

  North Transpennine

  Birmingham and Coventry to Peterborough

  Crewe to Newport

  Wolverhampton to Chester and Aberystwyth

  Manchester and Crewe to North Wales

  Manchester to Sheffield and North Lincolnshire

  Edinburgh to Glasgow, Glasgow and Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness

  West Anglia Mainline

  Great Eastern Mainline

  Chatham Mainline and North Kent

  Brighton Mainline and South London Network

  South Coastal Route Portsmouth to Ashford

  London to Portsmouth

  Wessex Routes

  Chiltern lines

  North London Line

  Cardiff Valleys

  West Midlands local routes

  East Midlands local routes

  Yorkshire

  North East England

  South West Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Freight-only routes North England

  Freight-only routes Scotland.

  In addition, at any one time there is always a larger number of speed restrictions in force on the network, needed to maintain safe operation in adverse operating conditions and to enable normal maintenance activities to be completed.
  256W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what speed restrictions have been placed on the London to Norwich railway line in each of the last six months; how many of these restrictions remain; what monitoring of the situation he is undertaking; and what representations he has made to Railtrack about the disruption these restrictions have caused to journey times. [152359]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Railtrack is responsible for the management of speed restrictions, and reports to the Rail Recovery Action Group on the total in force nationally in the light of the Hatfield accident. The detailed figures for individual lines are a matter for Railtrack.

  In the light of its concern about extended journey times on London-Norwich and other services, the group, chaired by the Minister for Transport, is urging Railtrack to remove temporary speed restrictions as soon as possible, consistent with high safety standards.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in place on the London to Norwich railway line in each month since the end of October 2000; and how many are anticipated at the end of March and April this year. [152362]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]This is a matter for Railtrack.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regular meetings the Minister for Transport holds with representatives of the rail industry. [152357]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]My noble Friend the Minister for Transport chairs the Rail Recovery Action Group, meeting each week and bringing together senior rail industry representatives to help get services back to normal. Ministers have frequent meetings on a bilateral basis with a range of industry figures.

  Sewers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of sewers in(a) Lancashire and (b) the United Kingdom are in a serious state of disrepair and need to be (i) repaired and (ii) replaced within the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [152275]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Information is available only on a water company basis. In the North West Water region, 4,597 miles of sewer (18.6 per cent. of their total) are assessed as being in a poor condition. For England and Wales. 10.6 per cent. of the sewer network is assessed as being in a poor condition. My Department does not have information covering the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Between 2000 and 2005, North West Water plans to renew or renovate 281 miles of sewer. For England and Wales, the comparable figure is 1,130 miles. Companies' plans for 2006 to 2010 will be reviewed as part of the next periodic review of water companies' prices.
  257W
  The condition of sewers is only one of several factors to be taken into account when assessing whether they need to be repaired or replaced. Various studies are under way to review the basis for future investment.

  First Group School Bus Pilot
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if his Department has authorised the First Group School Bus pilot initiative on the basis that the vehicles are classified as coaches; and if he will make a statement;[152476]

  (2) if he has made it a condition that vehicles used in the First Group School Bus pilot comply with (a) ECER 66 regulations and (b) ECEM 3 standard regulations; [152475]

  (3) if the glass used in the construction of the First Group School Bus pilot meets the same standards as required for UK public service vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [152477]

  Mr. Hill
  The vehicles to be operated in the First Bus Pilot School Project are considered to be coaches. However, because they do not have any under-floor luggage space they are not required to comply with ECE Regulation 66. Before they can be used the vehicles will be modified to meet the requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended; the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981, as amended; and the Road Vehicles Lighting

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  4.5

  57.5

  58.9

  56.7

  61.4

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  5.9

  44.5

  48.4

  54.8

  53.6

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  3.3

  2.3

  —

  —

  —

  Housing Investment Programme

  2.2

  2.1

  3.7

  4.6

  1.7

  Major Repairs Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.4

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  6.1

  5.3

  5.0

  4.4

  3.8

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  —

  1.3

  1.3

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.1

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.005

  0.005

  0.005

  0.005

  0.005

  SRB Funding2

  —

  0.04

  0.08

  0.2

  0.2

  Transport Supplementary Grant1

  —

  0.6

  0.7

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline1

  —

  0.6

  0.7

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval1

  —

  0.3

  0.7

  2.7

  4.3

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant1

  —

  0.06

  0.06

  0.06

  0.06

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  —

  0.1

  0.1

  —

  —

  1Warrington became a unitary authority from 1 April 1998.

  For 1997–98 the following funding relating to the Warrington Borough area will have gone to Cheshire County Council:

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  Transport ACG

  Transport SCA

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  The change to Unitary status also explains the large increases in Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates from 1998–99.

  2Single Regeneration Budget—Round 4

  The T.R.E.E. Project (Training and Retraining for Employment and Employability)

  The four-year scheme aims to develop an innovative solution to tackle deprivation on several estates in Warrington. Three key priority areas will be tackled—training and employability, community business support and community development.

  Total SRB £584,000.

  Electronic Signatures (Departmental Communications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department has made in implementing the 258W
  Regulations 1986. These are the equivalent standards in the UK to those contained in the ECE regulations relating to the construction of large buses and coaches (ECE Category M3).

  Where any of the component parts, such as the glazing, are not marked showing compliance with UK standards we have determined that the performance will be equivalent to UK standards.

  On accessibility, we have agreed to exempt these vehicles from the seat spacing and destination display requirements of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, which are not generally relevant to school services.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  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 Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152313]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to Warrington in 1997–98 to 2000–01 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent on Warrington, North. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are invested.

  policy objective of the increased use of electronic signatures in communications (a) between officials, (b) from officials to persons and organisations outside and (c) from persons and organisations outside to officials in his Department. [152423]
  259W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  DETR(C) is aware that Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and its associated use of encryption and digital signatures will be used to provide strong authentication, non-repudiation and confidentiality for transactions which are designated to be above Level 1 in the "Guidelines for Trust and Authentication" of the "Confidentiality Services Framework" as defined by Cabinet Office.

  Our plans include:

  (a) for internal use-DETR(C) is currently carrying out a routine maintenance upgrade of its networking infrastructure; the new revision of the software will support the use of electronic signatures. Further work is under way to identify appropriate electronic signature products to work with the revised infrastructure, and the most effective way to deploy them.

  (b) from officials to persons and organisations outside and (c) from persons and organisations outside to officials in his Department—DETR(C) will ensure that our systems serve both the authentication needs for internal departmental communications, and for those with external persons and organisations. For that reason, we are in discussion with OGC, the E-envoy's office, CESG and the Gateway team so that the eventual solution will be compatible with facilities to be provided through the Government Gateway, the Government Secure Intranet and meet all interoperability requirements.

  Nuclear Waste (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the local and regional authorities with which he has had discussions regarding the transporting of nuclear waste by train through Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement. [152677]

  Mr. Hill
  No such list is maintained.

  Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Meeting of the Parties to the UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context held in Sofia from 25 to 27 February. [152846]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The second meeting of the Parties to this Convention agreed to begin negotiations on a protocol to the Convention covering strategic environmental assessment with a view to its adoption at the Environment for Europe Conference at Kiev in 2003. The meeting adopted a proposal, developed under UK leadership, to establish an Implementation Committee to develop reporting procedures and to assist Parties to meet fully their obligations under the Convention. The UK will support this work and will chair the Implementation Committee for its first year. The UK also agreed to work closely with the Russian Federation on a project to develop guidelines on public participation in environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context. A decision was taken to adopt some minor amendments to the Convention. A review group was established to consider the need for further amendments, taking into account developments in environmental impact assessment since the Convention 260W
  was signed 10 years ago, and other changes that may be necessary to harmonise with other relevant multi-lateral environmental agreements. A work programme and funding to give effect to these decisions was agreed.

WALES

  Euro (Manufacturing Industry)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of future UK membership of the single European currency on manufacturing industry in Wales. [151056]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government have said that they will make an assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament. If the five tests have been met and there is clear and unambiguous evidence of the benefits of joining a single currency, the Government will then make a decision to recommend membership to Parliament, and then because of the magnitude of the decision, put it to a referendum of the British people.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the latest calculation is of the level of unemployment in Wales. [151058]

  Mr. Hanson
  The latest available statistics for Wales show a fall in claimant count unemployment from 6.6 per cent. in April 1997 to 4.4 per cent. in January 2001.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about long-term and youth unemployment in Wales. [151062]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues including employment in Wales.

  Thanks to the success of the Government's New Deal programme, long-term unemployment in Wales now stands at 11,300 and youth unemployment in Wales now stands at 15,900, their lowest figures since 1986.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the level of unemployment in Wales. [151064]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues including employment in Wales.

  Recent labour market statistics show that unemployment is at its lowest for 25 years under this Government. Unemployment is down to 1.005 million UK wide and down to 55,000 in Wales.

  Since the New Deal was launched throughout Wales, there has been a 39 per cent. fall in the number of people aged 25 and over who have been unemployed and claiming the Job Seeker's Allowance for two years or more.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about long-term and youth unemployment in Wales. [151065]
  261W
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about long-term and youth unemployment in Wales. [151063]

  Mr. Hanson
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a number of issues including long-term and youth unemployment in Wales.

  The latest seasonally adjusted claimant count unemployment rate in Wales was 4.4 per cent. of workforce for January 2001, its lowest level since August 1975, and long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are at their lowest levels in Wales since 1986 at 11,300 and 15,900 respectively.

  In addition to this, the Government's New Deal programme has been an outstanding success in helping 27,000 people into work in Wales.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Welsh monitoring group on miners' compensation claims last met; and if he will make a statement. [151059]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I established the Welsh sub-group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales and to report back to the GB-wide group. The Group had its second meeting on 12 February, attended by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and again proved extremely constructive. I am convinced that the measures we have discussed, and the actions we have agreed, will further speed up the processing of coal health claims.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about small business development in Wales. [151060]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Minister and discuss a wide range of issues including small businesses in Wales.

  The Government launched their White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation on 13 February 2001 setting out the next steps for Government in helping individuals, communities and businesses to prosper. The Assembly were fully consulted during production of the White Paper.

  Employment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the level of employment in Wales with the First Secretary of the Assembly. [151061]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues including employment in Wales.

  The employment rate in Wales for the period October to December 2000 represents 69.5 per cent. of the working age population.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to increase investment and employment in Wales. [151073]
  262W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  While I do not retain any executive functions which would allow me to make direct proposals investment of investment or employment matters, I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues and with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss how best to shape and take forward initiatives.

  I am, however, responsible for securing the Welsh block for the Assembly. This Government secured Objective 1 status and funding for Wales, and provided funding over and above the Barnett allocation as part of the comprehensive spending review. This is further evidence of this Government's commitment to regenerate some of the most deprived areas of Wales.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact of steel closures at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale on Monmouthshire. [151066]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a number of issues including the steel industry in Wales.

  The Government and the Assembly are looking to provide help to the individuals affected and the communities in which they live. This will include new job opportunities, retraining, and economic regeneration.

  We will announce proposals in due course but we do not want to cut across the talks the trade unions are having with Corus.

  Student Support
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the system of student support. [151067]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues.

  Tuition fees and student support policy for higher education is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for both England and Wales. I understand, however, that the Assembly is concerned about student hardship, including the impact of tuition fees on the financial position of students. The Assembly announced on 5 December that they have commissioned an independent investigation into the issue of student hardship and funding, dealing with those issues covered in the Scottish 'Cubie Report' which fall within the Assembly's remit.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [151068]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues.

  The Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary launched the Welsh strategy "Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach" in May 2000 in the light of the UK anti-drugs strategy. This embraces the

  263W
  four key aims of the UK anti-drugs strategy within the Welsh strategic framework and covers the full range of substances that are misused in Wales, including illegal drugs and alcohol.

  Copies of the Assembly's strategy have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the level of household incomes in Wales. [151069]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues including the impact of incomes in Wales.

  The Assembly is committed to producing an annual report monitoring progress against key indicators of social exclusion. Information on household incomes by local authority area is given in the National Assembly's report entitled "Mapping Social Exclusion in Wales". A copy of this report is in the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the most recent figures for jobs in manufacturing in Wales. [151070]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government recognise that there have been major job losses but the latest available figures show that between autumn 1999 and autumn 2000 there were 14,500 new manufacturing jobs in Wales, 4,000 as a result of new openings and 10,500 through expansions at existing plants.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with the Treasury on resources for areas of Wales which have lost jobs in the manufacturing sector. [151077]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about a range of issues.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss manufacturing in Wales. [151057]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in regular contact with a broad range of manufacturing representatives in Wales and have met representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation.

  Despite recent job losses in some sectors of manufacturing in Wales, the announcement of further investment by Ford at Bridgend, together with recent positive decisions on production in the UK by Toyota and Nissan, demonstrates confidence in the economic stability and favourable business environment this Government have established.

  Incinerator, Wrexham
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the assessment being made of the effects on Cheshire residents of proposals for an incinerator in Wrexham. [151071]
  264W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly for Wales Planning Committee is responsible for making a decision on the proposal, on the basis of a report currently being prepared by the planning inspector, with specialist advice from an assessor. To that end, a public inquiry on this application opened on 11 October 2000 and closed on 10 January 2001. I understand that the inquiry took evidence from a significant number of individuals and groups on all aspects of the case and that the views of Cheshire residents were well represented.

  Crime Reduction
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit west Wales to discuss crime reduction. [151072]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have no immediate plans to visit west Wales to discuss crime reduction. However, I meet the chief constables of all four Welsh police authorities regularly to discuss a range of issues, including crime reduction. My most recent meeting with chief constables was on 15 January. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I also make regular visits to organisations across Wales to discuss a wide range of issues, including crime reduction.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Chief Constable of South Wales to discuss crime reduction in the Vale of Glamorgan. [151074]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met the Chief Constable of South Wales on 15 January to discuss a range of issues affecting policing in Wales, including crime reduction. South Wales police are doing an excellent job in tackling crime, and recent crime figures published by the Home Office show that south Wales has experienced a record 16.9 per cent. fall in crime in the 12 months to September 2000—the largest fall of any police force area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about crime levels in Wales and joint efforts to reduce them. [151076]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including crime levels and joint efforts to reduce crime.

  I welcome the work being done by statutory crime and disorder reduction partnerships across Wales in implementing local crime reduction strategies, and in particular the close co-operation between police and local authorities on crime reduction issues.

  Wales has so far attracted investment of £5.6 million from the Government's Crime Reduction Programme and the programme is supported in Wales by complementary Assembly initiatives tackling a range of related issues. These joint efforts to reduce crime will be instrumental in building safer communities throughout Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has discussed with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales the role of the health service in crime reduction in Wales. [151053]

  Mr. Hanson
  NHS Trusts in Wales have a crucial role to play in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. There have been some notable examples of best practice,
  265W
  and both the UK Government and the Assembly are actively encouraging greater participation by NHS Trusts and the Health Service across Wales.

  I know that my right hon. Friend has been closely involved with the violence reduction project focused on the Accident and Emergency Unit at University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and that both he, as First Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have commended it as an example of best practice.

  Floods
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Rural Affairs Secretary of the National Assembly on the recent floods in border areas; and if he will make a statement. [151075]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister which have included both agriculture and flooding. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also has discussions on a regular basis with both the Assembly Rural Affairs Secretary and the Assembly Minister for the Environment.

  In November the Assembly Rural Affairs Secretary announced that farmers who have lost crops would not lose out on European Arable Area Subsidy payments and an extension to the latest sowing date from 15 May to 31 May has been agreed. Farmers in Wales will also be allowed to set aside 100 per cent. of their eligible land where it has been affected by flooding, as well as provision for flexibility in normal requirements for green cover on set-aside land.

  On January 25 the Assembly Secretary for the Environment announced plans to spend nearly £25 million over three years on flood and coastal defence in Wales. Much of this work will clearly benefit farmers, as repairs to flood banks will protect agricultural land.

  I welcome these initiatives to alleviate the suffering of farmers in Wales resulting from the exceptional recent flooding.

CABINET OFFICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to review arrangements for delivering public services through executive agencies. [152985]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Executive Agencies play a crucial role in delivering high quality public services to specific and visible targets. They have ensured and strengthened managerial accountability.

  However, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we have decided that it is an opportune time to review the arrangements for
  266W
  Executive Agencies to see what lessons can be drawn from current models. The review will be sponsored jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. In the context of Modernising Government and the Civil Service Reform Programme, it will focus on:
  what versions of the agency model have been most successful and least, and in what context, focusing on the output and services delivered by organisations, and taking into account other models of service delivery;
  how agency objectives and targets can best be aligned with PSA and SDA objectives and targets and given the right degree of stretch;
  what degree of control from parent departments and the centre and what degree of freedom to manage is appropriate;
  how appropriate the current level and scope of central scrutiny is, including quinquennial reviews, better quality services reviews and PSA/SDA monitoring;
  how joined up service delivery can best be promoted via the agency model;
  how service delivery and policy can best be integrated to ensure that policy is properly informed by practicalities;
  how to ensure that agencies have in place appropriate corporate governance including the roles of ministerial advisory boards and "Fraser" figures;
  how best to secure transparency and thoroughness in reporting on agency matters including performance to the public.

  We place great importance on the involvement of the civil service unions in taking forward the modernising Government agenda. In the full spirit of our partnership agreement with the unions, officials will be involving them regularly during the course of the review.

  E-strategy (Benefit Payments)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made by her Department in ensuring that Departments of State charged with the payment of benefits comply with the Government's e-strategy. [152422]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The e-government strategy published in April .2000 committed Departments to"report on how their current IT plans will converge"

  with the Government strategy, and that in particular, Departments should publish "initial e-business strategies" by October 2000.

  The office of the e-envoy has received these strategies, which represent an important first step towards putting Government services online and changing the way Government is organised to deliver those services.

  Further work remains to be done and Departments will continue to develop and publish further versions of their strategies. The office of the e-envoy will be working with Departments to help deliver these strategies.

  Progress by Departments of State on the delivery by 2005 of all their services contained in their Public Service Agreements and Service Delivery Agreements is monitored on a six monthly cycle and the latest report was laid before the House on 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 176W, and may be found on the web at: www.e-envoy.gov.uk/esd.htm.

  Links to Departmental e-business strategies may be found on the web at: www.e-envoy.gov.uk/estrats.htm.

SCOTLAND

  Tanker Traffic (The Minch)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her Department's policy is on the proposed establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency, with specific reference to the issue of tanker traffic in the Minch; and if she will make a statement. [149427]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on 14 February 2001,Official Report, columns 147–48W.

  Winter Fuel Payments (Renfrewshire)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Winter Fuel Payments for the winter of 2000–01 have been made to all those eligible in Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement. [152420]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Around 1 million people across Scotland have benefited from Winter Fuel Payments this winter. Automatic payments, where entitlement was established, were made before Christmas 2000.

  In some cases, people have to make a claim for the Payment. All payments in respect of successful claims determined by 9 November 2000 were also made before Christmas 2000. Claims that were determined after 9 November and before 15 January are due to be paid during the first two weeks in March. The Department of Social Security will be making further payments in April 2001 and again in June 2001.

  The Department of Social Security identified early on that there might be difficulties in relation to areas with tenement buildings. In some cases, there may not be individual flat numbers and the customer may not have supplied a postcode. This could mean that the correct payments might not be made. The Department of Social Security have addressed this issue. Their practice now is to look at all known tenement cases on an individual basis and pay the correct amount due, taking into account whether anyone else can be identified as living in the same household.

  People with any queries about their Winter Fuel Payment should contact their local Benefits Agency office.

  Salmon Anaemia
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) direct and (b) consequential loss was sustained by salmon farmers between 1997 and the latest date for which data are available as a result of the implementation of destruction orders following outbreaks of infectious salmon anaemia. [152327]
  268W
  Mr. Foulkes
  In 2000 Hydro Seafoods GSP reported to the Competition Commission, in the context of the inquiry into the proposed acquisition by Nutreco, that exceptional costs of more than £18 million in 1997 and 1998 arose from the outbreak of ISA. We have no comparable information for other companies.

  From 1 July 1999 fisheries was devolved and is a matter for the Scottish Executive. I understand that in recognition of the importance of the salmon farming industry to the rural economy in Scotland, £9 million has been made available through Highlands and Islands Enterprise to assist companies directly affected by ISA to regain their previous level of trading. Grants of £2.9 million and £1.4 million have been approved and are under consideration respectively. The scheme will remain open until Spring 2002.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and WEU
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period May to October 2000. [152843]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if his joint communiqué with the President of the United States and his subsequent statement to the press represent a change in the Government's policy towards potential US plans for National Missile Defence. [151856]

  The Prime Minister
  No. We continue to share US concerns about the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and we recognise the role that missile defence can play as one part of a strategy to deal with it.

  Arms Control and Disarmament
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed strategies for reducing and eliminating the threat from weapons of mass destruction through arms control and disarmament during his recent meetings at Camp David with the President of the United States. [151858]

  The Prime Minister
  President Bush and I discussed a range of issues including the growing threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and the need for common efforts to counter this. As made clear in our joint statement, arms control and disarmament will continue to be important elements of our strategy to combat this threat.

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.

Farm Produce: Prices
Lord Geraintasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plan to introduce legislation prohibiting the purchase of farm produce for less than the cost of production from British farmers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government recognise the serious difficulties facing the farming industry. They have introduced a number of measures to assist farmers, injecting some £1.35 billion into the sector since 1997. The Government are anxious to see fair and equitable relationships between supermarkets and their suppliers. We urge all members of the supply chain to act responsibly, especially in the current difficult circumstances. However, we have no plans to intervene in the market by introducing legislation of the kind suggested.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that the farmers of this country will be very disappointed with that reply. Is the Minister aware that at the moment some supermarkets are paying 50 pence per kilo less for beef than they did a fortnight ago, but, on the other hand, they are charging consumers 40 per cent more for the same meat? That is deplorable. What do the Government intend to do about it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the reason for not supporting legislation of the kind suggested is wide-ranging, not least because of the likelihood that it will not be effective in helping the farmers for whom the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, has many concerns. Of course, I recognise that concern exists with regard to the prices received by farmers who are participating in the limited reopening of the supply chain. As I said, my right honourable friend has made clear that we believe that the whole chain should act responsibly, one towards the other. Today, the Meat and Livestock Commission is carrying out a survey of participating abattoirs, and I understand that it plans to resume normal reporting of prices soon. I hope that that will bring transparency into what is at present not a normal market place.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, are the Government aware of the great extent of the concern among farmers in relation to this matter? I believe that we all appreciate that legislation needs to be responsive
198
rather than reactive. However, I wonder whether bland urging is sufficient for people who are feeling very vulnerable at this time.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that we should respond and we are doing so. Indeed, following the Competition Commission's thorough investigation of the relationship between all parts of the food chain, a code of conduct is being drawn up. It is currently being put out for consultation with producers. I do not doubt the strength of the concerns that have been expressed, and I am fully aware of those concerns within the farming community. What I doubt is whether a measure of this sort would be effective. It has been tried in a limited way in, I believe, only two other countries—France and Ireland—with very dubious results.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a wider problem exists in relation to this matter? I refer to the common agricultural policy. There is the prospect of EU enlargement and the associated trend towards the renationalisation of subsidies. In addition, of course, there are pressures from the WTO. Is not reform of the CAP the key to a real solution to this problem in the medium term?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that our farmers would benefit from a radical restructuring of the common agricultural policy. That has been the policy of this Government. We have been working with other member states who are reform-minded, and the new ministerial lead in Germany gives us added opportunities to work towards that. A restructuring that moves away from production support towards valuing the many things that farmers do—not least their stewardship of the countryside—would be of great benefit.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen and heard the widespread reports, both in the press and on the radio, that the exceptionally low prices being paid to farmers by abattoirs are due to the high charges raised by the Meat Hygiene Service and the veterinary charges incurred because of the extra vigilance required? If that is the case, it is a matter in which the Government can take a hand. Will she please do her utmost to ensure that farmers at least receive a fair price? At the moment, they have no bargaining power.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have, indeed, seen the reports. However, this scheme has been operating, not fully, for only 24 hours. I do not believe that a considered analysis of the factors that are influencing pricing throughout the chain can take place yet. She is right to point out the additional veterinary costs. Those are appropriate because we do not want to spread disease. However, it will be necessary to look at how those are absorbed and by whom. Equally, production through the abattoirs will be slower, not least because of the additional precautions that must be taken. Cleansing and disinfecting will take much

199
longer, and there will be many single trips. All those factors will lead to a distortion of the normal price mechanisms.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about the purchasing power of the supermarkets, do the Government not agree also that they should be equally concerned about the purchasing power of the catering trade, which, in terms of quantity, purchases more than the supermarkets?
Secondly, what are the Government going to do about the extra production costs borne by our UK farmers over and above those of farmers in the EU and worldwide; namely, higher veterinary costs, our Meat Hygiene Service costs, farm machinery, fertiliser and fuel costs and many others?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, on each of those issues we are undertaking work to ensure that we have a level playing field for our farmers as against competitors. It is interesting to note from the standing veterinary committee meeting yesterday that controls very much like our own were imposed throughout the Community in regard to foot and mouth in order to harmonise the conditions for the livestock industry throughout member states.
The noble Baroness made an important point about the catering trade. Members of the catering trade are very large consumers and important players in the chain. We bring together all the elements of the industry, and have done since the outbreak of FMD, having regular meetings once or twice a week with all of them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, surely the only way of avoiding the consequences of joining is by not joining?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are many wider issues to be debated arising out of foot and mouth disease. At the moment, we should try to concentrate on trying to fight the disease and to get production back into some sort of normality.

Theatres
2.44 p.m.
Lord Harrisonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the report from the Theatres Trust that many of Britain's most historic and best-loved theatres are uncomfortable and unsafe.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Theatres Trust's annual report did indeed make reference to theatre audiences in uncomfortable seats but it did not state that any of the country's theatres are unsafe. The
200
Theatres Trust says that nearly all of the theatre buildings in London's West End, most of which are in commercial hands, need improving to meet modern standards of comfort and safety. The Government welcome the work of the trust in advising theatre managements and others on how theatre buildings can best serve the needs of modern audiences.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, performing so ably, as he does, on the best upholstered red-Bench live theatre in town here in the House of Lords, does my noble friend agree with me, nevertheless, that the poor physical condition of many of our theatres compromises the enjoyment and safety of theatregoers, which indeed is confirmed by the Theatres Trust's report?
In addition, given that more people still go to live theatre in this country than attend live football every week, does my noble friend consider that the Government might commission a Taylor report into British auditoria?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have the Theatres Trust doing that job very effectively. It was set up by the British government, specifically by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, in 1976. It performs extremely effectively in that way. I do not think that we need an extra report on the subject.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, surely the report is right to point out the particular difficulties in the West End, where there is little scope for refurbishment and improvement compared with other parts of the country. Does the noble Lord agree that, since the average body mass and height of our population have increased enormously since the days when most of those theatres were built, there needs to be some creative thinking about how that space should be used? Does the Minister agree that the number of seats should be reduced so that the level of comfort is increased while at the same time increasing the amount of standing room so that poor people and young people in particular could gain admission at a reduced price? If the entertainment bored them, as Richard Eyre tells us it may do now, they could then slip away unseen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not expect that the theme of the Taylor report was going to lead to us talking about terraces in our theatres. I do not think that that would be a very good idea. The problem arises particularly in commercial theatres in the West End of London and in a number of our regional and provincial theatres. The problem that they have is that the sites are extremely restricted and they have great difficulty in raising money for capital programmes. We cannot help them by intervening in commercial theatre. But what we can do, and what we shall be doing, is to increase the amount of public money which goes to the touring theatre, to the support of the art itself rather than the venue for the arts. In turn, that will help the economics of the commercial theatres and will help them to have money for other purposes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the way to become more fully aware of the problems of the theatre is to listen to the Theatres Trust? Is my noble friend aware also that both the previous government and the present Government have shown signs that they appreciate the nature of the problem? I am afraid that in future, the trust will need more backing for the financial consequences of the situation which it now faces. I hope that when the request comes forward, the Government will be eager to fulfil it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already expressed my warm appreciation for the work of the Theatres Trust and the role of my noble friend in setting it up. Of course, he is right that what is needed is more money. But the difficulty that I have is that today is 7th March and tomorrow, on 8th March, the Government will be announcing a further allocation of £25 million to the theatre in England, which will clearly help a large number of the programmes which have been referred to in debate this afternoon. But I cannot give the detail of how that £25 million is to be allocated.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, recalling the experience on the Greater London Council which the Minister and I shared, will he join with me in welcoming the funds that have been raised to restore the Hackney Empire to, I understand, its full grandeur?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the arm's length principle, that matter is devolved to the Arts Council. I am extremely sympathetic to what the noble Baroness says, as I am sympathetic to her reference to our joint painful experiences on the GLC Film Viewing Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, without in any way undervaluing the importance of buildings, does my noble friend agree that audiences are attracted into the theatres mainly because of what takes place there? Does he also agree that there is a significant dependence in the commercial sector of theatre on work that originates in the subsidised sector? Can he add to what he said about how the Government will help money and other resources go towards theatre practice as opposed to theatre building?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I strongly agree with what my noble friend says. Historically, support from the National Lottery has been to buildings rather than to the people who work in them. More recently, the Arts Council, encouraged by the Government, has had a deliberate policy to divert that support from the buildings to the people. In particular, the support that the Arts Council now gives to touring theatre and productions for new theatre audiences should be a great encouragement to both commercial and subsidised theatres.

Multiple Sclerosis: Prescribing Policy
2.52 p.m.
Lord Addingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), in assessing the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis, will take into account all relevant cost savings to health and social services and the social security system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the appraisal approach taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been set out very clearly. NICE will directly take into account the impact on National Health Service and personal social services budgets. It is also open to NICE to take into account a wider range of factors and it is open to those who submit evidence to include evidence on such a range of factors.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that there is a general feeling that an across-government look at funding has not taken place? It is difficult to see how the sums involved can be justified because someone who does not receive beta interferon or—if I can pronounce it properly—glutarimer acetate quickly enough may end up being dependent on social services and on the social security system for his income for many years as opposed to being able to generate his own income and pay taxes.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, certainly those factors can be taken into consideration by NICE. It is up to the manufacturer or the patient group concerned, if it has robust evidence, to ask for that to be considered by NICE. On the general point raised by the noble Lord, of course I understand the keenness of MS sufferers for the final NICE decision to be made. The whole basis of NICE is that its decisions are made on the most robust evidence possible. At the moment NICE is going through the process, which is taking some time, but in the end it is better to be thorough.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in desperation, many people with multiple sclerosis who are waiting for these drugs are purchasing them privately and putting themselves ever more deeply into debt to do so? What kind of comment is that on NICE's priorities, and indeed on the founding principles of the National Health Service in which all of us on these Benches, not least my noble friend, take such legitimate pride?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are matters for NICE. Clearly, if any delay that could be put at the door of NICE were involved in coming to a final recommendation, that would be a matter for considerable regret. My understanding is that there is a systematic approach with, first, a provisional appraisal and then a final appraisal, after which there

203
is an appeal option, which has been gone through, and a decision is made in the light of that for more work to be considered. At the end of the day the whole purpose of NICE is to give the best possible evidence available to the NHS of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It is important that the integrity of that process is maintained.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall sending me a Written Answer on 16th October in which he revealed that the number of people who had died of multiple sclerosis-related diseases was almost exactly double the number of people who died of AIDS and that in the last year in which a comparison could be made for cost, 1995–96, the money spent on research into AIDS was no less than 216 times greater than that spent on research into MS-related diseases? Does the Minister consider that there is something wrong with the priorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the number of people affected by multiple sclerosis. The fact that we have referred this matter to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence indicates the Government's seriousness of purpose in this area. I regret, as do many noble Lords, that the institute is taking so long to come to a conclusion—it will be some months before it does—but at the end of the day it is vital that the process is of the highest integrity. The whole purpose of NICE is to ensure that we have the consistent, high-quality treatment that we want for MS sufferers.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, while NICE has carried out some excellent work—it is chaired by a most distinguished clinical scientist—does the Minister agree that the timetable for assessing the situation is exceptionally lengthy, considering that we are told that no decision will be made before November of this year? Bearing in mind that international research has demonstrated, without doubt, the efficacy of beta interferon and glutarimer acetate in relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis, is it right that at the moment only 2 per cent of patients in the UK receive it compared with between 13 and 20 per cent of patients in other countries in the European Union? Can nothing be done to expedite the process?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to the number of people receiving beta interferon in the UK, the noble Lord is right. I believe it is between 2 and 3 per cent. There is a variation in prescribing rates through the rest of Europe ranging from 3 per cent in Turkey to 21 per cent in Austria, with prescribing rates in Germany, France and Italy at 12 per cent. I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the noble Lord, but at the end of the day the whole purpose of NICE is to conduct a rigorous process. Clearly it is a rigorous process because it has gone through three
204
stages, at the end of which an appeal has been upheld. It is having to commission and to look at more work. I believe that we should await the outcome of that work.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has described the process, but clearly it will be three years in the making. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has described, these drugs are widely available in other countries. Every minute matters for MS patients. Can the Minister affirm that the current determination has nothing whatever to do with the Government's concerns about the affordability of such drugs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, absolutely. This is a matter entirely for NICE. At various stages the Government have been asked to provide evidence to NICE, but the decisions about the appraisal system and the decision of the appeal committee have nothing to do with the Government.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the main criticisms of the NICE process is that, while it is under way, effectively it imposes a blight on the treatment concerned, in the sense that health authorities are unwilling to authorise prescriptions for new patients? In the context of MS treatments which are now blighted in that way, will the Minister and his colleagues give serious consideration, pending the NICE judgment, to re-issuing the department's executive letter 95/97 which required health authorities to make drug treatments available to MS patients who need them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the document is in circulation in the health service and the prescribing of beta interferon should continue in line with what is stated in it. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that NICE was set up because of the inheritance of widely differing prescribing regimes—postcode prescribing—and inconsistency. NICE provides greater consistency and enables the faster take-up of drugs and new technologies when they have been proven to be effective. As a result of judgments made by NICE, many millions of pounds of additional expenditure has been committed to the NHS for that purpose.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Compensation
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to compensate those whose livelihoods are under threat from the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease and who fall outside the scope of the current compensation scheme.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government pay compensation on all animals slaughtered in order to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease. It is the

205
long-standing policy of successive governments not to offer compensation for consequential losses associated with animal disease outbreaks.
In recognition of the effects on the livestock industry of the current outbreak of FMD, last week the Government announced £156 million in agrimonetary compensation for dairy, beef and sheep farmers and are bringing forward £20 million from the financial year 2002–03 for the pig industry restructuring scheme, giving a total of £43 million for pig farmers. The Government will of course keep the situation under review.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, unless the compensation scheme is widened, the fundamental review of agriculture which was promised by the Prime Minister last week will not be able to take effect? There will be a huge exodus of small family livestock farmers and hauliers and more small abattoirs will go out of business because their incomes have substantially decreased, in some cases to nothing, while their costs have substantially increased.
Does the Minister also accept that the next few months will be critical? While the agrimonetary compensation is welcome, it was due in any event for other reasons. Does the Minister agree that widening the scheme is essential?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly points out that the agrimonetary compensation is not specifically for those who have suffered loss as a consequence of FMD. When one calculates the amount of consequential loss and the sectors into which it is has gone, one can see that it is enormous and almost limitless. We have already seen a wide range of claims for compensation from those involved in, for example, tourism and sports fixtures in addition to those involved in farming, abattoirs and the retail industry, which might not be popular with many Members of your Lordships' House.
The most important steps we can take are to make maximum use of the available non-state-aid mechanisms—and we have done that for the pig sector and through agrimonetary compensation; to get the disease under control; and to return working in the livestock industry to normal operation.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I want to address an area in which the livestock industry of this country is world famous; namely, the export of pedigree animals throughout the world. Although it is helpful that the immediate value of such animals is of concern to livestock farmers, it takes many years to build up the pedigree flocks and herds and it takes many years to replace them. Do the Government have plans to help those involved in pedigree livestock to rebuild if their stocks are decimated by FMD; for example, by offering long-term loans at low interest rates?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the financial and emotional consequences of losing specialist herds which have taken people years and generations to build up. I said in my original Answer that we would keep the situation under review and of course specific cases will be made for specific areas of compensation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out. However, it would be wrong to hold out hope that there will be across-the-board compensation for every kind of consequential loss arising from these circumstances.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the signs erected by MAFF closing public rights of way and fields in which sheep and cattle are grazing are being pulled down by the public? Will she try to educate them through television and radio programmes?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, from the beginning of the outbreak, Ministers, vets and those in local authorities responsible for the closures of rights of way have urged the public, most of whom have behaved responsibly, to avoid contact with livestock and any possible spreading of the disease. Occasionally, individuals behave irresponsibly. We can provide a great deal of education, but in some cases it will be necessary to prosecute.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following this appalling epidemic, the one positive outcome has been the outstanding way in which the relevant agencies have co-operated? I refer to MAFF, the NFU, veterinary services and people from abroad who have come to lend their support. It has been an appalling situation but people have dealt with it in the best possible way.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that the vast majority or organisations and individuals have behaved in a highly responsible fashion. I add my tribute in particular to the Chief Veterinary Officer and his staff, who have behaved with the utmost professionalism. Last week we cancelled all leave for the state veterinary service, which was not necessary—we did not have to make them come in because at was difficult to stop them coming in.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Tanlaw set down for today shall be limited to one-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord St John of Bletso to three-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Economic Affairs: Select Committee
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Barnett,

L. Burns,

L. Cuckney,

L. Elder,

B. Hogg,

L. Newby,

L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Paul,

L. Peston (Chairman),

L. Roll of Ipsden,

L. Vinson;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Tordoff.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Stem Cell Research: Select Committee
3.9 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research arising from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

E. Carnarvon,

B. Cumberlege,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Donoughue,

B. McIntosh of Hudnall,

B. Northover,

B. O'Neill of Bengarve,

Bp. Oxford (Chairman),

B. Perry of Southwark,

B. Platt of Writtle,

B. Warwick of Undercliffe;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—(Lord Tordoff.)
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to think again
208
about this matter. This House and the other place have stressed the importance of impartiality in chairmen. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has made it very plain that he is extremely partial in this very sensitive matter. Has the noble Lord received letters today from vicars and others dissociating their section of the Church of England from those views on stem cell research? Will the noble Lord agree that, like justice, impartiality must not only be done but be seen to be done?
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in the past few years my noble friend the Bishop of Oxford has been asked by the Archbishops to chair the Church's Social Responsibility Committee and been entrusted with that task. The task of that committee is to advise the Church on these kinds of issues. In dealing with these matters I can think of no one on the Bishops' Benches with a better grasp of the complexities of both the moral and technical questions. He has the full confidence of these Benches, and I hope that that confidence is shared by the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am slightly shocked that anyone should consider that a man of the integrity of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is incapable of chairing a Select Committee of this House other than impartially. One cannot always have chairmen of Select Committees who have no views at all. Speaking as one who chairs a Select Committee of this House and who holds strong views, I hope it is not thought that I handle that committee with partiality. I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw her remarks.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, perhaps the Deputy Chairman of Committees will clarify one matter. When the House recently set up the Joint Committee on Human Rights the chairperson was not chosen until the committee met for the first time. Why is it a tradition of this House that chairpersons should be nominated by a group other than that which meets to conduct the business?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the short answer is that it is a Joint Committee of both Houses and therefore the chairman must be nominated by that committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Near Earth Objects
3.12 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw rose to call attention to the report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in the subject of near earth objects as founder and chairman of the all-party Astronomy and Space Environment Group. Some noble Lords may ask themselves why it is necessary to debate the threat created by the low probability, high consequence

209
hazard of near earth objects now rather than later. I believe that it is necessary because of the long lead time required for prophylactic action to be taken after recognition of the problem by government. That view is based on my own experiences of trying to bring the threat of greenhouse gases to your Lordships' attention a quarter of a century ago.
I t appears that governments require a long gestation period of procrastination before they can identify any problem connected with the improvement of terrestrial or near space environment, and even longer when they take a decision to act upon it which might require government funding. Of course there are exceptions. I congratulate the Minister on, first, having the political courage to lift potentially hazardous near earth objects above what has sometimes been referred to as the "giggle barrier", for I believe that it has been this lack of political credibility which has delayed any serious debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Secondly, the Minister for Science should be able to take his place with honour among the distinguished visionaries, scientists, knights, poets and peers listed on page 36 of the report for having set up the task force in the first place. I add only the name of Lembit Öpik, the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, who has done so much to prepare the ground for the report.
The professional team selected by the Minister, which was headed by Dr Harry Atkinson, ably supported by Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams, has justly received international acclaim for the quality of its report. It is a world first and has undoubtedly established the United Kingdom as an intellectual and scientific leader in the field of near earth objects. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this advantage will not be lost through lack of follow-up by his Government.
I have instigated this debate in the hope that the good work undertaken by the task force will be financed on a permanent basis by the Government. Does the noble Lord agree that the establishment of a British centre for near earth objects at the Armagh Observatory would be a good starting point? Will the Minister also give a firm indication that there will be specific funding to implement recommendations 13 and 14 contained in the report; in other words, can the costs of research and telescopic hardware be met without deducting funds from other areas of astronomical research in other government departments, in particular PPARC which to date has been so supportive of all those involved with near earth objects?
Does the Minister agree that the British National Space Centre may be geared up to hold and distribute special funds for this purpose? Does the noble Lord also agree that that may play a more positive role than that of the inter-departmental post office which seems to be its present function?
Before I look at the Government's response to the report in more detail, it may be worth asking: what are hazardous near earth objects which were the subject of investigation by the task force? According to the
210
report, they are asteroids and long and short-term comets which fulfil the role of Alpha and Omega, as described by St John the Divine in his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelations. They are the seeds of Armageddon which procreate the chemistry for all carbon-based life in the universe, of which we are but a small part. In its introduction on page 9 of the report the task force goes on to say this about them:
"As a species humans would not now exist without them. On the one hand we can rejoice in them; on the other we can fear for our future".
We humans have been riding as passengers for the past million years aboard the planetary vehicle we call Earth which is hurtling round the sun on a darkened highway we call the ecliptic at 67,000 miles an hour. Up until now we have not been able to observe clearly all the hazardous objects that are around us which are 3 billion year-old left-overs from the planetary builders' yard. Therefore, we have not worried about them.
To continue with the "vehicle" analogy, we are only just beginning to find out how the lights work. We can now see for the first time the very real dangers that lie ahead. Unfortunately, we cannot stop the world and get off, nor can we manoeuvre it out of harm's way. As a result, in the past there has been impact damage to the Earth, which is shown on pages 10, 18 and 19 of t he report, and also to our planetary neighbours such as the moon and Mars, which we can see with a good pair of binoculars.
We have witnessed the catastrophic impact of the Shoemaker-Levy comet on Jupiter, and astronomers are beginning to observe with the new family of powerful telescopes that there are comets and planets circling around alien suns. I believe that there is now positive evidence of asteroid material in 85 per cent of all visible stars.
The inter-planetary debris of asteroids and short and long-term comets comes in all shapes and sizes. Near earth objects can be solid pieces of iron or loosely bound snowballs of ice and stone, and the huge numbers observed, even without a detailed survey which the task force has proposed, and the Government have agreed to as a first priority, are approximately as follows. There are 150 million near earth objects in the 10 to 100 metre category; 300,000 in the 100 to 500 metre category; 10,000 in the 500 to 1 kilometre category; and 1,500 which are 1 kilometre or larger. Duncan Steel's diagrams on pages 9 and 10, which are copied from his excellent book Target Earth that is available in the Library, indicate the complexity of their orbits around the earth.
The Government's website shows approximately 50 asteroids averaging 50 metres in diameter which will near miss the earth during 2001. Fortunately, only a small percentage of all near earth objects are deemed hazardous, and they are the only ones which are on a direct collision course with earth. If they are accurately logged usually they can be identified many years before eventual impact.
If we look at the table on page 16, we can expect a 75 metre asteroid to impact every 1,000 years, with an explosive yield 10 times the power of the hydrogen

211
device detonated on Bikini Atoll. An asteroid in that category—similar to the Tunguska event in 1908—will destroy cities the size of London, Moscow or Washington. If noble Lords consider for a moment the total amount of potentially hazardous material in near earth orbit, they will realise that it cannot be a question of "if" but "when" a near earth object finally impacts on the earth's surface. We must hope that until there is a satisfactory system of mitigation or defence the object concerned will not be too big.
I believe that the deployment of an effective shield against cometary and asteroid impact must constitute the rite of passage for all intelligent life, regardless of where it may exist in the universe. Will the Minister confirm that this was perhaps the main reason and justification for his preparation of the task force report on hazardous near earth objects?
I am rather disappointed in the Government's initial response to the practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and the deflection of an incoming object. Surely the Home Office is not fully equipped to deal with either of these problems without assistance from the Ministry of Defence. No doubt plans for the Anderson shelter are still available for public distribution, but I ask the Minister whether they are enough to cope with the scale of the catastrophe anticipated of a major impact. As for deflection, I can see that it is theoretically possible after the remarkable controlled contact by the NEAR- Shoemaker satellite with the asteroid Eros. But will not effective deflection entail the use of nuclear weaponry? Will the technology not be open to misuse by any nation with asteroid modification capabilities, which wishes to deflect an object deliberately onto a terrestrial target?
This grim scenario has been predicted by Carl Sagan in his letter to Nature and in the "faction" novel Nemesis written by the astronomer Bill Napier. Both items are available in the Library, as are the Chapman/Morrison tables on risk assessment and other related papers.
If asteroids are going to be used as weapons one day in the not too distant future, then the risk assessment of dying from a middle range asteroid must greatly increase from one in 20,000 to about one in 5,000. The death probability as a result of flood or natural catastrophe is rated in the Chapman/Morrison chart as one in 30,000—the same as flying in an aeroplane. The exceptionally heavy rainfall this year may have at last fired the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to mitigate the greenhouse effects on a world-wide basis. He has apparently agreed to apply £100 million for research on renewable energy resources in order to improve on this statistic. Does the Minister not agree that only a fraction of this sum would be required to implement all the 14 recommendations of the task force?
Therefore, the question I must ask the Minister is this. Why is the alleviation of the risk of comet or asteroid impact not yet recognised by the Government as a necessary expenditure as part of the precautionary principle, which was outlined in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology papers in 1996 and which is supported by the Prime Minister? Do the
212
Government not have an obligation to future generations to look beyond the event horizon of the next general election and to prepare to mitigate future risks from near space?
I understand that the National Trust spends on average £175 million a year on the preservation of our structural heritage, while various government heritage agencies may spend about five times that amount in other works of preservation. Can the Minister therefore say why some of these funds cannot be diverted from the heritage business into, say, the British National Space Centre until an adequate mitigation system is in place to reduce future risks from near earth objects? Alternatively, can he not see a way of persuading the private sector to play some part in financing the essential new British three-metre telescopes, which will be required for the major task of cataloguing the whole of the near earth object spectrum?
The principle of private sector participation has already been established by the Beagle MarsLander. Does the noble Lord not agree that many individuals, as opposed to commercial companies, might be prepared to pay to name a harmless near earth object, out of the 150 million, as a memento for their grandchildren or in memory of someone they have loved? If there is no money from the Government, science will have to find a way, without diluting the science of an issue, to come to terms with the private sector on an agreed way of providing finance. Can the Minister explain why governments seem quite prepared to fund the preservation of our civilised past and yet are unwilling to pay for the protection of the future of our civilisation?
I do not know why, but whenever the subject of fire and brimstone is raised, as I have raised it today, the awful fate of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. When it does, I take the somewhat heretical view that they succumbed from the impact of near earth objects, not because of their sinful deeds but because they failed to heed the advice given to them by the watchmen at the gates. The watchmen have made their report to your Lordships. We ignore their advice at our peril. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing this debate on near earth objects, one of the major physical dangers affecting the whole world, including, of course, the UK. Dealing with this danger, as with the other dangers—notably climate change, coastal erosion, natural disasters, the disposal of nuclear wastes and solar influences on the atmosphere—requires scientific research and monitoring, communication with the public and then definite actions to reduce or prevent the danger. If and when such events occur, actions are necessary to mitigate their effects and to recover from them afterwards.
I should like to make a few suggestions about the responses to the specific threat of near earth objects in the light of Dr Atkinson's excellent working party

213
report and of the highly constructive government response. I have to declare a small interest in that I was consulted on one part of the report. I shall conclude by commenting on the broader issue of how the UK and Europe should each have organisations for systematic co-ordination and monitoring of major risks.
From the scientific report, it is clear that the most likely danger is from meteors similar to the Siberian 1908 meteor, with diameters of the order of 100 metres, impacting the atmosphere at about 30,000 miles per hour—20 times the speed of Concorde. Unlike earthquakes, tsunamis or surprise nuclear attacks, such events can be predicted by close monitoring—for at least one year and probably more before the arrival. That is because the earth is not in the asteroid belt, which some Peers of a certain age will remember caused great problems to Dan Dare and Digby, the intrepid space explorers depicted in the Eagle comic of the 1950s —not mentioned in the report, which was perhaps written by younger people. Such asteroid impacts are rare events, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, explained to us.
The astronomers who worked on the report—among whom was my colleague, Professor David Williams of University College, to whom I am grateful for something of a briefing—quite rightly emphasised the need for close monitoring of near earth objects and for studies of their movement and composition. I would strongly recommend that, as with weather forecasts, a systematic procedure is introduced for assessing the accuracy of near earth object trajectories and near misses. Noble Lords will recall that General Eisenhower, before relying on weather forecasts for D-day, wanted to have an assessment of their accuracy for a few months beforehand. These forecasts should be quantified and made public. Accurate predictions will be the first step in planning the direct preventive action to he taken.
In the future, the report emphasises that the techniques may be considerably more sophisticated and safer than changing the trajectories of the objects by massive explosions on their surface. The impact of a significant meteor on land causes blast waves, electromagnetic disturbances and eruptions of the earth. These short-term effects, as well as longer-term climatic effects, as we saw with the decline of the dinosaurs, could be more devastating than the largest nuclear bomb explosions. Therefore, I urge the Government to follow the suggestion on page 27 of the report, which, curiously, did not appear in the recommendations, and involve the Ministry of Defence's Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Met Office to apply their enormous computational physics capability to provide quantitative data for the consequences of different scenarios, much as they did for nuclear winter in the 1980s.
However, the report indicates that the most likely danger to the UK and Europe is an impact in the ocean, which would give rise to a huge tidal wave. Geologists and natural disaster experts have pointed out that this would be similar to the kind of waves triggered by sudden movements of the seabed, or
214
mountain movements in the Caribbean or the Canary Islands. Again, the enormous capability of computational prediction in which NERC and university oceanographic institutes would have to become involved, could provide the relevant damage data which European emergency committees would need when considering the scenarios. However, one hopes that they would not rely on computer-generated data at the last minute.
From my experience of running a government agency and working with government departments, including the British National Space Centre—which has been the recipient of hard criticism; to that end, I do not entirely accept the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that it is merely a postbox—I believe that the organisational response of the Government is correct, given the present arrangements in the UK and Europe. The problems associated with near earth objects are to be directed by the BNSC, with a strong emphasis on collaboration with the European Space Agency. I hope that the Minister and the Government Chief Scientist will ensure that BNSC plays a major role both in research and in working with UK industry in the task of constructing small satellites and telescopes.
As scientific understanding matures and is better communicated, BNSC should also work with the insurance industry to enable organisations and even entire countries to take out insurance against these risks. This, I believe, would be the most specific involvement on the part of the private sector. It is worth pointing out that people have taken out insurance policies within a few hours of a hurricane arriving in their vicinity. One can imagine what might happen if a warning of a near earth object was issued.
In conclusion, I should emphasise that this danger highlights the need for a more systematic and permanent arrangement for the UK Government and Europe to monitor and co-ordinate activities to tackle major physical dangers and to be able to do so over long periods which may last for hundreds of years. In the United States, the substantial policy arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deals with these matters, as well as an involvement by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, in the UK many small research and operational agencies, along with advisory bodies such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Commission on Sustainable Development, need to co-ordinate their efforts. The Government Chief Scientist works extremely hard, but no technical co-ordination agency has been set up to prioritise and keep under review all these major dangers. Such a body would be preferable to another ad hoc unit, as has been advocated in the report and which appears to be advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.
Eventually, Europe should set up a major risks agency to match the United States equivalent. I am not at all sure—the Government have implied this as well—that this should be passed over to a committee of the OECD. I believe that we need to consider a new way forward.

215
I shall conclude by asking the Government whether they will suggest to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering that they should look into the general question. Noble Lords in this House would then have an opportunity to review their deliberations in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the irony of the timing of this debate will not be lost on those noble Lords who have always accepted the adage coined by Harold Wilson; namely, that a week is a long time in politics. As we debate issues that should be considered in the extreme long term, in another place Members are debating a Budget that will have a shelf life of a year or perhaps two at the most. Clearly, the matter of near earth objects and their effects is a fundamentally long-term issue. Those noble Lords who have read the report of the task force will have seen that the implications of our debate range in time from a collision millions of years ago which resulted in the elimination of the dinosaurs to an unknown future scenario. On page 16, a table indicates that, if an object 16 kilometres in diameter were to hit us, it would,
"threaten[s] survival of all advanced life forms".
Clearly, this matter is serious. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned that in certain quarters the threat is regarded as something of "a giggle". However, it is far more important than that and is worthy of significant debate.
Noble Lords will agree, first, that thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for raising this issue. Secondly, I thought that he was extremely gracious when he commended my colleague in another place, Lembit Opik, who has been instrumental in bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. Thirdly, many thanks are due to the Minister for having taken on board the implications of these issues and for having taken seriously the recommendations now being put forward by the Government.
I shall take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that we should add a little drama to the matter by attributing names to near earth objects. I can see that an object called an "Opik" would have a certain Estonian resonance. I am not so certain about a "Tanlaw", but to call a near earth object a "Sainsbury" would give a new meaning to the name among our shoppers.
The Government have made it clear that there has been a significant change in their thinking on near earth objects., They have accepted, first, that there is a recognised threat and, secondly, that surveys, follow-up orbit and spectroscopic programmes, along with greater scientific understanding, have a significant role to play in the developing international programme. They have also indicated that, later in the year, a second and more detailed announcement will be made regarding progress in this area.
216
I hope that the Minister will not think that I am seeking to remove any of the congratulations that I know he deserves if I now probe him on a number of points that we feel should be reflected in any subsequent statements and announcements. The key recommendation of the task force is that an advanced 3 metre class survey telescope should be put in place as quickly as possible. It will need to be a first-class, state-of-the-art instrument with a long competitive life because it will be fundamental to the exercise of forecasting. When we next debate this issue, we shall want to know that the Government have made significant progress in securing that telescope, which I understand is being contemplated on an international basis. Such progress will be absolutely vital.
As regards the government responses to the recommendations, I shall need to introduce a slight carping note into my comments. First, their response to recommendation 7, that the operation of the Minor Planet Survey should be put on a "robust international footing", will cause any noble Lord a degree of concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to use the opportunity of our debate today to give further assurances on that issue.
Potentially worrying too is the Government's response to recommendation 9, which states that,
"the Government, with other governments, set in hand studies to look into the practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and deflecting incoming objects".
That is obviously bureaucratic-speak for, "What are the Government going to do to prevent us being obliterated by near earth objects?" Anyone reading the Government's response would consider it to be also in bureaucratic-speak and somewhat luke warm. I am not suggesting that noble Lords should embark immediately on interplanetary travel to avoid the impact. This is a serious matter and I hope that when the Government report again a more detailed response will be given on what exactly will happen in this area.
Recommendation 12, which relates to the British National Space Centre, has come in for a certain amount of criticism. I am conscious of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who indicated that he regarded the criticisms of the BNSC as not satisfactory. However, concern has been expressed about the BNSC. The recommendation is that there should be a government department with responsibility for NEOs. However, the BNSC is not, in essence, a government department but an amalgam of different entities within government, staffed by people who are often seconded from elsewhere. The concern is that the BNSC would not be an adequate sponsoring department.
I am sure that noble Lords would be absolutely delighted if the view was taken that the Minister and his department should take on this responsibility in response to the recommendation of the task force, using obviously the BNSC. People are always nervous when organisations that have representations from across Whitehall and elsewhere are given responsibility for a particular issue. Joined-up

217
government does not always remain joined-up, or it cracks, and we should be grateful for assurances from the Minister on that point.
My final point is that the task force strongly recommended that a UK near earth object centre should be set up. This centre should be independent of any government organisation and in a position to assist the Government in carrying out the programme outlined in the report. Close observers of this issue are concerned that that recommendation is not being followed through by the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to that point, at least by saying that, when he next reports to the House later in the year, that issue will have been dealt with.
Having made what might appear to the Minister to be carping criticisms, I return to the original congratulations which I know everyone in the House and elsewhere feel are due to the Minister for taking on board this issue. He has taken it seriously and has come forward with some interesting and radical proposals.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in 1979, a large meteorite capable of wiping out most of life on earth was detected on a direct collision course with earth. Disaster was averted by the collaboration of the Americans and the Soviet Union who, in a coordinated effort, fired salvoes of atomic rockets at the object. In 1998, a similar object was detected and broken up and the pieces deflected as a result of the bravery of a crew of oil drillers who were landed on it by space shuttle and planted a hydrogen bomb deep under the surface.
In case any of your Lordships are wondering how you failed to read reports in the press of these momentous—I nearly said earth-shattering—events, perhaps I may tell you that they were the plots of two science fiction films, respectively "Meteor" and "Armageddon". There was another, more recent film, "Deep Impact", which I would rather not discuss as in that film, despite every international effort, the earth was destroyed.
But we are not discussing some fanciful piece of science fiction hokum; we are talking about what the Minister of Science described as "an extremely remote risk" but one which "we cannot ignore". How remote is, of course, a matter of degree. We were told by the Minister that,
"we are talking about once every 100,000 years for a very serious incident".
A mere 49,000 years ago a meteor left a crater in Arizona almost three-quarters of a mile wide, just like one on the moon. Not 100,000 years later but in 1908, during the lifetime of many people still living, including some distinguished, still active Members of your Lordships' House, an object only 60 metres—
three cricket pitches—across exploded five miles up in the atmosphere and devastated 2,000 square kilometres of Siberian forest. A few seconds more of flight and it could have exploded over Britain.
218
On 7th April 1990, a house in Holland was demolished by a small object, and on 9th October 1992 a meteorite weighing just 26 pounds went right through the rear of a parked car, leaving a crater in the driveway. Indeed, the definition of a "potentially dangerous object" is one whose orbit comes within 46 million miles of earth and is at least 160 yards in diameter. As recently as 10th August 1998, an asteroid two miles wide passed within six hours of the earth. That is very close in space terms.
The report lists 12 objects, ranging in size from 6 metres to 1,000 metres, that have come within 70,000 to 500,000 miles of the earth since 1989. So far, 258 potentially dangerous objects have been discovered. I stress "so far" because the survey is in an early stage and is still continuing.
Should your Lordships want to see something which I regard as frightening, I suggest that you look at the diagram on page 9 of the report and at the almost solid line of orbits which is shown in yellow. That shows 800 asteroids which cross the earth's orbit and which are potentially dangerous.
Every year 50,000 tonnes of space rock hit the earth. That is about 5.75 tonnes every hour. Of course, we are assured that most of it is made up of space dust and small meteorites which burn up in the atmosphere. Just as well. The thought of being struck by half a pea travelling at 40,000 miles an hour is not something that anyone would wish to contemplate.
Indeed, after I read the report and the Government's response, I wondered how I had got myself involved in this debate, but I do thank the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing it and for allowing me to learn so much about this subject. However, before I read the material, and not being a fan of science fiction films, I was blissfully ignorant of what the Minister reassuringly described as "an extremely remote risk". Now I could go to bed worrying in case a meteor will wipe out life on earth as we know it.
Before I leave the subject of risk, which has been eloquently described in the report, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the photographs on page 11 of the report of the asteroid Eros. It is more than 20 miles long and eight miles wide and is pitted with craters where other meteorites and asteroids have hit it, one of them leaving a crater three miles in diameter. Later photographs, taken by the spacecraft as it landed on Eros, showed the surface littered with boulders that have struck it over the past 4.5 billion years—and Eros is a comparatively small object in space; it is smaller than Greater London. We are lucky to have the earth's thick atmosphere to burn away or bounce back into space the material which lands on us every minute.
The Minister is to be congratulated on having taken note of the concerns of the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, whose astronomer grandfather had an asteroid named after him, who raised this matter so well in an adjournment debate on 3rd March 2000. The Minister set up the task force, the comprehensive report of which we are debating today.

219
The task force makes a series of 14 recommendations, but I need not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them. Largely it calls for a vastly extended network of observatories to monitor these near earth objects, entailing co-operation between international agencies and setting up those agencies. On the face of it, the Government's response is positive, at least as positive as the circumstances will permit. The Government will review how the United Kingdom telescope facilities can be used to identify potentially hazardous near earth objects; setting up a facility to provide information on near earth objects and getting the European Space Agency to convene a conference this year to discuss Europe's role; and getting the OECD to consider setting up an international discussion and action forum.
I do not want to detract from the importance of the subject that we are discussing, nor in any way to denigrate the Government's response. However, what we are discussing is an admittedly highly remote possibility—a danger about which, in reality, there is probably not very much that we can do alone, though perhaps we can do a little more with international partners.
I should like the Minister to tell us just how much money the Government will put into the project and what expectation there is that other countries will contribute their share, bearing in mind that we have shortages of funds for very urgent and real life daily problems in areas like the health service, education and crime prevention. Which will be the priority? How will one balance out with another?
The report says that the USA is doing more about NEOs than the rest of the world put together. This is, of course, due to the almost limitless funding that Congress is prepared to give to the space programme, coupled with the military benefits obtainable from its satellites. I suspect that it will not be too long before someone realises that the revived Star Wars project might also have the civilian use of blasting meteorites out of the sky, as well as hostile missiles.
There is, as I read the Government's response, no promise of immediate money, or new money, for research and observation for early warning of these NEOs. I do not say this in any critical sense, because I do not actually see what the Government could do on their own without the support, both financial and technical, of international partners, which is what recommendation I urged them to seek. The Government do indeed promise discussions with various bodies, including exploring the plans of the European Space Agency and co-operating with NASA.
The Government's response does in general terms accept the recommendations of the report, but these are about observation of and sharing information about NEOs. Having spotted them, what is to be done about them? I am glad to see that the Government intend to discuss the matter at the forthcoming meeting of the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee steering group—rather a long title—
220
because if the clutter produced when the solar system came into existence is going to be a perpetual danger, our skies are also full of dangerous bits and pieces left over from space exploration. Not the least is what happens when the Russian Soyuz weighing a couple of hundred tonnes soon falls to earth. The Russians say that they will be able to control it, and I should like to believe them, as I am sure is the case with all noble Lords. But I still remember when one of their rockets went out of control in the 1980s: it fell to earth we knew not where, until it was tracked, fortunately, to the Australian desert.
I am also glad to see that the report will be discussed by the UN Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space. Clearly the inhibition of the use of atomic missiles in space will have to be reviewed. The report very briefly discusses the possibility of mitigating the consequences of an impact from a near earth object, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned. Moving people from areas likely to be affected by a small object could save lives, but could not, I believe, prevent substantial damage.
However, I question whether it will be possible to determine with any degree of accuracy where one of these things is going to land before it is too late for anyone to do anything about it. Blowing it up, as dramatically shown in the films that I mentioned earlier, is said to be likely to cause even greater damage because of the proliferation of the bits that will fly around and hit the earth. There is a suggestion of nudging the meteor out of its dangerous orbit. I am not clear how a small space craft would be able to nudge a large object travelling at tens of thousands of miles an hour without suffering fatal damage itself at the first contact. I say that as an aside, following the experience of my husband a couple of weeks ago. He made a very slight and very low speed contact with our garage wall, causing the most severe damage to the aerodynamics of his front wing but none at all to the wall!
The Government say that the United Kingdom,
"has a great deal to bring to an international approach to the problem".
They point out our strong record as a leader in the field of astronomy, involvement in international observatories and our technical expertise in telescope design and construction, in small satellite technology and in what are called "charged-coupled devices" (or CCDs), which can detect both visible and infra-red light and produce images that can be seen on a screen.
The world has now been alerted to a danger that was perhaps, until quite recently, not appreciated. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that, having regard to our national expertise, as just mentioned, the fact that the report is the first comprehensive review of the subject and the excellent reception that the report has already received internationally will place us in an influential position in the field.
In its history, Britain—Great Britain—has enjoyed a leading place in science and scientific research. I hope that it will do so in this case, for it may have major implications for the future of the whole human race and, indeed, for planet earth itself.
3.55 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on securing this debate on the work of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects. While the chances of a major incident are very remote, this is a serious issue and one where the UK, with our considerable expertise, should give an international lead.
The noble Lord takes a close interest in these matters as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Astronomy and Space Environment Group. He first brought the issue to the attention of your Lordships' House in a Question that he tabled in June 1999. In the subsequent discussion, I emphasised the importance of taking this topic forward on an international basis. The issue was also brought to Parliament's attention in another place by Lembit Opik MP in March 1999. Since then, Mr Opik has continued to work with his characteristic enthusiasm to bring the topic into the mainstream. I should reiterate the point already made by the noble Baroness that there is already an asteroid called "The Opik", which I believe was named after his grandfather, from whom he derives his interest. I believe that a "Razzall", though not a "Sainsbury", would be a very attractive name for an asteroid.
The Government's international approach to the issue was evinced by the leading role played by the UK in the resolution of the Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Development. This was agreed at a special meeting of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in July 1999. The resolution urged that action should be taken to improve the international co-ordination of activities related to near earth objects, harmonising world efforts directed at identification and follow-up and orbit prediction.
In view of the importance attached to the issue by the Government and others, I announced on 4th January 2000 the setting up of a Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects. The task force was charged with confirming the nature of the hazard and potential levels of risk, identifying the current contribution to international efforts and advising the Government on what further action to take in the light of them. The task force, consisting of Sir Crispin Tickell and Professor David Williams, under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr Harry Atkinson, reported on 18th September 2000. I believe that the standard and depth of the discussion we have just heard is a reflection of the quality of the report of the task force.
It is only over the past decade that the significance of near earth objects in our earth's history has begun to be understood. Since its formation, our world has been bombarded by comets and asteroids, ranging in size from those that are smaller than pebbles to lumps of rock measuring kilometres across. Hundreds of tonnes of space dust enter our atmosphere on a daily basis. The larger pieces of grit can be seen burning up in our atmosphere as spectacular shooting stars. Indeed, this is what happens to by far the greater proportion of the
222
asteroids that encounter the earth—they burn up harmlessly, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, in our atmosphere. We have a defence against most asteroids provided for us by nature.
So what is the risk of a major incident? The long-term risk of dying as a consequence of a near earth object impact is estimated at around one in 25.000 per person. As a crude statistical average, this amounts to about the same level of risk as that of dying in a plane crash. However, it is worth remembering that that risk is of a very different nature to those that are more familiar. In the case of comets and asteroids we are talking about very infrequent events involving huge numbers of people. Plane crashes are, tragically, a relatively—I stress the word "relatively"—frequent occurrence, with, by comparison, a relatively small number of fatalities. There are, in fact, no confirmed instances in recent history of death by an asteroid or meteor impact, save for an unlucky dog in North Africa in 1911.
There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence about past incidents that had a major effect and which, had they occurred at the present time, would have resulted in a huge number of fatalities. Because of the nature of this risk, it is difficult to make a case for large extra funds to be made available for this area. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I find it hard to see how one could obtain private funds for this field. I can envisage only two circumstances in that regard: a situation where there is no disaster and therefore the publicity value is rather small and a disaster situation when people may not want a lot of publicity for their products. Therefore, I do not think we can look to private funds, which even in the case of Beagle 2 have not been large.
My role as Minister for Science is to seek a balance between the overreaction which could be induced by the thought of "global killer" asteroids and any complacency arising from the rarity of such impacts. The level of threat which I have just described is very much an estimate. We do not know for certain how many objects are out there. Of those that have been discovered, not all the orbits are known accurately. We cannot be sure of the frequency with which they will hit us. Without a better understanding of the nature and level of the threat, any attempt to devise a measured response will be hampered by the paucity of our knowledge.
However, what we can be certain of is that if an asteroid or comet is heading towards us, it is essential that we know as soon as possible so as to assess its likely effects and the range of possible options in response. That is why the whole question of monitoring is of the utmost importance. The question was raised as to what the response would be and whether there would be a response. There certainly could be sensible responses. It might, for instance, be feasible in the case of a small asteroid or comet, perhaps impacting into a distant ocean, to move people away from the area likely to be affected, for example, by tidal waves. In the case of a larger potential impact we would need to consider deflection. I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord,

223
Lord Razzall, about deflection, that useful work relevant to these circumstances is already under way. The US near Shoemaker mission to Eros recently dramatically demonstrated the capability to rendezvous with, and land on, an asteroid. Data from that mission suggest that Eros has a rather loose structure, which is obviously relevant to any consideration of how to push it to one side.
Future missions such as the US Deep Impact Project will determine the composition of the comet by firing a probe at it to see what flies up from the large crater on its surface. This test will also show the possibilities for deflection. I think, however, it is well to remember in this context the comments of the science fiction writer, Carl Sagan, who acknowledged in a letter to the journal Nature that the development of asteroid deflection technology at this time would be premature and that, in the light of well established human frailty and fallibility, it may introduce a new category of danger that dwarfs that posed by near earth objects themselves. It is worth remembering that that would be a difficult matter to assess.
One of the principal conclusions of the report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects is that we need to know more about such matters. I very much agree. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that the key issue is monitoring and making certain that the monitoring is accurate. I am not sure that at this point we need to do any more work on the consequences of such events as I think that they would be disastrous in almost all circumstances.
The Government's response to the task force's report was published on 24th February and a variety of work is now being taken forward in this area. Several of the task force's recommendations concerned adapting telescope facilities to which the UK has access to find, track and characterise near earth objects. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council has undertaken to analyse costed options for how these recommendations could best be implemented.
In particular, the decision announced by the Secretary of State on 21st November 2000 that the UK intends to join the European Southern Observatory will both allow the UK access to a variety of telescopes in the southern hemisphere and free up existing facilities for new uses. I look forward very much to the completion of the PPARC's report later this year.
I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we have no extra funds for these activities. They will have to compete with the activities which we already undertake in the field of space and astronomy. It is worth making the point that we spend considerable sums on astronomy. In that context it seems not inappropriate to direct a modest amount to determine whether any asteroid or comet could endanger us.
My reference to the European Southern Observatory leads me on to the importance of the wider astronomical and international community in
224
this issue. If any issue could be said to be truly global, it is the threat to the earth from near earth objects. An asteroid does not discriminate in its choice of landing site and all countries are in this together. I am therefore convinced that an international approach to this problem is essential. We all need to play our part. However, I believe that the UK, by capitalising on the favourable international reception of the task force's report, can play a leading role in encouraging other nations' and organisations' involvement in combating this threat.
Certainly the task force's report has stimulated activity within Europe. The European Space Agency has undertaken to convene a meeting to discuss a common European approach to the near earth objects issue. It has specified the capabilities of two future space missions, which will include the ability to discover and track potentially hazardous asteroids. The European Science Foundation and the European Southern Observatory are keen to contribute to this discussion. By the end of this year I hope to see a plan in place as to how Europe can best contribute to international efforts in this area.
Here in the UK we shall also be setting up improved arrangements to deal with near earth objects. As recommended by the task force, a single government department will take the lead in near earth object policy. The British National Space Centre has considerable expertise in this area and a partnership structure bringing together all other interested parties within government. I therefore believe that it is appropriate for it to take the role as lead unit within government on this topic. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the British National Space Centre is just a post-box. In fact, it is a very effective body which brings together the many bodies which have an interest in space. It is an early and extremely good example of joined-up government.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that I do not think that there is a need for coordination with other bodies; what we need is coordination of all the bodies which have an interest in space, which range from defence to the Meteorological Office and the astronomy community, so that we can deal effectively with this particular body. I say that because the disasters which have been mentioned are all of a different kind. We need to focus on the ones which particularly relate to space.
I also concur with the view expressed by the task force that there is a need for some kind of facility to provide clear and balanced information to the public on near earth objects. Reporting of this issue can range from the alarmist to the derisive. To counter this the Government plan to set up a facility whose role would be to act as a showcase for the public on near earth object issues. The facility should provide a clear and objective introduction to the topic and in the process further the Government's wider aim of increasing public understanding of topical science issues. I do not think we should simply decide that one body, even if it is as distinguished as the one at Armagh, should do this

225
job. It would be better to introduce competition. We should seek advice not from one body but from all the best experts around the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, raised the question of funding of the Minor Planet Center. We welcome the work of that body in identifying and cataloguing near earth objects. We shall work with the European Space Agency, NASA and the International Astronomical Union to find a sound financial basis for the centre. Again, there has to be an international sharing of the costs.
I stated earlier that I believe that my role as Minister for Science responsible for the near earth objects issue is to steer a course between overreaction to exaggerated threat and complacent inactivity. I believe that the Government's balanced response to the task force's comprehensive and objective report achieves that. The chairman of the task force, Dr Harry Atkinson, has said that he welcomes the general thrust of the Government's response to the recommendations of the task force which represents a major breakthrough for the UK. Lembit Opik, who has been instrumental in raising public and parliamentary awareness of the topic, is quoted as saying that the Government's response,
"puts the UK at the forefront of asteroid avoidance. This is a very exciting time for British science in general, and British astronomy in particular".
I can assure the House that the Government attach the highest importance to taking this work forward. The task force's report has already achieved one of its objectives by acting as a catalyst for international action. I look forward to the UK working with its international partners in combating the threat to our fragile planet of objects from space.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; and I thank the Cross-Bench Members for their support in allowing me to introduce the debate. It has been an interesting discussion. It would not be correct to say that it has been wide ranging; it has been completely focused on the subject. The debate has been educational to me and, I am sure, helpful. We must address this subject. The Minister for Science has reassured us that the subject is in good hands. Many of us would hope that if, God forbid, a near earth object were on a collision course for earth we would have someone as sensible as the present Minister for Science to tell us how to avoid it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Southern Africa
4.12 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso Lord St John of Bletso rose to call attention to the current political, social and economic challenges facing Southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak, and pleased that we have the privilege of an
226
extra hour's debate. Too often in your Lordships' House, in debating subjects as broad as this we have limited time in which to share our views. Many of the challenges facing South Africa and Southern Africa were raised last month by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in the debate on the government White Paper, Eliminating Global Poverty.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will speak. Almost a year ago to the week, the noble Baroness initiated a five-hour debate in this House calling attention not only to the opportunities but also the challenges in Africa. The themes discussed in that debate a year ago will, I am sure, arise in this debate. The noble Baroness has played a major role in promoting good governance and democracy in Southern Africa.
Despite the many positive developments in Southern Africa over the past decade, the region has recently experienced a spate of extreme uncertainty: uncertainty politically, especially in Zimbabwe and Angola; and uncertainty socially and economically in the light of the HIV/AIDS pandemic which is spreading at an alarming rate in the region with potentially disastrous economic implications for growth. My particular knowledge is of South Africa where I have spent most of my life.
While much progress has been made in promoting multiparty democracy in Southern Africa, the tactics of Robert Mugabe's mass intimidation of his opposition, in particular during the run-up to elections last year, with the farm invasions by so-called war veterans and general abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, has resulted in the country facing one of its worst social and economic crises in its history, with food prices soaring, foreign exchange reserves desperately low and petrol stations running out of fuel. Businesses are going bankrupt in record numbers and rural unemployment is soaring as the land crisis deepens. Much of the arable ground lies implanted following the occupation by the war veterans and the drought in the south, particularly during the past six months, has compounded the crisis. More recently, the bomb attacks on the Daily News, the expulsion of foreign journalists and attempts by the Zimbabwean Government to control the judiciary, have exacerbated the crisis.
International action against Zimbabwe has been limited to criticism, withdrawal of aid and disengagement by international financial institutions. I hope that the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the EU can bring more pressure to bear on President Mugabe to end the human rights abuses and violations in that country. The knock-on effect in the region has been disastrous.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) in many respects has been rudderless and in desperate need of reform. Apart from the achievement in September of last year of establishing the Southern African Free Trade Zone, it has been unable to address the instability and conflicts in the region in a coordinated and coherent manner. Economic integration in Southern Africa has been a thorny issue

227
for SADC. In its meeting last month there appeared to be a greater sense of urgency to push ahead with much needed reforms including a co-ordinated approach to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I hope that the SADC heads of government meeting in Zimbabwe on Friday will cement a clearer timetable for reform.
Southern Africa has paid a bitter price as a result of the civil wars in the region. Despite the political compromise in Mozambique in 1992 and the fantastic revival in that country in those nine years, in Angola the hopes of a resolution to the civil war that has been raging for several decades have been frustrated by UNITA persistently evading complying with successive peace agreements. Sadly, it has been the civilians, in particular young children, who have been afflicted by casualties as a result of the many landmines which lie scattered around the country. It has become apparent that the lucrative spoils of diamond and mining concessions in Southern Africa and many other parts of Africa have impeded attempts to resolve the civil wars. Here I refer to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Angola. The civil war in the Congo has had a major destabilising effect on economic and political harmony in Southern Africa, putting the heads of government in Zambia, Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe at odds with each other.
We can only hope that the recent attempts at the Congo Summit to resolve this ongoing crisis can lead to a lasting resolve. Despite international efforts to resolve the civil wars and crises in Southern Africa, it is becoming increasingly important, I believe, for African governments to resolve African conflicts.
Sadly, in Zambia concerns are rising about the MMD's attempts to entrench its power base with President Chiluba standing for a third term in office. The recent political hiccups, in particular the prison deaths in Mozambique and, more recently, the terrible floods that Mozambique has been experiencing have given rise to concern that what has been achieved over the past nine years could be eroded. The international relief agencies are to be commended on the speed with which they have come to the assistance of the flood victims in Mozambique this year. I just hope that the Cabora Bassa floodgates will not need to be opened. As in Angola, landmines have posed a significant humanitarian threat to the people of Mozambique. Here I commend Her Majesty's Government on their efforts in clearing many of the landmines, which have resulted in many areas of Mozambique now being declared safe.
I would now like to touch briefly on current developments in South Africa. Nelson Mandela's great achievement was to ensure a peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy. His successor, President Thabo Mbeki, is very conscious that reconciliation cannot be maintained without a transformation in the country's economy which will enable it to meet the aspirations and the expectations of what I have referred to as the emancipated. He is a fervent believer in a strong state capable of intervening in the economy. I should not comment now on whether that is a good
228
or a bad thing. He also expects the private sector to help create more economic equality and has introduced fairly draconian black empowerment legislation to move this forward.
Over the medium term South Africa needs to increase its potential growth rate from an average of 3 per cent to 4 per cent in recent years to about 6 per cent at least in order to help address the problems of high unemployment which is around 36 per cent at the moment. President Mbeki has adopted a two-pronged approach, that being to declare his commitment to restoring democracy and stability in other African countries as well as stimulating economic growth and development in South Africa. He has been extremely successful with his Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, and the governor of the Reserve Bank, Tito Mbweni, in achieving that.
South Africa clearly has an interest in promoting regional security, particularly in Zimbabwe, which is inflicting economic damage on all its neighbours both through the loss of trade and as a result of potential investors avoiding Southern Africa because of their concerns about regional stability and the ongoing effect of the brain drain from the region. There is no doubt that South Africa's tactic of silent diplomacy in respect of the Zimbabwe crisis has been to the detriment of both countries. I was encouraged, therefore, by the recent speech by Thabo Mbeki recently, which he gave to the Chamber of Commerce in South Africa. At long last he openly condemned the land grab in Zimbabwe which, in his words, "flouted" the rule of law. He assured delegates that a land grab would never be allowed in South Africa, which is certainly encouraging. Unfortunately, President Mbeki has resisted taking a more assertive line in putting pressure to bear on Robert Mugabe's regime to cease its repressive policies.
I believe that it is essential for Southern Africa that a climate of open debate and the freedom of the press is promoted. I was alarmed by the overreaction of the South African Foreign Minister in January of this year to the comments made by Peter Hain on the South African handling of the Zimbabwe crisis. Thabo Mbeki has often tended to react with aggression to journalists who have criticised some of his policies. I hope that that is only a teething problem rather than an ongoing attempt by the president to silence his critics
My time is rapidly coming to an end. The impact of HIV/AIDS on families is one of the greatest social catastrophies facing Southern Africa. This pandemic is fast reversing many of the social gains of the past 40 years and has deprived several Southern African countries of their most economically productive workforce. Attempts to change individual behaviour have proved ineffective, not helped by an attitude of fatalism on the part of individuals and institutions and the high cost of treating the symptoms. In Zimbabwe and Botswana, over 25 per cent of the adult population is infected by HIV and in South Africa over 4 million people are infected. AIDS is rapidly becoming a greater threat in rural areas than in cities, contrary to conventional wisdom. It is having a devasting effect on

229
agricultural and rural development and poses enormous challenges to governments, NGOs and the international community. The disease is no longer just a health problem, it is becoming a major development issue.
In conclusion, the challenge for Southern Africa is to create the right conditions for high economic growth and to improve the welfare of Africans living in severe poverty. I entirely agree with the sentiments of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a recent article in the House Magazine. It is headed "Africa's Thirst for Democracy". He said,
"What is striking is the fierce and ever-growing thirst for democracy that Africans have shown, their indomitable courage in defying oppressive regimes and their success in so many countries in insisting on accountable government".
I fervently hope that the dream of an African renaissance will be a reality. I commend DfID'S proactive approach to tackling the challenges facing Southern Africa. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on raising this very important debate on the economic, political and social challenges facing Southern Africa. As the noble Lord said, problems abound in Zimbabwe. These are undoubtedly compounded by the actions of President Mugabe and the ZANU government. When we campaigned against Ian Smith in years gone by and against UDI in Southern Rhodesia it was no academic exercise. It was not an esoteric exercise about democracy with no real meaning; it was to ensure democracy in Zimbabwe: to make sure that the people there had a better future than what was intended under the old hardline Rhodesian white settlers. It certainly was not to replace dictatorship and corruption of whites by blacks. Abuse of power has to be condemned wherever it exists and whoever is responsible for perpetrating it. I doubt whether President Mugabe will listen even to the friends of Zimbabwe—and I count myself as one of them—when we tell him that the rule of law and order and the need for press freedom are essential.
Friendly criticism should be accepted and not dismissed as British colonialism. It is ironic that his claims that we are interfering in the sovereign affairs of Zimbabwe echo the words of Vorster et al when they told us that we had no right to speak out against apartheid in South Africa.
I support the idea that white power and privilege cannot be entrenched in Zimbabwe forever. There is an extremely strong case for land distribution. That has to be done in an orderly fashion and the landless peasants who get the land must be given the help and assistance necessary to keep the land productive. That is what it is all about. Simply taking the land and doing nothing with it is not a policy worth pursuing and is contrary to proper land use.
We all agree that current events in Zimbabwe will not help the people of that country. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and I have discussed what
230
should be done about the situation on many occasions. Do we engage or do we disengage? Condemnation appears simply to feed the paranoia of President Mugabe that colonials still rule, even when that criticism comes from his friends. Failure to condemn makes us complicit in the wrongdoing. Francis Maude, the shadow Foreign Secretary, says that Zimbabwe should be suspended or expelled from the Commonwealth. That is a dilemma faced by the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, has shown immense courage in his outspoken criticism and his stand for freedom in Zimbabwe. However, while he has condemned the visit of President Mugabe to Belgium and France—there is a lot of merit in that argument—the has also called on the British Government to engage in dialogue and to keep our military training mission there. Which of those arguments should we listen to? It is very difficult to know what is best.
We need to listen to the people of South Africa, as I have always done. At the moment they are saying that we should keep the lines of communication open. That is probably the right thing to do. There is still time for President Mugabe to change his mind and reverse his policy. I urge him to listen very carefully. If he will not listen to me—and why should he?—why will he not listen to Nelson Mandela, who has recently made a very powerful speech against corruption in Southern Africa? Nelson Mandela has argued strongly that it is necessary to accept criticism, because without criticism it is impossible to have good government. Perhaps we should remember that fact in this country as well. Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest Africans who ever lived, if not the greatest. When he speaks out in that way, surely President Mugabe ought to listen carefully and act accordingly.
As has been said, there are many challenges facing the different countries in Southern Africa, but they all boil down to how to tackle poverty and underdevelopment. We cannot go through each country in the region in this debate, no matter how long it is, but I hope that in what will inevitably be a Cook's tour of the region, people will not feel that our concerns are diminished because we have not mentioned the specific problems of certain countries. I agree that Mozambique faces desperate problems. A year ago it had ravaging floods. Their effects were just beginning to be tackled with some reasonable chance of success when there were more floods. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I am right or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is right about the opening of the floodgates of the Cabora Bassa dam. I thought that the current problems were caused by opening the floodgates. One of us is right and the other is wrong. We shall find out which.
On the other side of the continent, Angola is facing serious problems. There are signs of slow economic recovery and there is some optimism. However, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, has said, the problems remain with Jonas Savimbi and UNITA, who are still causing hardship and difficulties for a large number of the Angolan population. It is estimated that there are

231
3.8 million internally displaced persons in the country, almost half a million of whom fled their homes last year, when the UN was supposedly being very tough on UNITA. Sporadic attacks make it difficult for people to go back to their homes.
Some alarm has been expressed recently that Jardo Muekalia, the UNITA representative in Washington, met with US Deputy Defense Secretary Bernard McConnell and three other officials a week after the Bush inauguration. That appeared to be a flagrant breach of the UN resolution on sanctions, but the Pentagon says that it is all right because it was an unofficial, informal meeting. We heard that time after time during the years when the United States financed and armed Savimbi against the legitimate government. Although the Angolan Government appears to be remarkably relaxed about what has happened, we need to be aware of developments. I ask my noble friend the Minister to assure us that the Government will keep a close eye on what is happening and will speak regularly with the American administration to keep them from slipping back into old habits.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned the AIDS pandemic. It is a huge problem. More than 4 million South Africans alone are affected. In this year's South African budget, an extra 16 billion rand has been allocated to tackle the problem. Concern has been expressed about some of President Mbeki's comments about AIDS and HIV, but a huge amount of money is being devoted to trying to deal with the problem. It is very sad that this week the big multinational chemical companies are taking the South African Government to court to prevent a sovereign government allowing parallel imports or generic medicines to be made in the country. We do that, so why should it not be done in South Africa?
I welcome DfID's very important recent initiatives, pressing for more co-ordinated international action on TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS, especially from the G8 countries and the European Union. The department says that there must be a strong emphasis on prevention and support for health systems to help poor countries to deliver better care. Because of last-minute tidying up of my speech, I have not yet heard the details of what my right honourable friend the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has said in another place this afternoon, but I understand that he has announced an initiative to help research and development to make cheaper drugs available to poor countries. Whatever the detail, that is an immensely important initiative, but cheap drugs on their own are not the answer. They have to be made available.
A lot of nonsense is spoken by the big companies that they are losing sales because of parallel imports. The whole of sub-Saharan Africa represents only 1 per cent of the pharmaceutical companies' global sales. That is a minute proportion. There is no reason why they should not allow the much cheaper sale of drugs. I hope that we shall pursue that.
I want to finish on a positive note. South Africa is making good progress. Its economy is improving. It had 3.1 per cent growth in GDP last year. Its inflation
232
is down to 5.3 per cent from the double-digit rates of the 1980s and early 1990s. The budget deficit is now down to 2.4 per cent. Great strides are being made to tackle poverty and under-development. There has been an increase in employment from 9.3 million to 10.4 million—a 1.1 million increase in the number of jobs. That is all welcome. However, I agree that the budget forecast of 3.5 per cent growth over the next two to three years is nowhere near what is necessary. A growth rate of 6 per cent is needed to tackle the unemployment problem.
I commend South Africa's capacity to change. It has transferred almost 1 million hectares of land to new black owners. That has been done with much sense and very little difficulty. The process has benefited nearly 38,000 households and it will continue. President Mbeki has made it clear that South Africa is a country of many different peoples and many different colours. He believes in and wishes to continue the policy of Nelson Mandela that South Africa should be an all-inclusive country, where every section of the population is welcome, is part of the country and deserves to improve its future. I hope that we can bring some sense of hope to the people, because hope is in desperately short supply for those who live in Southern Africa.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate, which was inaugurated by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. As he said, this debate comes almost a year after our debate on opportunities in Africa, but this time we are concentrating more on the southern parts of the continent.
When I was preparing for this debate, I made a list of all of the Southern Africa Development Community—SADC— countries and all of the key problems, and I started putting crosses where problems existed. I had hoped that I should have many blanks on my sheet but I did not, which is a sadness because, 12 months on, matters have declined.
It would be easy to spend all of the 12 minutes that are allotted for my speech—I hope not to take up all of that time for the sake of other noble Lords—discussing the situation in Zimbabwe. The poor example of Zimbabwe, which is much regretted by many of her neighbours in the region, is seriously dragging down the whole image of Africa. There are many good people—black and white—in Zimbabwe who wish to have a democratic future but they are unable to secure it. When I and others called for democracy in Zimbabwe, we were told that we would not be welcome in that country again. That exclusion applies to Dame Helen Suzman, the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, and several others. I have not tried to go there; I do not particularly want to spend time inside a Zimbabwean gaol and I have much else to do in other countries where people are prepared to listen. We have to create an atmosphere of much greater co-operation.

233
I am not sure why the deafness has become so profound in Zimbabwe. Undoubtedly, however, a number of serious mistakes have been made in the dialogue between the parties in Zimbabwe and in that between donors and the Zimbabwean Government. Not to contribute and persevere with common-sense democratic approaches would have very serious consequences. Although I believe that the Minister needs no urging in this respect, we have to go on trying, and we should do so in our bilateral relations and through SADC, the EU and the Group of Eight, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said. To have no dialogue would mean not giving an opportunity to those who are working for a common-sense approach in Zimbabwe. That does not mean that we refrain from condemning the behaviour of the thugs in Zimbabwe, who have fought against those—black and white—who want to secure democracy and some economic success in that beleaguered country. I urge the Minister and her colleagues to take every opportunity in every forum in which the Government participate to push for dialogue in Zimbabwe right across the board. When the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting gathers in Brisbane, there may be no option but to condemn Zimbabwe and to force it to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I hope that it will not come to that. Once on the outside, as we know from experience, it is hard to bring back into the field those who have been—in this case, rightly so—cut out of the debate.
I said that I would not concentrate on Zimbabwe but I have spent two-and-a-half minutes discussing it. It is difficult not to speak of that country. However, there is another country in Southern Africa that is a member of SADC and in which the crucial aim is to gain peace: namely, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Following the death of Laurent Kabila at the hands of one of his own men, there are signs of dialogue in that country and in the countries surrounding it, whether they be supporters of the late Laurent Kabila or believe in the need for change in a democratic manner. The debate is beginning to start between leaders of different groups. We will not see political, social or economic advance in Southern Africa and in Africa as a whole until there is a cessation of the warring activity of the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its supporting armies, particularly that from Zimbabwe, which can ill afford to have its troops in the Congo. The defence mechanism, which is frequently painted as an attack mechanism by the rebels in the east and by Rwanda and Uganda, must also cease.
I want to spend a few minutes discussing the situation in the Congo. I do not know the Congo well—I have visited Kinshasa only three times, and have been to the east a couple of times—but I do know a number of the surrounding countries. Corruption is as rife there as it is in other African countries. The outside world has to take a much greater interest in the scramble for diamonds and precious minerals. Some of the blame for developments in the Congo—obviously, I do not refer to the war there—lies with the reluctance of many nations to take an earlier interest
234
in that country's economic development and in the creation of a level playing field for the exploration and development of precious metals and stones in the region. That said, we cannot change the past, although we can encourage dialogue. The new president, President Joseph Kabila—it is still not clear whether he takes his own decisions or acts out those of others—may be able to encourage dialogue on the basis of the Lusaka agreement, which was signed by all of the countries involved; if so, there is a chance of going forward. However, that requires a national debate in the Congo. In order to encourage that debate., Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, appointed the former president of Botswana, Sir Ketumile Masire, as facilitator. Until January Sir Ketumile had absolutely zero success in making progress, despite the help that has been given to him by the British Government and others to help him to get on with the job. It now appears as if there can be progress. I implore the Minister and her colleagues to do all that they can to step up the support for the facilitator and to encourage the Congo nation to participate in creating that national dialogue, which I assure the House is much wanted by the ordinary people of the Congo.
Members of the House will already know that I have interests in Africa through my business and some of the companies of which I am a director. Dialogue with ordinary people, many of whom are illiterate, makes it clear that they want peace, that they are prepared to work for it and that they do not want warfare to continue. I have been privileged—some would say that I have been unlucky—to see film of some of the attacks by the forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo on Pweto and Peta down in the south-east of the Congo. Seeing those attacks and reading and hearing about what has happened in other parts of the country leaves no doubt in my mind that the UN, members of the G8 and of the EU must back the efforts for peace in the Congo.
If peace is achieved, other matters may start to fall into place. The withdrawal of the Zimbabwean army back to Zimbabwe would remove at least one of the drains on that country's economy. That would probably give President Mugabe some more problems, but he went into the war knowingly and I have no sympathy for him with regard to the problems with which he may have to cope as a result of his own actions.
This debate is not solely about making peace or avoiding conflict. As the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Hughes, said, it also involves dealing with what I call barriers to business. One of the greatest such barriers is the spread of HIV and AIDS. That should be the subject of an entirely separate debate. An enormous amount of activity and self-help is taking place to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. For the World Bank and for all the major donors support for the NGOs has become one of the key areas of activity. There is also support for the Government and the business councils that work through their own businesses to advance information and to create a barrier to the spread of HIV and AIDs.

235
The examples of sound leadership in Uganda and Senegal have helped to slow the spread of HIV and AIDs. We now need that sound unequivocal leadership from all the other leaders of African countries where the ravaging advances of this disease, Malaria and TB are such inhibitors to a successful life.
Every government must start to deal with corruption. That is one of the other main inhibitors to progress—political, social and economic. Some effort is being made. I encourage the Government to back the anti-corruption commissions and, indeed, the efforts being made in a number of countries. But corruption survives where there is no democracy, where there is no transparency and no accountability. That is why elections and good governance are the only real guard against abuse of power. If one guards against the abuse of power, one has a chance to meet the challenges, whether they be political, social or economic.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, reminded us of the days when he and many of us campaigned against the racist regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. It is with that in mind that we look with particular horror at the descent by Zimbabwe towards dictatorship. That is especially painful because it is occurring in a country where the Harare declaration was signed 10 years ago. That declaration committed the member states in the Commonwealth to democracy, democratic processes and institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression.
Instead the chief justice has been forced out of office; the Supreme Court has been emasculated by threats and intimidation; the offices of the Daily News have been bombed; foreign correspondents have been kicked out; more than 14 cases of assaults, harassment and intimidation against media professionals, reported by the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists to the police, have not been investigated; the legitimate activities of the opposition MDC have been crippled by murder and violence; and the so-called "war veterans" have brought the economy to a standstill. So it is not simply the occupation of the white farms that we are talking about. We are talking about the system of intimidation and harassment and the undermining of the institutions of democracy by this man.
In the face of all these indications of a repressive, intolerant regime that has turned against its own people, what should be the reaction of Commonwealth, and, indeed, of the rest of the world at large?
It is suggested that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that although that may be for consideration later, and particularly at the CHOGM in Brisbane this coming October, it is the ultimate deterrent. It is a weapon that can be used only once. It
236
is perhaps better if we hold it in suspension as an earnest of the better behaviour of President Mugabe, if indeed, he is susceptible to that kind of persuasion.
Mr Mugabe has been in Brussels and Paris. No doubt the economic abyss opening up in front of him has persuaded him that he needs the friendship of Europe, which has perhaps more practical implications for him than that of the Commonwealth, because the EU could invoke Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement. Under that an ACP nation is given 60 days to engage the EU in consultations over its unbecoming behaviour.
The sanctions available to the EU could include suspension of aid valued at 132.7 million euros. Clearly the EU would have to be careful that any such measures would be selectively applied against Mugabe and not against the people of Zimbabwe, who are already the innocent victims of his mismanagement and criminality. But, as the Financial Gazette in Harare commented, he is like a cornered animal and we should be careful not to goad him into even more extreme acts of irrationality.
Meanwhile, it may not have been noted that there is a steady trickle of asylum-seekers arriving here from Zimbabwe. As the repression continues, it is inevitable that an increasing number of genuine refugees will migrate to the UK. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is treating Zimbabweans as prima facie unqualified. There is a "special exercise" to detain them in Oakington and then transfer them routinely to places of detention or prisons. That practice is unlawful. I hope that the Government will carry out a review of the treatment of asylum-seekers from Zimbabwe in the light of the dreadful human rights situation there.
Yesterday, President Mugabe was due to meet President Chirac to discuss the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda, Uganda and Namibia have already disengaged their forces in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1341. There is some hope that by 15th May Angola and Zimbabwe will co-operate with MONUC in preparing a timetabled plan for withdrawal of all their forces and disarmament of the factions.
Unfortunately, this has coincided with an increase in attacks by non-state armed groups on Catholic-run health facilities in south Kivu. I should like to ask the Minister how the Security Council envisages that adequate security can be provided for civilians in the areas of eastern DRC from which the foreign troops are being withdrawn.
Yesterday evening on "Focus on Africa", I heard the RCD Minister for External Affairs, Mr Joseph Mudumbi, say that two battalions of Interahamwe, supported by Zimbabwean troops, were moving to occupy Pweto. I suggest that if that happened it would wreck the peace plan. But how can any plan for the disarmament, repatriation or resettlement of armed groups be effective when there is no legal military force in south Kivu? No doubt, the same applies to other areas all the way along the eastern frontier of the DRC.

237
The Security Council said that, if the Secretary-General thinks it necessary, it would be prepared to deploy troops to Goma or Bukavu later. Pweto, which is much further to the south on the borders of Zambia, was not mentioned. At the time of the Secretary-General's last report, MONUC had only 200 men in the 'whole of DRC. It was not meant to be a peacekeeping force. Therefore, the Security Council should be wary of inserting small numbers of troops into what may still be a war situation.
When President Joseph Kabila visits Britain next week, will the Government discuss with him the huge problem of security all the way along that eastern frontier, and whether a better solution might be achieved by co-operation between the regular forces of the state and those of the RCD?
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, Zimbabwe still has no fewer than 12,000 troops in the country; Angola has 7,000; and Namibia has 2,000. The noble Baroness asked, as I should like to, how can the bankrupt Mugabe afford to maintain such an enormous army in a foreign country? Many Zimbabweans would also like to know the answer to that question. Some have gone to prison for suggesting that the army's top brass and politicians are making a killing by plundering the DRC's valuable mineral assets, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Part of the cost of the equipment has been met by loans from the Chinese, who supplied 12 F7 fighters at a cost of 3.7 billion dollars, and of course our own generous ECGD, which, until recently, continued to fund the purchase of spares for the Hawk jets.
Two years ago the cost to Zimbabwe of the war was estimated at 2.3 million dollars a day. That is now probably an underestimate. Is the Minister satisfied that Mugabe is genuinely committed to the withdrawal called for in Security Council Resolution 1341 and that he will stick to the timetable specified?
The civil war in Angola has also been mentioned. That is draining huge sums from a potentially rich country. It is perhaps the wealthiest in the whole continent, with huge resources of oil, minerals and diamonds. The Angolan Government trousered 800 million dollars in sign-up bonuses for deep-water licences to develop a few blocks for oil exploration. That money has vanished without trace, no doubt into the purchase of arms. What steps will the Government take to ensure greater transparency in the disposal of oil and other mineral royalties in Angola or, for that matter, more generally? It would not apply only to Angola, but that country is one of the largest examples. BP has taken a lead by publishing a good deal of information about payments made to the Angolan Government and Sonangol, but other countries should follow suit. The Angolan Government should produce audited accounts showing how the receipts from the oil licences are being spent.
Illegal deals with Angola through a group of traffickers, worth 500 million dollars from 1993 onwards, are now being investigated in a Paris court. It is alleged that the principals were M Pierre Falcone,
238
who lives in Paris, and one Arkady Gaidamak, who, it is said, has lived in the Dorchester Hotel in London for the past seven years. On 11th January an international warrant for his arrest was issued by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, but he disappeared before it could be executed. I hope that we are complying fully with requests from the French authorities for co-operation in that case.
It is a great pity that the Government have not found the time to introduce the strategic export controls Bill, which would require arms brokers who operate from British territory to obtain licences for the sales that they procure from third countries. The Government promised that a draft Bill would be published in the spring. If the Minister can give a firmer date than that in her reply, that would be helpful. Can she also say whether the Bill will apply to foreign nationals in the UK?
The Monitoring Mechanism on Angolan Sanctions, which reported in December, produced a good deal of information on how the illegal trade in arms to UNITA operates and how it is financed by diamonds. It made a series of recommendations on improving the effectiveness of the sanctions. It would be useful if the Minister could say what action the Security Council is taking to implement those recommendations Among other things, can the Minister say what steps we are taking, as close allies of the UAE, to persuade the authorities there to curtail the activities of Mr Victor Bout, who is a prominent player in those illegal activities? Mr Bout operates a fleet of ageing Russian planes from Sharjah and uses them to transport illegal arms to the region.
Can we also, via the EU, lean on states which are candidates for accession to see that they verify end-user certificates? A great deal of the illegal arms traffic into UNITA came from countries in eastern Europe which apparently accepted those end-user certificates, although later many of them turned out to have been forged. The report details millions of dollars' worth of sales by Romania and Bulgaria in particular, ostensibly to Togo and Burkina Faso but actually destined for UNITA. Should that matter be monitored by the Enlargement Commission of the European Union? How else can we be certain that candidates for accession are taking adequate measures to ensure that arms sales by companies under their jurisdiction are not being diverted for illegal purposes?
It is amazing that in this business arms suppliers rely on the authenticity of pieces of paper as their warrant to enter into large transactions worth millions of dollars. Perhaps the OAU would consider setting up a register in which all member states would be invited to lodge copies of certificates. Do the Government have other ideas on how to stop the use of false end-user certificates?
Southern Africa has many other problems, which I do not have time to deal with in this debate. However, our ties in the SADC region with fellow members of the Commonwealth, our role as a permanent member of the Security Council, and our position as one of the main investors in the region should all enable us to

239
make a contribution towards the solution of those problems and the conflicts which have plagued the region and prevented it from realising its full potential.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso on his timing for this topic. In the declaration of category 3 interests, I record that I am a Fellow (unremunerated) of Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management Ltd—CPTM for short. I shall return to that in a moment. First, briefly I shall provide the background to CPTM, which has a large amount of support and influence in various parts of the world, particularly in Southern Africa.
CPTM was formally established by a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Auckland in 1995 as a not-for-profit UK company, limited by guarantee and without shareholding. It is financed by interested Commonwealth governments and by a few private sector companies. It owes its genesis to efforts in the early 1980s to help link the fields of technology, business and economics for wealth creation in the developing areas of the Commonwealth. It relies on extensive networking, which it pioneered, to promote partnerships between governments and businesses.
More recently, the range of contacts has included labour and media representation and participation beyond Commonwealth boundaries. New ideas may be floated and tested without compromising formal Commonwealth structures. It has broken down bureaucratic barriers to discussion, planning and action; it provides quick networking access for less formal contacts between countries and individuals; yet it retains strong formal linkage with CHOGM and other Commonwealth organs.
Although much is achieved at national and regional levels, CPTM's major efforts are directed at arranging a series of meetings, known as "Smart Partnership" dialogues. Those meetings are attended by many of the developing countries of Southern Africa and by Malaysia, Indian Ocean nations and the Caribbean. Uniquely for such gatherings, the active participation of heads of state and government over a three or four-day period has been a key feature. I have attended the last three such gatherings at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Maputo in Mozambique and, last November, at Langkawi in Malaysia.
The meeting at Victoria Falls was attended by a dozen heads of state and a couple of former heads. With President Mugabe in the chair, we had, in alphabetical order, President Chiluba from Zambia, President Chissano from Mozambique, President Mbeki from South Africa, President Mogae from Botswana, President Muluzi from Malawi, President Museveni from Uganda, President Nujoma from Namibia and President Rawlings from Ghana. To the latter, I said tongue-in-cheek over breakfast that perhaps I could try to pull rank on Flight-Lieutenant
240
(retired) President Rawlings. We got on very well. Prime Ministers from Malaysia, Lesotho and Swaziland also attended.
I participate in all the Fellows-only closed sessions. The heads are the core of the Fellows group and only three or four other Fellows, of which I happen to be one, attend with them. It was clear how valuable the heads of developing nations find the informal and participatory atmosphere of the Smart Partnership dialogues. Perhaps I may characterise that by one example.
Towards the end of the meetings at Victoria Falls and at one of the larger open sessions, it fell to me to introduce a message from the Fellows to the CHOGM which was to take place in Durban in six weeks' time. The burden of the message was to inform the CHOGM of CPTM's development since it was formally approved in 1995 at Auckland and given encouragement and increased support at the Edinburgh CHOGM of 1997.
After I had drafted a suitable communiqué, I soon cleared it with President Mugabe as the chairman of the gathering. When I introduced the message in the final session of the dialogue, I proposed to say that President Mbeki, who would be chairing the CHOGM in Durban, had undertaken to bring the Fellows' communication to the attention of his colleagues at the CHOGM.
I had a chat with President Mbeki, and he was very happy to agree to what I proposed to say. When my programmed slot came, I gave some background to my own position, including a reference to my unique advantage over many there as a member of a Parliament for life, unless declared bankrupt or found guilty of murder. I ran through the bullet points in the communiqué. I had noted that there was no sign of President Mbeki in his place. I assumed that he had left to get home. When I reached the place in my script which said that His Excellency President Mbeki had agreed to bring the message to the attention of his colleagues in Durban, there was a large round of applause. That was gratifying, of course, and I continued to the end.
At dinner that evening, I was surprised to see President Mbeki and I said to him that I had not seen him in the marquee during the latter part of the afternoon but that when I had said my piece about his undertaking, it had been very well received. To my surprise he said that yes, he knew that because he had been standing at the back of the marquee and heard all that I had said.
That combination of informality and several days continuously together provides many opportunities to share and discuss, without the rigidity of set-piece meetings, a whole range of issues. At Victoria Falls, greater integration of regional tourism was one theme. Last August in Mozambique we discussed developing the Maputo transportation corridor, so important to seaport access for the inland countries of that part of the world.

241
It was amazing to see how resilient President Chissano and his countrymen were following those disastrous floods earlier in that year. I hope that their successful recovery last year will not impact adversely on the support which that country now so urgently requires yet again as the Zambezi River floods and breaks its banks.
Last November in Malaysia, interest focused on improving the media coverage of those developing countries' affairs, with special interest in how to benefit from globalisation and the protection of intellectual property rights.
At all those gatherings, the problems of HIV-AIDS are also aired. Indeed, the first ladies also devoted a great deal of time to meetings and discussions about AIDS. Mrs Grace Mugabe has been a most active advocate of greater efforts to tackle that problem and has done much to raise awareness of the need for action rather than mere talk. My wife was included in those talks.
I was impressed when President Museveni said that he had decided that HIV-AIDS in Uganda should be treated as a subject for education. He had moved responsibility for it from the ministry of health to the ministry of education. Even then, he said that the only way to ensure that the message is heard and understood is for him, the president, to go on tours of the villages. People would come to hear him in large numbers, far more than would turn out for a minister. So he personally lectured on safe sex, condoms and all that his people must know about that dreadful scourge. No country in Africa is free from it but Uganda has a better record than most. President Museveni is to be congratulated on his enlightened approach. From some others, there is a regrettable tendency to look the other way or even to deny that there is a pandemic.
The presence of so many heads at those dialogues—and other countries are represented at vice-president or senior minister levels—all willing to participate in an unstructured manner and in a way that is not pre-scripted is very welcome. For the other delegates who come, around 250 or 300, the opportunities to converse and network with the heads of government and among others with similar business interests to themselves has proved to be extremely successful. The philosophy of those gatherings may best be summed up in the phrases "win-win" and "smart partnership"; helping thy neighbour, not confronting or challenging him.
Uniquely for a Commonwealth organ, CPTM has been able to reach beyond the Commonwealth. The prime minister of Krygyzstan and a senior minister from Algeria joined us in Langkawi and if His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan had not died early in 1999, I would have been co-chairing a 1999 smart partnership dialogue which the king and the then crown prince had planned for Petra.
This year, the dialogue will be held in Kampala. It promises to be a lively and successful occasion under the dynamic chairmanship of President Museveni, assuming, of course, that he wins his election next
242
week. The theme for our discussions in Kampala will be enhancing the climate for foreign direct investment though smart partnership.
There is much to do to help Southern Africa and other developing countries, and help can lake many forms. Not so well known but, I believe, significant is the work of CPTM. It is an excellent example of a Commonwealth activity with a new, fresh approach. It emphasises public/private partnerships. It has enjoyed the support of the British Government since its inception. I welcome that lead from the Government and hope that it will long continue. I commend CPTM's activities to your Lordships. I urge the Commonwealth High Level Review Group, under the chairmanship of President Mbeki, to give CPTM the strongest endorsement and the moral and financial support which it requires to pursue its work for good throughout the developing Commonwealth and beyond.
5.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate the serious challenges which face Southern Africa and our part in them.
In December 1998, in Harare, the World Council of Churches celebrated the 50th anniversary of its founding in Amsterdam. The celebrations in Harare were marked by an African exuberance, the highlight of which was the arrival of Nelson Mandela. His speech, while thanking the missionaries for the schools and hospitals without which he would not have been standing before us, also echoed what the assembly had already heard and decided upon; namely, that much of the council's work needed to concentrate in the future on the continent of Africa.
The situation then was bad and over the past two years, it has become worse, much worse, as we have already heard, because of the natural disasters in Mozambique, political instability in Zimbabwe and the continuing problems concerning disease and the economy for which we have some responsibility.
The World Council of Churches, with its 337 member churches, and in co-operation with the relief agencies across the world, has pinpointed two areas of special concern: HIV/AIDS and debt relief. In reality, those two major issues are very much related. Disease leads to poverty and poverty leads to disease. The spiral of poverty leads to social and economic collapse of families, communities and even nations.
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others about the number of people who are HIV positive. We recognise that that is quite staggering: 1,500 people are newly infected every day in South Africa alone.
One of the results has been to create 100,000 children orphaned in one year. That is far too many for the extended family to absorb, which has been one of the strengths of Southern Africa. Suddenly we find that it is necessary to provide orphanages in great numbers.

243
But with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I would like to add that it is not all gloom for in Uganda, which perhaps I know best, with a major education programme introduced in 1987, the numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infected people dropped from 200,000 per year to 57,000 in 1997. It is still a staggering figure but progress has been made.
Safe sex education, practical advice and structures around marriage have had some mitigating effects. But the need for drugs is now being pinpointed. I read that the World Bank estimated that the cost of drugs to treat AIDS in Africa alone is over 10 billion US dollars. That begins to reveal the enormity of the problem.
In 1995, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, the members of the World Trade Organisation signed, as part of the GATT package, the trade-related intellectual property rights agreement. In particular, under this agreement the pharmaceutical industry, has had the monopoly of manufacturing and selling its products for 20 years.
The effect of those agreements has been that the governments of Southern African countries have been prevented from finding the cheapest possible sources for essential medicines required for public clinics and hospitals. From the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, we have already heard that something has happened, of which I am not aware, but perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention of addressing this issue in the next round of talks.
HIV/AIDS and debt relief are bound together in Southern Africa. The Jubilee 2000 Coalition campaign for the remittance of unpayable debt has been heard by governments and peoples. In this regard we can be proud of the leadership given by successive British governments. I want to put on record the pride that I feel at international meetings when such issues are raised.
Such a movement is right on humanitarian grounds as well as on grounds of justice, but I believe that it is good economics as well. Countries that take responsibility for their own economies in their own ways, increase trade and increase markets to the benefit of us all. But as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, the issue of corruption has yet to be properly addressed. I believe that the leaders of churches worldwide, and especially those in Southern Africa should make witness in this respect. We need to tackle not just debt relief but also the issue of corruption itself.
As we have already seen, the connection between disease and poverty is real. While we would all agree that we have to help the nations of Southern Africa to address the provision of healthcare and making available clean and safe drinking water, and while we would agree that the remittance of debt is vitally important, that cannot be where our responsibility ends.
244
At a recent meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Berlin in February this year a whole session was devoted to a close look at the world economy. I suspect that we may not necessarily have liked what was said about the World Bank, the IMF or the World Trade Organisation by some of the representatives from the south, but it becomes understandable when just one story among many is told in relation to agreements on agriculture.
In October 1997, a fruit canning factory, the main employer in the fruit-growing area of a small town in the western Cape in South Africa, had to close down. It could no longer sell its canned fruit in Japan, its traditional market, because Greek peach canners, benefiting from export refunds, exploited the system to price them out of the market. They were also priced out of the EU market by the high import taxes imposed on canned fruit in the EU. The result was a loss of 800 permanent jobs and 4,000 seasonal jobs. Time does not allow me to tell of beef exports to northern Namibia or issues surrounding the production of sugar and dairy products.
When an agreement was signed in 1995, all World Trade Organisation members agreed to reduce all forms of subsidies given to their agricultural sectors. At that time the United States, the European Union and Japan provided 80 per cent of all subsidies, to which can be added the help given in marketing costs and the payments to exporters where price differences were to their disadvantage. It is estimated that in 1998 that amounted to 274 billion US dollars. In anybody's language that is a lot of money and puts people in Southern Africa at a great disadvantage when they seek to help themselves.
There is no level playing field and all the help given by individuals, Comic Relief and aid agencies is like trying to stem the mighty Zambezi with buckets and spades. The words of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly cover political, social and economic matters. Such matters interact with each other, as has been made abundantly clear by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. But we cannot sit by and observe. In order to enable Southern African countries to help themselves, major issues relating to the agreements of the World Trade Organisation need to be addressed.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House how the Government propose to deal with the two issues: drugs in relation to HIV/AIDS and subsidies in relation to the economy. There is also our continuing concern to provide debt relief. A verse in the Old Testament mentions being one's "brother's keeper". We are our black and white brothers' keeper in Southern Africa.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate.
One of the greatest African statesmen whom I had the privilege of knowing was Robert Gardiner, a Ghanaian in the UN who became head of the

245
Economic Commission for Africa. He believed that the most precious gift that the British gave to Africa was the rule of law, where before there had been only the power of the witchdoctor and the corruption and fear through which that power was exercised.
We left behind all too fragile infrastructures because a combination of political correctness, war-weariness after 1945 and the dead hand of a Treasury without vision caused us to withdraw from Africa at least a generation too soon. At that time there were simply not enough trained Africans with experience of government in a modern world. Some of the African leaders did not lack authority, ability or the readiness to accept and use responsibility—for instance, in Kenyatta, Malcolm MacDonald recognised that ability—but in far too many ministries and governments there were fine front doors but no house yet built behind them. The Congo had no infrastructure at all at independence and many of its evils stem from that.
As President Kaunda told me in recent years, he had four experienced, able and reliable men whom he had to move around key posts. A good friend of mine, previously a young district officer, on independence was made permanent under-secretary in the ministry of foreign affairs, then secretary to the cabinet and finally governor of the Bank of Zambia, before he became IBM's representative in Southern Africa.
The people want peace, stability and health in a region that is under the dark shadow of AIDS, the chance to be educated and developed and the power to change their leaders by democratic choice. In Zambia, President Kaunda accepted the people's decision that he must give way to a freely elected successor, President Chiluba. Unfortunately, Chiluba is attempting to resist the democratic process.
In South Africa a yet more remarkable peaceful transfer of power took place. Between those two countries lies Zimbabwe, which has an excellent infrastructure but also trouble. We all know something of what is happening there from the attacks on freedom of the press and on the judiciary, to the state-driven attacks on blacks and whites alike in the cities as well as on the farms if they appear to pose any threat to Mugabe.
Two years ago the greatest living African, Nelson Mandela, said that Mugabe was a tyrant who should be removed from power. He should know what tyranny is and how precious is freedom. Therefore, I do not understand why neither the Commonwealth, which has been so quick to condemn Fiji and Pakistan, nor the United Nations, nor the European Union, which outlawed Austria because of the emergence of one neo-Nazi party which did not even enjoy power, has acted to denounce and to condemn what the leader of a country is doing to his own people.
I recognise that the United Kingdom has to refrain from public condemnation for fear of Robert Mugabe being able to claim that a former colonial power is attempting to dictate to a sovereign African country. The leader of the MDC appears to support that view.
246
I was glad that the Secretary of State privately asked the Belgian Government to raise such issues as the intimidation of judges, the harassment of the press and the "unacceptable" treatment of white farmers—in most countries, the murder of an elderly woman at the very moment of Mugabe's visit would indeed be considered "unacceptable"—but what about the European Commissioner for Development and still more the President of France? Mugabe has broken every promise on development and on loan; has flouted the UN and the donors' conference; and is behaving with the utmost brutality to his own people, black and white Zimbabweans alike. And yet the Commission wants to "build confidence". Confidence-building measures do not exactly have a good record in this country. The EU must have been confusing the visit with a negotiation with the IRA.
It is no use the Government claiming that they have achieved serious power and influence in the EU, as I hope they have, nor the EU setting up military bodies to enable it to carry out humanitarian tasks, even within a non-compliant country, if we are then to be treated to the sight of an EU Commissioner negotiating with an undoubted tyrant. I hope that we shall be told exactly what was offered and what, if anything, the EU did to protect law and order in a beleaguered country.
The Belgian Government's claim to need to talk to Mugabe is that the Zimbabwe army is an important player in any negotiation for peace in the Congo. We have heard some interesting background on that from my noble friend Lady Chalker. Belgium has heavy responsibility for the chaos there and a natural interest in the country. But I should be very surprised, I fear, if Mr Mugabe had any intention of bringing his troops home. On the one hand, he and some senior officers are making too much money from their mining concessions, including diamonds; and, on the other hand, the troops, when they return home, will discover what has been happening to their families. They will perhaps call their C-in-C to account for deplorable support in the field and for not a few black bags—all in support of a country where they have no national interest.
The French of course also have a major interest in what happens in the Congo, but they are probably also angling for achieving influence in Zimbabwe. It remains very important to France to be seen as the only really influential European power in Africa, quite apart from not inconsiderable commercial considerations.
We must also be concerned, I fear, about whatever Libya may be promoting on Mugabe's behalf in the new African union and perhaps in South Africa, given the ANC's close historic links with Libya, to which country they feel they owe much. If we are to claim to have an ethical foreign policy, it seems to me we need to demonstrate that we respect and defend the principles of freedom under the law. I have never been able to understand why the events in Zimbabwe were seen for so long as simply the awkward problem of a small group of colonialist whites. They, too, are Zimbabwe citizens who were born and brought up

247
there. Most bought their farms from the government and before the land could be bought that government had to declare that they did not want it.
The whole livelihood and future of the Africans who work on the commercial farms is bound up with them. Their skills and commitment are paramount. The farmers' union has repeatedly offered to turn over designated farms in return for the sale of the land and to leave the whole infrastructure to be managed by African farm managers whom they have been training for some years, and by the African workers on the farms who well know how to run them. They would have every chance of running viable commercial farms, an important part of the economy.
Instead, the government want, as they have done before, to settle landless men without skills and without capital, since the government refuse to give land title and therefore they have no collateral on which to borrow to grow a subsistence crop. Those Africans who have worked the farms for years, and their families, including the very young and the very old, will become refugees, flowing over into the neighbouring African countries and first and foremost into South Africa. Most of these Africans have worked for the same family for years and they live in communities which include a school, a clinic, a shop and modern housing for the workers. They are virtually villages. When they are destroyed and the workers and their families are driven out, as happened on a number of farms, they face complete destitution.
These people, and not only the white farmers, saw their only protection in the law, a free vote and a free press. They have lost all three. They cannot even expect police protection when their houses are torched and their wives beaten. Yet the Commonwealth does nothing visible; the UN does nothing; and the EU does something disastrous. What kind of cynical message are we allowing to be sent to desperate, brave people? It would be ironic indeed if the EU's first Petersberg task proved to be the evacuation of refugees.
I know that in these dangerous days no government want to have to display their hand to the enemy, but I share the growing fear of the people of Zimbabwe that nothing is being done. At the very least, a major statement, led by the Scandinavian countries, which are respected in Africa and have no colonial baggage, is needed to give hope. A practical step would be a proposal for an immediate meeting of the donor countries involved in the 1998 conference with the UN and Zimbabwe, together with perhaps South Africa representing the African countries. That would be engagement with Mugabe; it would be a constructive approach which he would be hard pressed to reject.
At present, I am only too forcefully reminded of the years of appeasement in Europe before World War II. Africans, like us, respect principle. I do not advocate sanctions—they never worked in Africa before and they probably would not now. I suggest that it could well be that in risking bloodshed, the people of Zimbabwe will free themselves before the country
248
reaches disaster—and they are the only people who can in the end do so—but they will remember then what we did and what we did not do.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are fortunate in this House to have as a Member the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, with all his experience of Southern Africa. I congratulate him on introducing the debate and thank him for giving us this opportunity to speak.
It is easy to feel outraged about the situation in Zimbabwe, but outrage of course changes nothing. So far in the debate, we have been restrained. Our Government have chosen to take a low profile, with the aim of upholding human rights and the rule of law through African leaders and the Commonwealth. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, so well pointed out, we may have to do even more than that.
South Africa and Zimbabwe share some common history and many present objectives. My foremost hope is that they will learn from each other. The signs are that President Thabo Mbeki will see it as his duty to become more involved in restoring peace in the region and respect for the law in Zimbabwe. He, after all, has much to be proud of in South Africa, as I shall mention later, and he is the only African leader who can influence Robert Mugabe. The new young Congolese President also seems anxious to rebuild his links overseas. It is encouraging to hear the news from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, especially about the special facilitator. Perhaps he, with Mbeki's support, will breath new life into the Southern African development community to revive the Lusaka Accord, which is one of its main purposes, and in that way exercise restraint on his principal ally.
However, these pious hopes still look like straws in the wind. The ordinary people of Zimbabwe are suffering terribly under a cruel and racist dictatorship which betrays so many of the principles behind the liberation war. I cannot forget the positive outlook of the bridge-builders of modern Zimbabwe, the young federals and liberals whom I met in the early 1960s, the influence of the churches during the liberation struggle and the new truly multi-racial society which followed. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned President Vorster, but no wonder that the voice if Ian Smith has been heard again in terrible mockery of Mugabe.
How can Zimbabweans get out of this impasse? Do those who have come to respect the law because of its colonial associations now have to accept the appointment of "liberated" judges who feel empathy with those oppressed by the same system in the past? Is it necessary to go back in time and understand the anguish which Mugabe and others genuinely suffered under Ian Smith in order to re-establish a position of trust; or is a stiff upper lip, steady support for the rule of law and silent resistance to blackmail still the best option, especially for the parliamentary opposition which, after all, now claims the real moral high ground? The truth must be somewhere in between these positions.

249
ZANU-PF's violent attacks on the judiciary and media have rightly provoked angry reactions. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group will be tested when it meets and will no doubt resort to the Harare declaration. I doubt whether sanctions or expulsion on the Pakistan-Nigeria model will help, and I am relieved to hear that other noble Lords agree with that. But pressure will certainly be needed, especially to unite African leaders behind a peaceful solution.
It is not enough to preach human rights and democracy unless land reform and resettlement are back on the agenda, as all Zimbabweans now accept. That was an injustice inherent in the Lancaster House agreement which still must be put right. Britain cannot simply be seen to protect the interests of commercial farmers. One approach may be to revise the dialogue with SADC and other organisations in the UN over Britain's contribution to resettlement and the land redistribution plan set out by UNDP. Perhaps the Minister is able to comment on that.
One oppressed group which has largely been ignored, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, is the farm workers who are caught between the militant war veterans and the commercial farmers. Thousands have been ill-treated and beaten on suspicion of their links with the MDC or former employers. The latest wave of violence has occurred in Matabeleland North where ZANU-PF is again trying to intimidate those who failed to support it in the elections. It is a brutal form of civil war in which local government vehicles are used to carry war veterans to attack farmers and farm workers and MDC supporters are cruelly denounced by ZANU for "voting for recolonisation".
Research by NGOs, such as the Zimbabwe Network of Informal Settlements, shows how farm workers are trying to survive on subsistence plots on abandoned farms in the wake of destruction by the war veterans who extort money from them. These farm workers are not recognised in the Government's resettlement plan and are expected to live on almost nothing while the country depends on them for food supplies. Severe food shortages are imminent, partly because of the lack of rainfall and past drought, but chiefly because of the devastation and economic chaos which affect the rural poor most and spare the Government, police and ruling party. When the Minister comes to respond on Mozambique perhaps she can confirm that Britain is also helping NGOs such as Save the Children to assist an estimated 11,000 people who are, I believe, affected by floods in northern Zimbabwe.
Turning to South Africa, there have been very encouraging developments which have some relevance for Zimbabwe. First, as one who once worked alongside the Churches in the anti-apartheid movement, I have been impressed by the growing pluralism and genuine democracy which has held up since the retirement of President Mandela. The biggest achievement is the alliance with Inkatha, which is as much a tribute to the ANC's organisation in KwaZulu-Natal as to Chief Buthelezi, and, with that, the gradual erosion of the crude political power of
250
traditional Zulu leadership. Secondly, there is the surprising ability of the Opposition to challenge the ANC, most recently in the Zimbabwean debate in parliament, although without much prospect of a viable political alternative. As in the UK, we watch the development of a born-again opposition which is essential to a healthy democracy. Even more important are the prospects of friendly criticism within the ranks of the ANC and its allies, whether on social change, politics, the economy or Zimbabwe.
Nelson Mandela, as we have heard, does not hesitate to speak out. Only last week we heard Zwelinzima Vavi, head of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, say at a seminar in Johannesburg:
"People cannot cat slogans, rhetoric or history; liberty must bring tangible benefits to the oppressed".
That is a very simple statement. He was referring to Robert Mugabe, but in another sense it was a warning to the ANC leadership that the time of heroes was over and the people still waited for results. The growth, employment and redistribution programme still has not delivered on earlier promises, and the low turnout in the local elections is itself the strongest indicator of disaffection within the ANC. Others have already described the economic and fiscal successes achieved by South Africans under Trevor Manuel's firm guidance, perhaps influenced, bizarrely, by our own Chancellor.
Knowing that the noble Baroness is to reply to the debate, I should like to spend a few minutes on the condition of the poorest in South Africa and the small contribution of the Government. Foreign aid to South Africa is only a fraction of GNP. In the past decade aid has been only 0.4 per cent, but it needs to be targeted towards health services and education in deprived areas, such as the KwaZulu-Natal hinterland where, incidentally, farmers have also suffered from foot and mouth disease in recent months. Britain gave £32 million in 1998, mainly for essential projects to help the rural and urban poor; for example, AIDS prevention which is obviously vital today. But that aid works out at only £6 per head in South Africa, compared with £11 in Zimbabwe and £16 in Zambia. Can the Minister see any reason why the poorest South Africans should receive any less per capita than other Southern Africans?
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to asylum seekers. It is a sad but telling fact that skilled South Africans and Zimbabweans of all ethnic origins are leaving for Australia and. Europe, and many are now in Britain. I saw one report in the Financial Times that one-fifth of registered nurses have left Zimbabwe since last June. The number of asylum seekers from Zimbabwe has risen ten fold since 1998. The provisional total for last year is 980, which is twice the number of those accepted for settlement in 1999. In 1998 and 1999, according to figures kindly supplied by the Library, 49,000 South Africans came here while only 12,000 left, which is a net gain of 37,000 in that period. These numbers rise when dual nationality is taken into account. That is, surely, further telling

251
evidence for both Presidents Mugabe and Mbeki that Britain must not be seen as a problem but as part of an urgent solution.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, the ninth speaker in a debate of this nature faces the certainty that what he wants to say has already been said with much greater expertise given the experience of Africa, ministerial or otherwise, that resides on all Benches. Another certainty, of which my noble friend Lord Hughes reminds us, is that this debate is likely to be a Cook's tour of the region. My contribution will be a Cook's tour of a country that has not yet been mentioned. Some echoes of the contributions of noble Lords will, I believe, play a part in the points that I make.
I refer to six friendships that I have made in the International Labour Organisation over the past dozen years. These South African trade union leaders, past and present, have had a considerable willingness to fight for democracy and gone on to give their countries greater service. Sam Shilowa, former general secretary of COSATU, is now the Premier of Gauteng. Cyril Ramaphosa, also formerly of COSATU, is now a major industrial figure in South Africa and is assisting in the Northern Ireland peace process. My former colleague on the worker benches of the ILO, Freddie Chiluba, has gone to even greater heights. He reached the exalted position of elected President of Zambia. I regret to say that his enthusiasm for democracy seems to have waned somewhat since. I share with the noble Lord, Lord St John, and others concern about his willingness perhaps to forget past ideals in his desire to hold on to power at present. In Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, formerly leaders of the Zimbabwe Council of Trade Unions and now the MDC, continue to be friends. I hope to greet Gibson Sibanda in two weeks' time in Geneva at the governing body of the ILO, as he remains a member on the worker benches.
However, I am worried about the threat of the withdrawal of the passports of those who have been arraigned before the courts. Both Morgan and Gibson have been before the courts. If that is the case, and Gibson is prevented from carrying out his international obligations by the Mugabe regime, I hope that our Government, other European governments and the ILO will raise the greatest protest. I join the noble Lord, Lord St John, and other noble Lords in condemning what has happened in Zimbabwe. I visited Zimbabwe last year and produced a report, which I circulated to colleagues, on what I found there. What I forecast has, regrettably, turned out to be the case.
I have mentioned five friends. I wish to mention a sixth. He is Jan Sithole, President of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions. I have visited Swaziland three times in 10 years, twice in an attempt to get Jan Sithole out of prison. Swaziland is a small and beautiful country with a population of only a million. It is in southern Africa. It does not have tribal divisions. It has a monarch who stands high in the
252
affection of many of his people. It has only one major problem. It has no democracy. In emergency legislation in 1973, the present king's father abolished and banned political parties. That remains the case today.
Swaziland has many things going for it. It has a relatively high standard of living. But it has now a festering sore. The great thing about being the tenth speaker is that previous speakers quote. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not now in his place, quoted Kofi Annan saying that there is a thirst for democracy. There is a thirst. It exists in most parts of the world. It exists no less in Swaziland. But it is a small country and does not capture attention. There are not that many countries with influence over Swaziland. It is a member of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us of the Harare Declaration. That is just as applicable to Swaziland, which has no political parties, as to any one-party state in Africa. But there is a difference. Our Government have a part to play and should have an influence in that country.
In the 10 years I have known him, my friend Jan Sithole has not only been incarcerated twice but is now again before the court on charges, with a view to silencing the only democratic voice in that country. The Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions took upon itself the democratic voice and it is the only allowed democratic organisation. But it joins the Bar Association, the Churches, the youth sections and the employers of Swaziland in demanding that those around Swaziland bring pressure on the government. It is a strange government—a feudal monarchy. The government are appointed by the king. The king is held in high esteem. It is an almost soviet system—no one criticises the king but everyone criticises the shadowy figures around him.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, commented on President Mbeki's silent diplomacy and how unsuccessful it has been in respect of Zimbabwe. Great Britain has been engaging in silent diplomacy in Swaziland for a decade or more. It is not good enough to hope that the patient and peaceful nature of the Swazi people will continue; it will not. My friend Jan Sithole and his organisation have been the subject of harassment over a decade. The trade union laws in that country were changed to prevent the trade union movement being a voice of protest and dissent.
In 1995, Jan Sithole was kidnapped, stripped naked, put in the boot of his rather battered old Mercedes and left on a mountain road where, had a lorry come along, it would have pushed the Mercedes down a ravine. Fortunately, someone on a bicycle heard his knocking from the boot and released him. He told his story to a number of colleagues in Geneva. Jan Sithole is a big lad. He is almost my size. One of my trade union colleagues, who is well versed in negotiations, said, "But, Jan, if there were only two of them, why did you get into the car so easily? You are a big man". Jan said dryly, "They were carrying AK-47s, and it was not a negotiation".

253
Everyone who knows Jan Sithole believes that he is the least likely revolutionary leader. He is a deeply religious man. He does not want to see the monarchy removed from that country. But he is a man who, with his colleagues in the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions, is determined to call for democracy and is in a sense disappointed that that call is not being echoed in countries such as ours. Many of us are concerned about what is happening in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia. We should have the same degree of concern for our colleagues in Swaziland. The fact that it is a small country should not deter us from speaking up.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will be able to give assurances. What are we doing to ensure that democracy comes to that country? Can we really see a Commonwealth in the 21st century with the last remaining feudal kingdom? Should we not be concerned about that? Fortunately, as far as I know, only one person—a schoolgirl—has been killed in the rioting that has taken place from time to time in the capital of Swaziland. I hope that we will not wait for the situation to worsen. My fear is that at some stage Jan Sithole will be swept aside and replaced by people who are far less peaceful and far more revolutionary. There is a diaspora of young educated Swazis in South Africa and other countries. They are calling for democracy in Swaziland.
While we are rightly concerned about the repugnant things that are happening in Zimbabwe and while we are concerned about my good friends Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, I hope that noble Lords will also have regard for someone whom many will not know, whose name they have not heard, but who, for almost 10 years now, has led peacefully and with great expertise the only democratic organisation in Swaziland and has tried to bring about the understanding of his government, his monarch and his community in moving towards democracy before feudalism is swept away in that part of the world, as it was swept away a century ago in Europe. I hope that in our great concern for the whole of Africa, we do not forget one small country, Swaziland.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention today. In my contribution to the debate I shall concentrate on Zimbabwe.
A few years ago I visited Zimbabwe to stay with some very great friends. During that time I spent three days with the Commercial Farmers Union visiting a number of farms and land. These visits culminated in separate meetings with the British High Commissioner and the president, chairman and chief executive of the Commercial Farmers Union. It took place around the time soon after some 1,470 farms had been gazetted by the Zimbabwean government for compulsory acquisition without compensation and the landowners were filing applications to the courts to prevent that happening.
254
The conclusions from this visit were many and three of them I remember well. First, white farmers would be content to sell some of their land provided fair compensation was paid by the government. Secondly, the government refused, and still will not give the small black farmers title deeds to their land on which they have been resettled. As a result, no newly resettled person can apply for a loan from the bank to buy seed corn, fertiliser or water pumps, and thus the land is not farmed, the trees are chopped down for firewood and the area becomes an and dust bowl. However, it was significant to see black farmers who had attended one year at an agricultural training college financed by the Commercial Farmers Union producing as good a quality of tobacco as white farmers.
As we all know, the overall situation in Zimbabwe has now become very grave. Turning to the political situation, the elections held on 24th and 25th June of last year were marred by politically inspired violence and intimidation. The Movement for Democratic Change was formed in September 1999 and, in the recent election, it won 57 of the 120 contested seats, with ZANU-PF winning 62. It is now mounting legal challenges to the results in 37 ZANU-PF constituencies. But in December Mugabe violated the constitution when he issued a statutory instrument banning opposition lawsuits over disputed results, even if the incumbent was convicted of electoral corruption. It is more than apparent that Mugabe is taking action to ensure that he remains in power by using his private militia, which has already shed innocent blood and specialises in intimidation, beatings and murder; and a police force and military that always carry out the instructions from ZANU-PF.
The opposition leader, Mr Tsvangirai, a most courageous man, expects an early election as a new wave of repression has started and the crisis that has come from the collapse of the economy gathers pace daily. A pre-election campaign of unparalleled ferocity has started and ZANU-PF will resort to massive repression conducted by the so-called war veterans.
Mugabe has stepped up his campaign against the media by bombing the main independent newspaper, the Daily News, and by the expulsion of a BBC World Service reporter on 17th February. A journalist working for a South African newspaper has also been ordered to leave. White farmers are still being intimidated, beaten and tragically murdered. Judges' lives have been threatened. Political opponents have been beaten and the so-called war veteran thugs are turned loose on anyone who has had the courage to challenge the despotism that is now passing for presidential rule. The law itself is no longer a protection from harassment. The judiciary has been denounced as biased, the supreme court has been surrounded by thugs and the chief justice has been forced to retire early. Mr Mugabe's evil actions have plunged the country into war and penury.
I shall now turn to the economy. Its main pillars are farming, mining and tourism; all three have collapsed. The economy is in a critical situation, with unemployment running at over 60 percent, inflation at

255
60 per cent and foreign currency reserves have run out. Interest rates are at 70 per cent and the lack of foreign currency reserves has led to fuel shortages and power cuts, as the country is dependent on 40 per cent of its electricity and energy supplies from adjacent countries. The Zimbabwe dollar is overvalued, despite recent devaluations. In the past, mining has accounted for around one-third of exports and 23 per cent of GDP, while commercial farming accounts for around 19 per cent of GDP and earns 40 per cent of the country's foreign exchange. It is no wonder that the economy is at the point of critical mass as the government are persecuting the white managers of the mining industry, bringing closures to mines; the occupation of farms by illegal squatters has ruined commercial farming; and tourism is down by 60 per cent.
The Land Acquisition Act 1992 gave the government of Zimbabwe power to acquire land for redistribution and provided for compensation. In 1998, a programme for land redistribution and alleviation of poverty was presented and an inception plan was agreed by donors, landowners and the government. It is essential that this programme starts up again, as it hardly got off the ground. In June of last year, the Land Acquisition Act was amended to allow the acquisition of farms, with compensation to be paid only for improvements. In December, Mugabe stated in an address that over the past six months 2,540 out of a requirement of 3,000 farms, covering around 12 million hectares, which would resettle around 162,000 black families, had been listed for compulsory acquisition. This equates to around 80 per cent of the land owned by commercial farmers. Some 1,600 farms contain illegal squatters who have been responsible for the murder of seven white farmers and for some 2,400 cases of brutal assault. Mugabe has repeatedly supported these squatters and refused to act in accordance with two high court rulings that ordered their eviction by the police, declaring that the seizure of white-owned farms was illegal. The land seizure programme has violated property rights, denied farmers the full protection of the law and ignored legislation offering due notice of eviction.
In conclusion, the critical situation existing in Zimbabwe is because Mugabe is determined to ensure that ZANU-PF remains in power and wins the presidential election using the most brutal and repressive systems to achieve this. The descent into totalitarianism, combined with attacks on minority white people, is not simply the breakdown of civil society, as seen elsewhere in Africa; it is a calculated entrenchment of a man who believes that he is above the law. Furthermore, recognition of Mugabe by President Chirac of France, the Belgian Prime Minister and EU politicians is abhorrent and in no way helps towards a return to democracy in Zimbabwe.
The one country that can apply pressure to bring about a return to democracy in Zimbabwe is South Africa, through its trading, economic and political weight. President Mbeki believes that this is an African
256
problem and should be resolved only by African countries. However, there is no desire within other African countries to resolve this desperate situation and, in any event, they are more or less incapable of doing so. President Mbeki should distance himself from Mugabe. If he does not do so and does not bring his economic and political weight to bear, the United Kingdom should bring pressure to bear on South Africa to do so. The time has come for sanctions to be applied by the Commonwealth, the EU and the UN in condemnation of Mugabe's policies and for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth.
6.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, would like to share in the appreciation shown to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate. The deep involvement of the Christian Church in the history of Southern Africa and especially in the struggle to overturn apartheid means that we have deep bonds of affection with many of its peoples.
Indeed, the emergence of South Africa from the history of apartheid is a quite remarkable story. I remember visiting South Africa in 1989 where, from a conference of over two dozen Anglicans meeting from all over the world in Harare, only four were allowed to enter South Africa in that year. Anglican clergy were not welcome in South Africa in those days. But less than a year later, what had seemed out of the question in 1989 had happened; Nelson Mandela was free and a new journey seemed possible. I am reminded of the Old Testament image of evil empires which present themselves as powerful and strong, but often have feet of clay and come crashing down when least expected.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I focus my remarks on South Africa, because I believe that that country is the key to peace and stability in the region. There are two issues on which I should like to comment. The first concerns governance in South Africa. For those of us who have enjoyed the benefits of western and European political histories, and especially for us here in Britain, it would be easy to underestimate the struggle involved in moving a nation from one history to another. In this country, freedom, justice and peace, established in institutions of law and government, are taken for granted. But when you have lived through generations of oppression, cultures are created which will not be shifted overnight. In South Africa, for the lifetime of many of its peoples, the law, together with its officers, was understood as threat and danger; government as the enemy; and the structures of the state as the incarnation of injustice. So people grew up in a mode of resistance; their dignity preserved in spite of the structures of governance.
On the day that Nelson Mandela was released, at a service in church to celebrate his freedom, I remember the leader of the local anti-apartheid movement sharing with me how deep would be the cultural shift from resistance and opposition to reconstruction and responsible government. I want to hear that support and solidarity are being offered to the emerging institutions of the new South Africa as it makes this profound cultural shift.

257
Faith communities and the Churches, in particular, education and schools and the reshaping of the structures of law and order, all have a crucial part to play in effecting that change. I believe that the United Kingdom has a special responsibility to support South Africa in making this change of culture and in ensuring that the processes now being embodied in its governance are rooted in the cultures of its people.
The second issue upon which I want to comment concerns the peace of the region. It is not long ago that the collapse of the old South Africa went hand in hand with the end of the war in Namibia and the civil war in Mozambique—a good reminder that justice and freedom are the best guarantors of peace. We all know that peace and stability in South Africa are the keys to peace in the whole of Africa and, indeed, will have an influence on the wider world.
We need to play our part in helping to shape all of this. If peace, justice and freedom are to spread northwards from South Africa, it will not happen by accident. Indeed, if we do not recognise the importance of this, we might fail to take the action needed to hold the gains that we have made in South Africa itself. Many noble Lords have spoken of the troubles northward in Zimbabwe. The future of South Africa has to lie in peace and justice shared across the cultural histories of its many peoples.
That is tough enough for South Africa, but to watch the attacks on human rights and a growing culture of violence, lawlessness and political abuse in Zimbabwe—a nation with huge material and human resources—is not only tragic but deeply dangerous. Settling old scores of perceived injustices by vigilante action, by undermining the rule of law and preventing the processes of democratic freedom, will not only damage that country but threatens to spill over into the whole region. Many of us find the sight of the President of Zimbabwe touring Europe seeking support, with little or no public challenge, somewhat unacceptable.
We surely have to shut the door on those ways of handling the issues of power and of social and economic justice. We need to be aware that the peoples of South Africa are seeking to establish a political culture which is going in the opposite direction to what is happening in Zimbabwe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, very helpfully reminded us, Zimbabwe is caught up in the conflict in the Congo and, through that, in Angola. We cannot leave South Africa to work for peace in the region on its own. The international community needs to be much more active and committed in the endeavour to cut off the profits of the diamond trade which are feeding war in the region, and at pressing for peace, democracy and justice. Backing up the gains that the people of South Africa have made by extending their virtues progressively further into the continent of Africa is the task.
I sometimes question the energies of the international community; the comparative energy that we put into, for example, the issues of the Balkans, Iraq and the Middle East, over and against the
258
commitment that we have to root out war and injustice in Central Africa. Is the international community doing enough to support peace, justice and freedom in this region by vigorously tackling these areas of conflict?
South Africa is a new democracy. It has made remarkable strides from a bitter and oppressive past. New things need nurturing and feeding. It needs investment and the committed support of the international community in establishing these values more widely in the region. Upon its success depends so much for Africa as a whole. That is why we take these issues for granted at our peril.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the perceptive introduction to this timely debate of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and an array of distinguished speakers, leaves little more to say—and even that has been said.
However, I should like to take issue a little with the implications of the title of the debate. I know that noble Lords do not think so, but to read many of our newspapers you would think that Southern Africa—indeed, the whole of Africa—was one country in a uniformly bad way. Headlines like "Africa's Plight" in the Financial Times or, the week before last, the Economist's "Africa's Elusive Dawn" do a disservice to reality.
The countries of Southern Africa are very different. For instance, the World Bank thinks that Botswana's high growth rates could significantly reduce poverty within a decade. When I was in Botswana, I noticed that it was the Botswana Government who paid for outside expertise, not aid. Their diamond revenues were funding a range of employment developments.
Botswana also ranks high, with South Africa, on the respected Freedom House index of democratic governance and has a top ranking, with Namibia, in the World Economic Forum's Africa Competitiveness Report. Zimbabwe, in contrast, as noble Lords will well understand, is now nearly at the bottom.
In the important UNDP Human Development Index, which shows quality of life measures such as life expectancy, adult literacy rates and school enrollment, as well as GDP, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland were all up in the "medium" bracket, higher, for instance, than Ghana or India. That is in the report for the year 2000, although some figures will have been collected earlier, and AIDS, as noble Lords have said, will have made inroads since then.
I recognise the extreme lack of democracy in Swaziland, vividly described by my noble friend. Lord Brett, but my own acquaintance with some of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa has shown me that you can have good government with good policies—and even a loyal opposition—and yet not reach economic take-off. Economic development is impeded not only by the spread of disease, as noble Lords have said, but also by outside factors, including power

259
imbalances, which even good governments cannot counter. This is where the international community has a role.
Among the important power imbalances are tariffs and subsidies. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol spoke powerfully about subsidies. Tariffs are said to be four-times higher for a developing country exporter than for one in a developed country. So it is very welcome that the World Bank's new chief economist is, I understand, planning to cost the whole tariff regime for poor countries. Let us hope that that is a prelude to action. It is also very good news that the European Union Council of Ministers agreed, on 26th February, the quota and duty-free "Everything but Arms" initiative—or, at least, everything but arms, bananas, rice and sugar, until 2009. It is a start. One might say that the EU does better in trade than aid for the developing world.
The cost of drugs and vaccines, together with the role of patent protection, has the most serious consequences, as many noble Lords have said. I, too, welcome the decisions taken last week by my right honourable friend Gordon Brown to set up a global purchase fund for drugs and vaccines and also to provide tax incentives for research on the fatal diseases of the poorest regions. This comes alongside UN challenges to monopolies over drug prices and patents in other parts of the developing world.
There is more joined-up international action. My right honourable friend Clare Short's achievement of untying British aid is now being promulgated in the OECD. Britain and Italy, as joint chairs of G7, aim to influence the World Bank and the IMF towards poverty reduction as the key objective, rather than low inflation and a balanced budget, responsible for harmful public expenditure cuts in the past. Is it not also time for serious consideration of a Tobin-type tax to finance development through currency transactions, on the Canadian model?
There are of course barriers that are internal to some of the countries of Southern Africa themselves, as has been eloquently described by noble Lords. But we do well to remember that the countries of Southern Africa are different from each other; that there are those that are more suitable for investment than the private sector, so fond of mining and oil extraction, recognises. For others, time remains a need to press for more concerted international action to remove barriers to development—at the IMF and World Bank meeting in April, G7 in July and the UN Children's Summit in September. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell us what the Government will be aiming for at these key international decision points.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this debate. However, I feel that he needs to be slightly rebuked for making the debate so inclusive and so wide-ranging that it will be difficult for the Minister to answer comprehensively.
260
Many issues have been discussed this evening, including floods, AIDS and Zimbabwe. However, an issue that was not perhaps touched upon was the refugee situation in Guinea. As I did not write my speech with the knowledge that I would be covering areas that had already been mentioned, I should like to begin with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, which reflects some of the views expressed in a debate in this place five years ago on the Great Lakes, when we considered the abyss into which Zaire, after its collapse, was about to plunge. I raise the issue because I do not believe that anyone at that time even contemplated the disastrous effect that the civil war would have in actually sucking in other countries. I do not suppose that anyone in this Chamber would have believed that troops from Angola, South Africa and Zimbabwe would be engaged in that conflict. Having worked with soldiers in Zimbabwe when I lived there, I find it difficult to believe that they would be happy with that situation.
The peace process as regards the Lusaka Accord is not an issue that can be ignored. I believe that the international community will have to act in this respect. I very much support the view put forward by the noble Baroness that, until the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is addressed, the humanitarian crisis that affects the whole region will carry on. This is a very strange civil war because the enormous resources in the Congo mean that this is a conflict that is actually self-sustaining. People are benefiting from the continued conflict. I was particularly made aware of this by a recent article that highlighted not only the humanitarian crisis but also the fact that participants from all sides have started occupying areas that did not previously have human inhabitants—for example, some of the national parks—so that the very existence of the lowland guerrillas is now in question. Indeed, they could become extinct due to this crisis.
Mention has also been made of Mozambique. While discussing the floods in the area, perhaps I may welcome the prompt action taken by the DfID. Many questions were asked last year as to why the DfID did not act sooner; indeed, there was that rather unfortunate debate over who should fund the helicopters that were to be sent to the region. The fact that two Puma helicopters have been rented—which makes logistical sense—from the South African Government and are already in operation, soon to be followed by a further six helicopters, will make a considerable difference. However, I do not believe that the scale of the catastrophe can be overlooked. A hundred people have already lost their lives, with over half a million being affected. I believe that not police and troops have been used to move people out of the area. Having working in Mozambique, I can understand the need for troops, because we are dealing with people who have lost everything. Indeed, when they return to rebuild their lives, even the most basic necessities, such as a sheet of tin, are seen as very valuable commodities.

261
There is one further issue that should be raised as regards the floods in Mozambique. Although we are talking about a national disaster, the majority of the rainfall has not fallen within the borders of Mozambique; it has actually fallen in Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia. The overflow of the Kariba dam is a real issue because it flows into the Cabora Bassa. This could force the flood gates to be opened on Cabora Bassa and thus add to the problem.
The issue of AIDS has been mentioned. Indeed, 35 million people in Africa now suffer from AIDS. Four million—an extremely high figure—of those sufferers are to be found in South Africa. When I worked in South Africa back in 1991, there was little mention of AIDS. It was seen as a problem that did not affect South Africa, so not a great deal of work was carried out in that respect. Indeed, it was rife in the township, but due to the political system it was overlooked. Obviously this is no longer the case. The legacy of that inaction is that one in five of the young people in South Africa will not live to attain the age of 15 years. Indeed, the workforce will shrink by 17 per cent. AIDS in the whole of Africa has a disproportionate effect on the educated and those with skills. That is devastating for economies that need such people.
The issue of generic drugs has been raised. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies have discussed discounts, but discounted drugs will not meet the need due to the fact that they are too expensive for the budgets of many of the developing countries in Africa. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has already said that debt relief is crippling the economies of those countries. I believe that future generations will feel a degree of anger that more money is being spent on debt relief than on health budgets. Perhaps it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that in the future many involved with these matters will be labelled with the term "genocide" as millions of people are being denied the means to fight this terrible infection.
I find it particularly galling that the pharmaceutical industry has retained every single patent lawyer who works in South Africa to fight its case against the South African Government on generic drugs. Given that a case should be based on the body of evidence produced by experts on each side, it is perhaps worrying that all those who have knowledge of this difficult area of law are being retained by the side with the most money. Will the British Government consider sending lawyers with expertise in patent law to balance the arguments?
The issue that has been mentioned most often this evening is that of Zimbabwe. We on these Benches support the measured, calm and constructive approach of the Government on that matter. As a member of the Opposition, I do not believe that the Zimbabwean Government can claim that the sentiments I express are those of the Government. I mention that because of the rather strange incident that occurred in Brussels the other day when Mr Peter Tatchell attempted a citizen's arrest on Mr Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean Government claimed that Mr Tatchell
262
was a member of the British secret services. I ask the Minister whether Mr Peter Tatchell is a member of the secret services. If he is, I believe that we need to consider the way in which they operate.
Sanctions against Zimbabwe have been called for. I do not believe that that is an option. The DfID's work, which accounts for the majority of the £6 million aid budget we give to Zimbabwe, is very focused on AIDS and humanitarian relief. To cut that budget would hurt the people of Zimbabwe.
I have seen at first hand the repression meted out in that country. It is not a new problem in Zimbabwe. I assume I am the only person in this Chamber who has attended a ZANU-PF political rally. I did not do so through choice. That occurred back in 1991, when Nelson Mandela, having been released from prison, made a speech in Zimbabwe. Halfway through his speech most of the audience got up and—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I think that I have credentials too. I was denounced on. Salisbury radio in the Smith regime as a traitor and a communist because I was in regular touch with ZANU and ZAPU and I was responsible for exfiltrating, in fact, smuggling, out of the Congo a ZANU leader who later, I am grateful to say, gave me credit for that in a book. The noble Lord should always remember that a great many people have roots in Africa.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall treasure the image of the noble Baroness as a communist. As I was saying, halfway through Nelson Mandela's speech everyone left to travel on their free buses. I asked people why they were leaving. The majority said that they had been transported to the rally on free buses and that if they did not go then the buses would depart. I stayed on to hear Mr Mandela's absolutely fantastic speech in which he referred to racial tolerance. I then left as the ZANU-PF rally turned into rather a rant. However, I discovered that the police had been told to allow no one to leave the stadium until after the ZANU-PF rally had finished. There were approximately 3,000 people in the stadium listening to the rally and 5,000 people were crammed within the perimeter fence having been told they were not allowed to leave until the president had finished speaking. That gave an illustration of the police misusing their powers back in 1991.
Another issue I wish to mention is the disgusting treatment of Chief Justice Gubbay, a man who has devoted his professional life to the cause of justice and racial equality both during the Rhodesian regime and also during the term of the present Zimbabwean Government. There have been disgraceful attacks on Chief Justice Gubbay in Parliament. These attacks have been both racial and anti-Semitic in their motivation. The judgments of Chief Justice Gubbay have had enormous significance across the Commonwealth, not just in Zimbabwe, and his judgments have influenced the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this country and the Canadian Supreme Court. Chief Justice Gubbay has stood up for the rule of law. It will be interesting to

263
note whether his replacement will also stand up for the rule of law or will illustrate the complete collapse of judicial independence. If that is the case, I think that Britain, working with her partners in the UN, the international community and the Commonwealth will have to take certain measures, although I believe that those measures are probably under way. I accept that the European Union had to engage in dialogue before action could be taken. However, I believe that any action that is taken in the future will have the support of everyone in this House.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, we have had a feast of experience and knowledge deployed on this subject this afternoon. I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey was able to contribute to the debate because her knowledge of this whole region is second to none.
In the few minutes allocated to me, I shall concentrate on two areas. I shall refer to South Africa, because I share the view expressed in the remarkable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that it is the key to the prosperity of the whole region. Inevitably, I shall have something to say on Zimbabwe, because that is where the infection lies that could destroy the whole region. I shall return to the notable speeches of my noble friends Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Vivian and the remarks they made in that regard. I shall have to devote some minutes to Zimbabwe because I find incomprehensible the silence of the Government in the face of the events in recent days. I find the actions in recent days of European Union officials and our partners in the European Union quite outrageous.
I shall mention those matters in due course. However, I shall start on a more positive note. Looking at the great, fantastic and beautiful country of South Africa there is much to be thankful for in terms of what has happened and much to be grateful for in terms of what has not happened. The great utilities and industries of South Africa have adapted and survived. The extraordinary patience of the people of South Africa through all that they have been through—still now they are possibly not getting some of the benefits that were promised by the more enthusiastic politicians when the horror of apartheid came to an end—always amazes me every time I visit the country.
There has not been the civil war between the Inkatha and the rest of the country that many experts thought would occur. I remember Sir Laurens van der Post (sadly now deceased) telling me that he thought a civil war inevitable. It has not happened; that is wonderful. There has been the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, driven forward by giants like Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela. As I see how that has worked, I ponder whether that is a preferable model in trying to heal the horrors and scars of the past to the habit—it seems rather widespread—of opening up every conceivable scar, digging into every conceivable
264
past horror and difficulty, and demanding apologies here, there and everywhere. Some say that that is necessary, but it can be carried too far. I suspect that the approach of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the better one.
If one is continuing in this optimistic vein, there are signs that the horrific level of crime is being somewhat curbed. Someone suggested to me recently that central Johannesburg, which had become a byword for crime and violence, was beginning to improve.
What we know to be a great country has come through enormous trials, prospering in some ways although not in others. It is a country we should be proud to visit and anxious to help, and through help to South Africa to bring prosperity and stability to the whole region.
I come now to the "buts". The first "but" is that the mood of reconciliation is somewhat fragile and could be fading. There is talk of "re-racialising" in South Africa, of two nations, and other grim, divisive thoughts which were not intended by Nelson Mandela and others. He has made some strong remarks recently which must cause worry to all South Africa's friends. He said:
"Little did we suspect that our own people, when they got the chance, would be as corrupt as the apartheid regime".
That is a pretty chilling remark from one of the great men of the world. I hope that it will make members of the ANC, and others who may have been too complacent, realise that grave dangers could threaten all that has been achieved.
The plague of AIDS has been eloquently referred to by many speakers, and the curious comments of President Mbeki, which seem to hold things back. I hope that that can be sorted out; but the shadow of AIDS is horrific.
The unhappiest aspect is that the jobs have not materialised. There is unemployment on a massive scale in that whole country. The official figure is, I believe, 25 per cent. Some say that it is as high as 36 per cent. The labour force is growing at 2.2 per cent a year. As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others said, growth of 6 per cent is needed. We are not getting that kind of growth in Europe and certainly not in South Africa or Southern Africa. A huge uplift in the dynamism of South Africa—and one hopes, then, of southern Africa—is needed even to keep matters as they are and to match the growth in the labour force.
There are some positive and some negative factors. The Finance Minister of South Africa, Trevor Manuel, is an excellent appointment—a very able man. He has imbued in the international community a feeling that the South African economy, within severe constraints, is well run. He is pressing forward with a reform agenda. He is pursuing a privatisation programme. Although not everyone may agree that that is right, I believe it is the right way forward for the southern African economy. Labour market reforms are being pursued. The budget was well received last month.

265
However, on the negative side, there is the poor level of job creation to which I referred, the high level of crime, regional political instability and the danger that that could damage South Africa's chances of hosting the 2006 World Cup. Hosting that event would be a great triumph for South Africa and bring in many resources.
There is the problem of foreign investment. That takes me to the infection—the sadder side of what we have been debating today. The mood of international investors has been severely damaged by what has been going on in Zimbabwe. Foreign investment and open trade are the keys. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that, while aid is well meaning and, if well targeted, can do wonderful things, it is a small consideration compared with the driving force of creation of wealth from open markets, access to the markets of the world and a good and steady flow of foreign investment into the country. We should heed the new doctrines which are beginning to circulate: that the driving force for development in countries like South Africa has to be the creation of local capital. It cannot come from outside aid.
Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian statesman, argues with increasing vigour that the key to wealth generation in these countries is the creation of property rights, and the atmosphere of justice and the rule of law. Local capital can be generated and turned into wealth. Without the property rights and the guarantee that the house you live in is yours—it does not belong to some mafia or gangster and cannot be taken from you—there can be no real take-off, however much is put into these countries. That applies to small businesses. De Soto tells us of the appalling bureaucratic burdens which stand in the way of small businesses. He quotes some amazing figures: that in South Africa and many other southern African countries it takes 63 days to get a small business started, with reams of forms. It is not aid but property, laws and the rule of justice which are the keys to development.
I come now to the agonising business of Zimbabwe, where there is murder afoot, as we have seen. My noble friend Lady Park reminded us that it is not just a question of white settlers and white farmers. It is a hideous assault. Tens of thousands of black farm workers and others are being dispossessed. The stirring up of the internal patterns of Zimbabwean society is designed to turn man against man, woman against woman and family against family in a most appalling way. I find it extraordinary that in recent days there has been a remarkable silence from the Her Majesty's Government in face of the attacks on judges, the undermining of the rule of law, and the systematic encouragement of murder and torture. This cannot be right. I urge Her Majesty's Government to think again about their approach to these issues.
I find it outrageous that the European Union officials saw fit to give official welcome to Mr Mugabe. I agree with The Times leader that the meeting of Commissioner Nielson sent a wrong signal to Harare, Africa and EU leaders. Sure enough, the morning after Harare was claiming that this was a blow to Britain
266
and another triumph for President Mugabe. I understand vaguely the Belgian motives in wanting to keep contact. The decision of the French president to give the red carpet to this man with blood on his hands was most unfortunate and flies straight in the face of the solidarity and idealism which are required if we are to have a common European foreign policy. It makes a mockery of the very concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has enormous experience of these issues, raised the difficult question about whether dismissal from the Commonwealth would be right at this stage. I had not thought earlier that it would. However, we have now reached the stage where the Commonwealth has to stand up and be counted. There has to be a definite view that Zimbabwe should be pushed out of the Commonwealth unless there is a sign that it will mend its ways. At least that dialogue should be set in motion.
As regards our role, we are always claiming—and I have certainly claimed from this side of the House—that we are wonderfully placed because we are members of so many international groups such at the IMF, the UN, the European Union, OECD and others. Are not these the forums in which we should be stating the facts now before us? Are not these the forums in which alone we cannot work miracles but we can at least arouse international opinion and cooperation to bring pressure on this man to cease decivilising and wrecking his country? One tries not to feel too strongly on these matters, but we should feel strongly indeed, because we are seeing a hideous tragedy unfold which could poison the whole of South Africa. Ever since I first went to South Africa—
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly give way for one minute? I shall be most interested to know whether, if he were leading the Conservative Party and entering a dialogue with President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, he would be prepared to meet him personally, because that is the dilemma facing the European leaders.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, any speculation about me leading the Conservative Party is pretty remote and I shall not pursue that. I do not believe that I would wish to welcome him and give him any official credence whatsoever at this stage. It is deeply regrettable and inexcusable that that has been done.
I conclude by saying that I have always had the most profound hope that South Africa would rise and prosper—it can do so—where black and white and all the other races would mingle as they have done in many other societies in the past. But for me that hope trembles at the moment because I believe that a much firmer line is required in relation to the horrors of Zimbabwe. Until one sees that, the whole picture is threatened.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for initiating this very important debate. Its quality has been enhanced

267
by the knowledge and expertise of all noble Lords who have participated. Many noble Lords have mentioned the challenges facing the countries of southern Africa. In particular, there is poverty, conflict, HIV/AIDS, lack of investment and growth, corruption and a lack of transparency and accountability.
But there are also opportunities in southern Africa which did not exist five years ago. There are opportunities for creating peace and stability; for using the region's rich natural resources and for unleashing the talents of its people. There are opportunities to revitalise its infrastructure, harness information technology and to encourage foreign investment. These opportunities must be harnessed to create economic growth so that the region can raise the living standards of all its people.
Growth rates in southern Africa have been disappointing, but higher growth rates are achievable. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, Botswana has experienced an average growth rate of 9.2 per cent in the past five years, building on 30 years of stability and growth. Mozambique has generated an average growth rate of 11 per cent since 1997.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that future growth rates in southern Africa will be heavily dependent on expanding trade and attracting investment. Southern African countries are pushing forward to create a free trade area within SADC. My noble friend Lady Whitaker and other noble Lords, raised the issue of tariff barriers. The creation of a free trade area within SADC commits those countries to a substantial programme of reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers which currently deter investment. Creating the conditions for investment and growth, including open markets for products from southern African countries, and encouraging African producers to identify and take advantage of trade opportunities, is vital.
As many noble Lords have said, involvement in conflict remains a huge barrier for development in many countries in Africa. It is a human tragedy, with devastating effects on services, an enormous loss of infrastructure, a reduction in investment and an increased debt burden. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when they spoke about the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The war there is not only causing destruction and despair in the Great Lakes region, but it could also threaten stability more widely on the African continent. As noble Lords have mentioned, five other countries and numerous rebel groups have already been drawn into what has been called Africa's first world war.
However, the new president, Joseph Kabila, has said that he wants to implement the Lusaka peace accord and start the inter-Congolese dialogue which is intended to lead eventually to more inclusive government. At a meeting in New York on 21st and 22nd February, agreement was reached between the Security Council and the signatories at Lusaka on a realistic start date for the disengagement of forces in
268
the DRC. Planning a full withdrawal of all foreign forces will follow. We will continue to hold all parties to the commitments they made in New York.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of Zimbabwe's involvement in the DRC conflict. We are extremely concerned about the level of spending on defence by the Zimbabwean government, largely as a result of their own involvement in the DRC conflict. Zimbabwe's economy will not be able to start the recovery process while defence spending remains high. We continue to urge its government and the other combatants in the DRC conflict to work towards implementation of the Lusaka peace agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me specifically about the security of the NGOs in the eastern DRC. It is clearly a matter of concern. We hope that the security of NGOs will be taken into account in discussions on the planned withdrawal among the UN and the parties to the conflict. We will be discussing all aspects of the conflict, including security issues, with Joseph Kabila when he is in the United Kingdom.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that we are committed to supporting, with the international community, a comprehensive framework for conflict prevention in Africa which will encompass conflict prevention, reduction, resolution and peace-building. The United Nations has a crucial role in peace-keeping and peace-building. Regional structures within Africa will also remain a key element in any security framework.
The United Kingdom is working to improve the coherence between our foreign policy, military and development objectives. We are increasing our support for security sector reform, the tightening of controls over United Kingdom arms exports and pushing for tighter international controls on small arms and uncertified diamonds from conflict regions.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented on allegations of illegal arms sales from French companies to the Angolan government. We are aware of these allegations, but it is a matter for the French government. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke of the impact of what he called "lucrative spoils"—diamonds—on the conflict in the region. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, also spoke about that. Conflict diamonds account for less than four per cent of world trade in rough diamonds. Nevertheless, it is vital that action is taken to deny market access to illegally mined diamonds, the proceeds of which fuel bitter civil war in places such as Angola.
Southern African countries took the lead last year in promoting an inter-governmental process which also included industry and civil society. The Kimberley process, as it is known, helped to formulate a resolution last December in the UN General Assembly calling for an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. Many details are still to be resolved, but I hope that progress can be made over the coming months so that the next session of the UN General Assembly in the autumn will be able to endorse an agreed international scheme.

269
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the monitoring mechanism on Angola sanctions. We shall continue to work with our UN partners to ensure that monitoring of the sanctions regime against UNITA is as effective as possible.
I now turn to Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, set out very clearly the economic, social and human rights issues facing Zimbabwe. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Howell of Guildford, and many others, spoke powerfully about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe has the potential to be a powerhouse for economic development in the region, yet we see its stability threatened by economic mismanagement and by policies which owe more to the short-term goal of political survival than to the longer-term development needs of its people. The current fast-track land resettlement strategy is undermining agricultural productivity and threatens the livelihoods of more people than it is likely to help.
Noble Lords have mentioned the attempts of the Zimbabwe Government to intimidate their political opponents and their judges, to ignore court rulings and to silence criticism in the independent media. Those are all symptoms of a floundering regime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, mentioned the Commonwealth Brisbane meeting and the question of Zimbabwe's continuing membership of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke of that sanction as a last deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that he had changed his mind and now felt that Zimbabwe should leave the Commonwealth.
Action against a country that flouts the principles of the Harare declaration can be taken only in certain narrowly defined circumstances, mainly the unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government. The limitation of the Commonwealth mandate to unconstitutional overthrow is too restrictive. That is why we support an expansion of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group's role to cover a wider range of sanctions.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that we have taken action. For example, we imposed a national arms embargo in May last year. Given the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, the Foreign Secretary announced the withdrawal of the British Military Advisory and Training Team from Harare to London at the end of March.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about harassment of the judiciary. We should share the
270
concerns expressed by the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. He said:
"The Government of Zimbabwe must comply with its obligations under international standards and stop harassing and pressurising members of the judiciary".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most senior judges of the South African constitutional court, led by its president, Arthur Chaskelson, who is a former ANC lawyer, have joined in that condemnation publicly, as has Judge Richard Goldstone, a former special prosecutor? Senior judges from across the Commonwealth are also condemning the subversion of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of that.
My noble friend Lord Hughes said that there was a strong case for land redistribution. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also spoke about the need for land reform. We have consistently said that we would support a land reform programme that was transparent, fair and cost-effective and formed part of a wider Zimbabwe Government programme to reduce poverty, as agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe at the 1998 land conference. We are working with civil society and private sector representatives to support independent land reform initiatives that meet those principles. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked particularly about the United Nations Development Programme land initiative. We welcome the Secretary-General's efforts to seek a sound way forward for land resettlements in Zimbabwe. However, we understand that the Government have yet to respond to proposals made by UNDP to the President in November last year.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who has much experience in these matters, that we must maintain and push the dialogue in Zimbabwe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that we and our EU partners favour a critical dialogue with the Zimbabwe Government within a tight time frame President Mugabe's recent meetings in Europe were an opportunity for EU member states to bring home to him the seriousness of Zimbabwe's current situation.
I remind noble Lords that Zimbabwe has an elected Government. It is a matter of real urgency that President Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe turn from the course on which they are embarked and reaffirm the primacy of the rule of law, the institutions of democracy and the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did the President of France raise those issues with President Mugabe? There did not seem to be many reports about it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a readout of President Mugabe's meeting with the President of France. I can talk only about the more general meetings in the EU context when President Mugabe went to Brussels.

271
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, does not really expect me to respond to his question about Peter Tatchell.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, according to an AFP report, President Chirac called for solutions based on respect for the law, so he entered into the dialogue in the spirit that we have all suggested.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside all talked about the current problems in Mozambique. My noble friend Lord Hughes asked what is happening. The current problems stem from the release of excess water from the Kariba dam in Zimbabwe. That flows into the Cahora Bassa darn. Carefully controlled releases from Cahora Bassa have been made to prevent the flooding of the Zambezi downstream, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said.
Our contingency planning as a result of last year's flooding and the fact that we remained engaged with Mozambique have proved beneficial. Our response to the floods includes the funding of two Puma helicopters, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. Those helicopters are moving people from the riskiest areas and transporting urgent relief supplies. We are also providing support to the World Food Programme to assist its operational response and providing a humanitarian specialist to reinforce our presence on the ground.
Noble Lords will be aware that we are committed to giving greater attention to supporting systems of governance that underpin the ability of a government to implement economic, social and environmental policies and to manage public expenditure effectively. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that to succeed we have to tackle corruption and strengthen civil society pressures for accountability for public service delivery. My noble friend Lord Brett addressed the governance and labour unrest situation in Swaziland. The UK regularly discusses human rights issues with the Swazi Government. In addition, we recently raised human rights in Swaziland within the EU. Trade union rights were considered in that context. The EU is considering sending a troika mission to Swaziland later this year.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke about governance issues in South Africa and the difficult process of reshaping structures and institutions in that country. The department's programme in South Africa includes support for public service reform and institutional transformation. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we agreed to double our share going to the poorest provinces in South Africa in 1999. I can write to the noble Earl with further details on that if that would be helpful.
272
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford and others mentioned the HIV/AIDS crisis, which is a key challenge for Southern Africa. We and other donors are working to support governments in checking the spread of the epidemic, establishing systems of care for those affected and addressing the wider social and economic impact of the disease. So far, HIV/AIDS transmission rates show only slight signs of subsiding. However, evidence from other countries—notably Uganda, which was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol—demonstrates that with committed political leadership a multi-sectoral response can reduce new infections. The personal attention that is paid to those issues by President Museveni is extremely useful.
On the question of drugs and pharmaceutical companies, my noble friends Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lady Whitaker, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords made reference to the legal case taken against the South African Government by companies over South Africa's medicines legislation. The United Kingdom Government are actively involved in helping to improve poor people's access to healthcare, including essential drugs, in South Africa and elsewhere.
A major issue involves the way in which investment in the research and development of drugs and vaccines for the diseases of the poor, such as malaria and TB, as well as HIV/AIDS may be increased. Currently, only 10 per cent of global health research funds are dedicated to the 90 per cent of the global disease burden that affects the poorest. The Government have set up a major study into global health issues, which will report within the next few months.
My noble friends Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lady Whitaker and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He trailed the proposal in the international child poverty conference on 26th February and announced it this afternoon in the Budget. He announced the creation of a new and special tax credit as an incentive to accelerate research into diseases such as AIDS, TB and malaria. He also announced that Britain will take the lead in establishing a new purchase fund for global health that will develop new life-saving drugs and make existing drugs more widely available.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol asked about TRIPS. The Government's position on TRIPS is set out in our recent White Paper on globalisation. We believe that developing countries need intellectual property protection as a way of encouraging more investment, research and innovation, from which they should benefit. For that reason we support the TRIPS agreement, which requires countries to provide minimum standards of

273
intellectual property protection. We are committed to monitoring the impact of TRIPS on poor people's access to drugs.
The right reverend Prelate also asked about debt relief. By the end of last year, 22 countries had qualified for HIPC relief, including three in the region: Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. Heavily Indebted Poor Countries are developing their national poverty strategies in consultation with civil society, which determines how government resources, including those freed up by debt relief, will be spent in support of poverty reduction. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that the final agenda has yet to be decided for the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.
Before I conclude, I stress that Africa's commitment to its own development agenda is important. That is captured by the millennium renaissance plan. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said that it is for African governments to resolve African conflicts. African leaders, mandated by the Organisation of African Unity, have developed an initiative to give new impetus to reform and development in their continent. President Mbeki outlined the various priority areas in a speech at Davos. He referred to the importance of creating peace, security and stability, of democratic government and of investing in Africa's people. He also referred to the need to: harness and develop Africa's strategic and comparative advantages in the resource-based sectors; increase investments in the information and communication technology sector; develop infrastructure; and develop financial mechanisms. A key element of the programme is that African countries will be able to join the programme and benefit from its initiatives only if they sign up to its basic principles, including those on democratic governance. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been very supportive of the initiative and has set up a special unit to work on the British response.
In conclusion, Africa's leaders are now setting out an agenda for action that demands the support of the international community. To reach the international development targets in Africa—and in southern Africa—will require significant international development assistance. However, African leaders are seeking more than our financial assistance. They see an African future that is designed and built by Africans and founded upon peace, security and stability. They see African growth that is driven by private investment. Above all, they see Africa's future within a global partnership. That is an aim that I hope we all share.
7.16 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her extensive and detailed reply to the many issues that were raised in this long debate. I make no apology to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising many issues. It was inevitable that the debate would be, in the words of the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, a bit of a Cook's tour around southern Africa. I tried to stress in the wording of the
274
Motion that our debate should not impose a negative spin on the region; it refers to the "challenges facing southern Africa". We have had a balanced debate, which has stressed many of the opportunities and positive features that are associated with the future of southern Africa.
Our debate has had several core themes. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, rightly said that we could have had a completely separate debate on the AIDS/ HIV pandemic. The issues raised will, I hope, be used as themes in future debates on this subject. Those issues include the need for accountability and transparency and to address corruption. They also involve calls for constructive dialogue to achieve stability and for more concerted international pressure to be put on the Zimbabwean Government to address abuses of human rights. They also include the need for a negotiated solution to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which could act as a catalyst for stability in the region.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening's debate for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 2001
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report front the Joint committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is solely about the number of High Court judges in Northern Ireland; it is not about their method of appointment or terms of office or about any decisions that they reach when discharging their judicial office. The maximum number of High Court judges in Northern Ireland is prescribed in Section 2 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That statutory maximum was originally set at six and increased to seven in 1993. The purpose of the order is to increase that figure from seven to nine.
The need for the increase arose primarily from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has considered carefully and in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland the likely increase in the volume and length of proceedings in consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. It is considered that the anticipated additional workload in the High Court in Northern Ireland will be such as to give rise to a need for extra judicial support.
Some noble Lords will remember that towards the end of 1999 this House approved an increase in the maximum number of High Court judges in England and Wales from 98 to 106. That also took into account anticipated workload pressures in consequence of the Human Rights Act.
At present, workloads for High Court judges in England and Wales are stable. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that a provision to enable an increase in the High Court judicial complement is also required in Northern Ireland if the benefits of the Human Rights Act are to be given effect in that jurisdiction.
If the House gives its approval to the order, and it is made at Privy Council, it will come into force on 2nd April. At that stage, it will allow for the appointment of an additional High Court judge. There are no immediate plans to make a second appointment to the Bench up to the proposed new statutory maximum of nine. However, that will be kept under review. It is considered important that the facility should be available to allow for a second additional appointment should experience demonstrate that to be necessary.
The Human Rights Act is the fulfilment of the Government's promise to bring home the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. We are building a culture in which citizens of this country will be aware of their rights and will have an accessible mechanism for enforcing them.
Having put that central reform in place through the Human Rights Act, it is essential that we do whatever else is necessary to ensure that the new arrangements will work efficiently. One aspect is having enough senior judges to hear the anticipated increase in the number of lengthy cases. Approval of the order will enable the High Court in Northern Ireland to meet those challenges and to ensure the efficiency and timely disposal of court business. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order today. I have a few concerns. Obviously, the Government have done their homework and are satisfied that there is a need for more judges. On reading Hansard from the other place, there was a certain amount of toing and froing on fairly irrelevant matters. However, what concerns me relating to the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Northern Ireland and other places, is that for many years there has been—certainly for as long as I was in business in Northern Ireland—developing a claims culture well ahead of the remainder of the United Kingdom. The Stormont government will have to pay particular attention to that claims culture in their interpretation of the Human Rights Act.
I have personal experience of inhibition in business of all kinds of ways because of the growing claims culture. I believe that the culture is starting on this side of the water as well. But we are well ahead over there in the claims culture.
276
Having said that, and having made my perhaps rather negative comments on this matter, I support the movement of the order. I am sure that there will be a need for the two extra High Court judges.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in supporting the order, I reiterate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that frankly the claims culture in Northern Ireland is bacterial in its growth. I was glad that the Minister was able to offer the assurance that the Bench in Northern Ireland will not be increased without the evidence that it is needed.
My observation is that the island of Ireland, both north and south, rather like your Lordships' House—if I might say so—is teeming with lawyers. There are far too many of them for the good health of a civic society.
In that respect, whatever its longitudinal position, the island of Ireland is culturally much nearer to the United States than Great Britain. Increasing lawyers' professional opportunities for preferment serves, in my experience, only to encourage them. I hope that the Minister will reiterate his assurance that expanding the Bench in Northern Ireland will be dealt with in a very parsimonious manner.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will know from reading Hansard for the other place of the order that the Minister there commented that there had been a 61 per cent increase in judicial review cases in the Northern Ireland courts. Whether that justifies the noble Lord's comment about a claims culture, I could not comment. However, it shows that since normalisation began to take place there has been an increase in business. That is not a bad thing at all. The courts are there to be used by citizens. Where normalisation breaks out, citizens will use the courts in a normal way. But I am very grateful for his support and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton.
For a moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was going to link his comment about the number of lawyers in the north and south of Ireland with this House. I took it that he did not because his noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is sitting in his place, would be the first to react to such a comment. I believe that this House has exactly the right number of lawyers in it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order 2001
7.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the duty of best value. which was set out in the Local Government Act 1999, authorities are required to secure continuous improvements in the way in which they carry out their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Throughout the development of the best value concept, we have stressed the need for good procurement practice. That is why we have looked again at the provisions in Part II of the Local Government Act 1988 in order to modernise them.
Currently, Part II of the 1988 Act specifies certain matters as "non-commercial" and prohibits authorities from having any regard to these matters in the contractual process. The problem is that the 1988 Act makes no distinction between matters that may be relevant to the value for money of the contract, and thus the best value, and those which are truly irrelevant. That applies particularly to the exclusion of matters relating to the workforce.
The 1999 Act secured powers to enable us to modify the effect of Part II. Section 19 of that Act provides for the Secretary of State to specify by order, in relation to best value authorities, matters that will cease to be "non-commercial" for the purposes of Part II of the 1988 Act. Section 19(4) requires authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the matter.
Our consultative paper published in April 2000, was in the form of draft guidance under Section 19(4) and set out how local authorities could address workforce matters in selecting tenderers and awarding contracts once the necessary order under Section 19 is made. Following completion of the consideration of the order, we intend to publish guidance as a departmental circular. Earlier today, copies of the draft circular were placed in the Printed Paper Office.
Because workforce matters are described as "noncommercial" matters for the purposes of Part II, it could be argued they cannot be considered even where they may be relevant to the performance and value for money of a contract. That, therefore, prevents best value authorities from making a proper assessment of the quality of potential contractors. It also casts doubt on the extent to which government advice on TUPE, as set out in Staff Transfers in the Public Sector: Statement of Practice, published by the Cabinet Office in January 2000, can be applied to local government.
The proposed order, therefore, provides for relevant workforce matters to cease to be defined as "noncommercial matters" for the purposes of Part II of the 1988 Act. In the Government's view, local authorities will want to be able to consider employment matters, such as staff training, health and safety and management practices, where, for example, they affect directly the cost and quality of services to the extent permitted under the EU Procurement Rules, where appropriate. Both the order and guidance have been developed with the active assistance of local government, employers and trade unions.
It may be helpful if I set out the main elements of the order. Article I provides that the order shall come into force the day after it has been made. It also provides a definition of "public supply or works contracts". Article 2 provides for the order to apply to all best value authorities in England and to police and fire authorities in Wales.
Article 3 sets out the substance of the order. It provides for certain matters as specified to cease to be non-commercial for the purposes of Section 17 of the 1988 Act. These matters relate to the terms and conditions of the employment, and so on, of a contractor's workforce and to the conduct of contractors or their workers in industrial disputes. However, those matters cease to be non-commercial only in so far as it is expedient or necessary to permit or facilitate compliance with the best value duty under the 1999 Act, or where a transfer of staff takes place, to which the TUPE regulations may apply.
I can confirm to your Lordships that the order is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I further confirm that it reflects the consensus among the social partners group, the local government private sector and the trade unions. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purposes of the order. When the order was dealt with in another place, my honourable friend Nigel Waterson endorsed the CBI's view, saying:
"It is important to be clear that local authorities should not be taking into account those factors that are irrelevant to the cost and quality of service delivery, because that would result in poor value for money in procurement decisions".
We on these Benches retain strong criticism of the whole best value regime and are pledged to reform it or, if necessary, to abolish it.
The Government have replaced compulsory competitive tendering with best value. CCT obliged councils to put the provision of many services out to tender to ensure that council services were delivered to local residents in a cost-efficient and high-quality manner. Such competition reduced instances of corruption, over-staffing and restrictive practices in local government. A 1993 Inlogov study showed that CCT had led to average savings of 7 per cent, often accompanied by improvements in service standards. CCT fundamentally changed the culture of local government provision of services for the better.
I well remember that, before CCT was introduced, every Wednesday the four officers involved in our local refuse collection used to sit in their vehicle outside our house from just after one o'clock until just before three o'clock. When I asked them why, they said, "Well, we can't go back to the depot till three". The fact that they had finished at one o'clock did not seem to count for anything. Therefore, thank goodness, now we appear to have a much cleaner, quicker and more efficient collection.

279
We are not against the basic concepts behind best value, but the scheme introduced by the Government under the name of "best value" is flawed. It has led to an excessively bureaucratic, centralising inspectorate regime. The system is so complex that many Labour and Liberal Democrat councils are returning to the bad old days of unchallenged, uncompetitive, in-house awards. Best value is also costly. The LGA has called for an extra £175 million a year in funding for local government because of best value's bureaucratic burdens alone.
Best value seeks to encourage local authorities to make cost savings, yet it has a target of only 2 per cent efficiencies per year compared to the average 7 per cent that CCT delivered. The publication, Local Government Tenders, commissioned a survey of local authority contracts and tenders. It showed that there had been an astonishing 66 per cent drop in tenders advertised since Labour came to power.
The next Conservative government will seek to devolve more responsibility and autonomy to local councils away from regional quangos and Whitehall bureaucrats. Via the ballot box, local electors should reward or punish councils that are succeeding or failing. Councils which are competent and responsible should be subject to a reduced inspectorate and audit regime. Well performing councils should not face extra regulations simply because some councils are inefficient. Systems should be put in place to promote improvements within unresponsive, inept councils, rather than relying on a box-ticking culture to achieve change.
Some form of inspectorate regime is necessary in order to ensure that councils' performance is transparent to the public. Any inspectorate regime should ensure the delivery of efficient, responsive and cost-effective local services. It should not excessively hinder competent, responsible councils and should not be expensive to administer.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. Have the Government made any attempt to estimate the potential costs and savings that will result from this order? Specifically, are the extra administrative costs that will result for local authorities believed to be more or less than the value-for-money savings that could accrue? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, as a result of this order, a local authority will be able to consider a contractor's employment practices only in relation to a specific contract and will not be able to blacklist a contractor from all future council contracts?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the order. The noble Baroness reminded us of the days of compulsory competitive tendering. Although I wish to speak to this order rather than generally to the issue of best value and CCT, I cannot help reminding your Lordships and myself that it was the compulsory element in the CCT regime which so many of us found both difficult and offensive.
280
Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness that the best-value provision should not be allowed to founder in a mire of bureaucracy and complexity. However, I fail to follow her reasoning that best value is leading us straight back to the days of "in-house provision", as I believe she expressed it. Even if it does so in some cases, I venture to say that sometimes direct labour could be the better method of delivering a service.
However, I return to this order. Another place spent one-and-a-half hours not being, in the words of the Conservative spokesman, "too protracted" in considering it. They referred at some length to the draft circular, albeit incomplete, as I understood from reading Hansard. I have now seen that circular; at least, I believe that it is the same document. I hope that it is, but the numbering and the page references do not quite seem to tie up. The Minister nods; it is the same document.
The inclusion of the subject of this order for the purposes of best value is to be, to quote from paragraph 3(a),
"to the extent that a … authority considers it necessary or expedient".
I assume that that is subject to the usual Wednesbury reasonableness rules. I hope that it can be interpreted with an appropriate degree of flexibility.
Best value appears to me to be focused rather narrowly on the particular service to be provided. However, we should also consider the context of the new, broad well-being powers, recently introduced by local government legislation. I believe that issues such as equal opportunities and the use of the local workforce are fundamental to the well-being, including the economic well-being, of areas. "Areas" is the word used, but I believe that "local communities" better expresses the matter.
Equal opportunities and insistence on equal opportunities should have both an immediate and longer-term effect. The use of a local workforce is perhaps a matter for the medium or longer term, but it is important to local economic activity and to regeneration. I should like to think that local authorities can be encouraged to support the development of their local skills bases.
I am aware also that the bureaucracy, as one might interpret it, and certainly the propriety of the tendering regime now required, just as under the previous rules, can so often rule out small, local companies. It would be entirely reasonable for a local authority to consider it expedient—I use the terms of the order—and, indeed, necessary to look at whom they contract on the wider basis to which I have referred.
The issue of equal opportunities is dealt with in the circular. Perhaps I may refer to a number of the paragraphs therein. In paragraph 42, we are told that it will be for best value authorities to decide in the light of their own legal advice how far to bring equal opportunities into the contracting process. Of course, I understand that each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. But I am not sure that that is the most helpful introduction to the issue.

281
We are told that at the pre-qualification stage for tendering, contractors should be excluded if they have been convicted of a criminal offence or have committed an act of grave misconduct. That is in the context of the legislation on sex, race and disability. That seems to me to be a sadly low threshold.
We are reminded of the general duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality. We are told also that services which involve regular contact between providers and users of the service or the wider community may require of the providers specific attributes with regard to fair treatment and equal opportunities. As I have indicated, the issue is wider than that. Paragraph 47 goes on to say that authorities should address such considerations in a way that does not prejudice fair competition or best value considerations. As I have indicated, I look at that from the other direction. I do not disagree with what is said there but I argue that best value considerations require consideration of equality issues.
In paragraph 50, the last paragraph in this section, we are reminded that best value authorities should consider also how they can promote good practice and equal opportunities. There is the word "promote" at last but that is promotion outside the contractual issue.
In summary, I would say that the circular is far less robust than we had hoped to see.
The noble Baroness referred to the CBI's comments. I agree entirely with the point that good quality services depend heavily on appropriately skilled and motivated staff. But there is something of the chicken and the egg in that. In order to get appropriately skilled and motivated staff, the authorities which engage them need to use criteria which will be directing the employers of those staff to the issues which I have indicated are so important.
However, following those somewhat critical comments, I reiterate our welcome for the order.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome the welcome for the order from the Liberal Democrat Benches, even though they have a few doubts about the guidance.
I was slightly surprised by the contribution from the Conservative Front Bench. While we know that there are historic battles in this respect, in general the concept of best value has been largely welcomed in principle throughout local government of all political persuasions. Inevitably, there have been some teething troubles in introducing the new regime and some of those have caused what the noble Baroness referred to as bureaucratic difficulties. But the concept and the whole approach has been widely supported. It has been supported also in the private sector.
It is completely erroneous to cite the CBI as opposing this measure because the CBI's general approach is to have clarity but also to have the provisions included within the order. Indeed, the CBI's brief on this matter starts off by saying that it strongly supports the proposed statutory instrument and we are pressed for Part II of the Local
282
Government Act 1988 to be updated in precisely that way. So that is the view of the CBI, which represents, by and large, the people who will be awarded those contracts through that process.
Nostalgia for retaining CCT is erroneous. In certain respects, CCT had a number of cost achievements resulting from it but it also had a huge rigidity, a devastating presumption in favour of outside contracting and a narrow definition of what the return on the contract should be. This is a much broader approach to value for money, within a broader context of best value and, indeed, of wellbeing. It allows all sorts of quality issues to enter into considerations when assessments are made of the tenders and contractors.
The best value pilots which we have run already have demonstrated quite substantial savings. Any compliance costs will be more than offset by the improvement in the nature and outcome of the contract. Many local authorities of all complexions have already set their sights on achieving very substantial improvements, over and above the 2 per cent automatic benefit from the best value regime to which the noble Baroness referred. For example, the London Borough of Newham expects to reduce its costs by £8 million and increase quality by 6 per cent by 2002. Leeds is anticipating a saving of £35 million in procurement over the next few years. So before the full operation of this regime has come into effect, significant savings are already expected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the issue of how to deal with the workforce and specific issues of equality. That is extremely important. Those matters are part of the value of the contract and the activity of the local authority. It is part of the duties of local authorities to promote equality objectives within their area. That is why the order and guidance are intended to set out the way in which the procurement and contracting process can assist equal opportunities.
The noble Baroness's other point as regards encouraging the local workforce is slightly more difficult. Clearly, it is part of the local authority's value for a contract to develop the skills and performance of the local workforce. However, there are EU procurement issues which make it rather more difficult to follow absolutely that concept for contracts over a certain value. Nevertheless, it is the broader objectives of how the local workforce should develop and the local authorities' own responsibilities for that which need to be reflected in the contracting process. Therefore, workforce matters are important in consideration of best value in all service delivery areas and for the purpose of achieving best value in terms of assessing the contractors' bids or the contractors themselves in individual contracts. However, it will not enable local authorities to blacklist firms generally from contracting processes. However, if contractors break the law then, in those areas as in others, they may be excluded from tendering more generally.
I believe that I have demonstrated that there is already value from the best value regime. This removes further inhibitions on that regime. It has been widely

283
welcomed in local government, in the private sector and by the unions. I believe that it will enable local authorities more flexibly and more sensibly to address the wider problems of their neighbourhoods and districts in their procurement process. Therefore, it is a valid function of local government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has been fairly damning about competitive tendering. Maybe there was something in the previous legislation that was a little too rigid, but there was absolutely no need for compulsory competitive tendering to be restrictive, although the way in which it operated may have been restrictive. I believe that the Government had a political problem when they changed to this system. It has been welcomed by everybody and far be it from me to object to it, but I believe that the Minister has been unnecessarily damning about a system that in the past many of us have operated extremely successfully.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the concept of having to assess whether a contract is better put to outside tender or dealt with in-house changed the psychology of local government. I am making the point that the rules attached to that, the compulsory nature and the presumptions within it were extremely rigid. Although some cost savings may have been achieved in particular contracts in particular areas, in many instances that rigidity prevented the local authorities from making creative use of the procurement process. I believe that left a bad legacy.
These regulations are intended to be much more flexible and to have broader objectives built into them. That is why we are removing those barriers. I am not being utterly condemnatory of the CCT process, but on balance I believe that it increased the rigidity and central control rather than giving local authorities the ability to assess the situation themselves. The best value regime is intended to do that, and this order will enable them to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2001
7.51 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report. from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved. For the convenience of the House I shall speak also to the second order in my name on the Order Paper, the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001.
The proposals before your Lordships seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on the employers in their industries. As
284
your Lordships will know from previous debates, those two boards are the only statutory industrial training boards. They exist because of wide support from employers and employer interest groups in these sectors that believe that without them there would be a serious deterioration in training.
The proposals are expected to raise between £78 million and £83 million for the Construction ITB and around £10 million for the Engineering Construction ITB. The money will be used to finance their training activities, including grants schemes, and the operating costs of the boards. Provision for that is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
In each case the proposals are based on employers' payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Each board has included the provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent of an employer's payroll. The 1982 Act requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The other place has already approved the proposals.
As required by the Industrial Training Act, both boards have provided for the exemption of small firms from the levy. The level at which this exemption takes effect aims to strike the right balance between helping small firms to grow and giving them an unfair commercial advantage. However, the boards are committed to supporting the training efforts of small firms, whether or not they pay the levy. All companies need a skilled, competent workforce if they are to be competitive and small firms in these sectors are encouraged to take advantage of the services offered by the boards and to provide opportunities for trainees and apprentices.
The Construction ITB is proposing the following rates: 0.5 per cent of payroll for direct employees and 1.5 per cent of net expenditure on subcontract labour; but employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is less than £61,000 will not be liable to pay the levy. The figure represents a reduction of just over a third on the current rate of 2.28 per cent for sub-contract labour and is part of moving to a single rate of levy, subject to annual consultation throughout the industry.
The board is significantly increasing its investment in training. It is making additional grants and other resources available to support employers' efforts. This is being wholly financed by cost reductions, an increase in non-levy income and increased levy income from growth in the industry.
In the case of the Engineering Construction ITB, which assesses head offices and construction sites separately, the following levy rates are proposed: 0.18 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for head offices, but head offices whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £1 million or less will not be liable to pay the levy; and a levy rate of 1.5 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for construction sites, but sites whose

285
combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £75,000 or less will not be liable to pay the levy.
The proposals from the Engineering Construction ITB are the same as those approved by your Lordships last year. For both boards the proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2 per cent, with no provision for exempting employers who make their own training arrangements. In such cases the Industrial Training Act requires boards to demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry.
I am satisfied that each board has that necessary support. All of the key employer federations have been consulted about the levy rates and agree that these rates are necessary to fund the boards' training plans.
My honourable friend in another place will be meeting with the chairs of each board—Jim Rowland from the ECITB and Hugh Try from the CITB—in the spring to discuss their performance over the last year and to look at key issues for the future. In particular, we shall look at how their work in England will inform and influence that of the regional development agencies and, from April, the new Learning and Skills Council.
Each board is also the government-recognised national training organisation for its sector and is fully involved with the national network. We welcome the importance that each is placing on a forward-looking strategic planning process informed by rigorous analysis of skill needs and supply. We believe that this is crucial if they are to ensure that the education, training, skills and qualifications needs of their sectors, both now and for the future, are met.
The draft orders before the House will enable the two boards to carry out their vital training responsibilities in 2001. I believe that it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the two orders before us this evening. As my honourable friend Graham Brady stated during the earlier passage of these orders in another place, the Conservative Party is sceptical about industrial boards in general. However, we believe that the Construction Board and Engineering Construction Board perform valuable functions which we are content to support. These industries are important and it is right that we should look to support the acquisition of skills through appropriate mechanisms.
The orders give the power to impose a compulsory levy or charge on business backed up by recourse to the employment tribunals to enforce the payment of those levies. The issue of tribunals is an important one as we are currently seeing a burgeoning litigation culture in which our hard-pressed employers are being regarded increasingly as an easy route to compensation payments.
286
In October, ACAS reported a 32 per cent rise during 1999–2000 in individual complaints. According to Personnel Today, the human resources weekly,
"the raft of legislative changes brought in under the Employment Relations Act 1999 is the chief factor behind the big rise in tribunal claims reported by ACAS".
According to ACAS, the lowering of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal cases from two years to one is estimated to have generated an extra 6,700 cases, while the working time regulations and the national minimum wage account for an extra 7,000 cases.
I raise this point to illustrate that we are seeing a growth in employment litigation, and moreover that this increase stems largely from new regulations imposed by this Government on business. Hence, I share the concern expressed by my honourable friend in another place that we should seek to keep the number of tribunals arising from these orders to a minimum. The Minister in another place implied that relatively few cases regarding the levy go to tribunal, but I hope that the Minister will assure us that these orders will be unlikely to increase that load.
Another important point concerns the issue of costs associated with the levy and whether this results in receivership. In another place the Minister was unable to answer the question of how many cases arise each year in which the levy is a factor in bringing about receivership. I should be grateful if the Minister were able to cast any light on that point today.
The reason I ask about these important issues is because of the desire on this side of the House t o ensure that obligations placed in business by the state do not result in adverse effects on enterprise or employment. However, we recognise the importance of these respective levies and are supportive of the orders.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, I rise to welcome the orders. We strongly believe that these training boards have successfully run the levy system for the past 20 years. They want the system and we believe that it is appropriate. Labour in the construction industry is casual and flexible, moving from one employer to another. Training is vitally important if we are to maintain standards on construction sites and we do not want the quality of labour to be let down by the bad employers.
That said, I want to ask the Minister several specific questions. First, he said that his colleague in another place would soon meet representatives of the Learning and Skills Council. Can he say what they see as the future relationship between the construction industry training board and its engineering counterpart and the Learning and Skills Council?
Secondly, can he indicate what the relationship with the University for Industry would be? What would be the relative role in relation to the training boards? Thirdly, I cannot find in the order an indication of its length or why it is being brought before us. Is it that it comes before the House on an annual basis or is it because there are changes in the rate of levy?
Finally, has the department monitored the order? This is the only industry which uses the levy grant system, the others being phased out by the

287
Conservative government in the 1980s. It would be useful to know how far the Government believe it has been successful in raising standards of training in the industry. It is not an industry in which the levels of workmanship are always high; the ordinary citizen suffers greatly from many cowboy operators within it. There are also considerable skill shortages in the industry. On London building sites all construction industry skills are considerable. Given that, one wonders whether the system has been monitored in any way by the department. Has it thought of other ways of raising skills?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the general affirmation of support from both noble Baronesses and I recognise that we need to cover some points of detail. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the number of appeals to tribunals is limited. Out of 59,000 companies registered with the board, thirty-five cases were referred to employment tribunals. Any reference to a tribunal indicates friction and the fact that people are less than satisfied with their treatment, but that is a healthy record and should allay concerns about the operation of the order.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the levy drove companies into receivership or bankruptcy? Neither of the boards is aware of any such cases. Without analysing in detail the accounts of every insolvent firm it would be impossible to determine exactly what part the levy demand played on the overall solvency. Boards want to accept payments in instalments from companies with cash flow problems—it is not the business of the boards to see companies go out of existence. There is therefore an understanding of the problems. These are industries in which there is great fluctuation of employment and many small companies. That is why there is also a significant exemption for the very small companies. We are dealing with industries which are fluctuating, fragile and seasonal and it is a tribute to the boards that for more than 20 years they have worked with a degree of success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked several specific questions. If the boards propose to impose a levy of 1 per cent or more, the primary legislation obliges the orders to be tabled before the House after full consultation with the industry and subject to the affirmative procedure. The orders will not come before the House annually if the levies are below 1 per cent. However, they are frequently before the House because the levy is more than 1 per cent. That is the reason why the orders are being moved tonight.
The noble Baroness asked an interesting question about the relationship between the industrial training boards and the two new actors on the scene; the Learning and Skills Council, which is of the greatest significance given its substantial budget, and the University for Industry and Learning Direct. There is a great deal of scope for co-operation. Learning Direct in particular is seeking to make substantial progress
288
with the small firms who are not within the framework of the levy for the boards. They are too small and fall into the exempt category.
As to the broader issue of the relationship with the Learning and Skills Council, I am aware that for many months very substantial consultations have taken place on the establishment of that body. I am not in a position to give a detailed outline of progress, but there is not the slightest doubt that the success of that body will depend on the way in which it relates to the industrial training boards, national training organisations and every other category of training supply, skills enhancements and learning in the country. The noble Baroness probably signals the need for a much more substantial debate once the Learning and Skills Council comes into operation on 1st April.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised by noble Baronesses opposite. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I formally move the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December 2000 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper deal with specific policy developments in the pig sector which arose in the course of the past year. The Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (Confirmation) Order 2001 relates to last year's outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia where pig producers whose herds did not have the disease but which were none the less caught up by the movement controls found themselves faced with extremely difficult animal welfare problems. To help deal with these problems the Government introduced the unprecedented Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. In the period between 31st August and 31st December 2000 that scheme cost the taxpayer over £14 million, of which £9 million was direct payment to producers.
As part of the agreement to change the payment structure of the scheme, the industry agreed to provide a top-up payment to those making use of it by way of a levy fund. The Government welcomed the recognition

289
that, while movement controls affected the few, their introduction to control the spread of disease was of benefit to the whole industry.
The only mechanism available to introduce a compulsory levy on pig producers is a Meat and Livestock Commission development scheme under the Agriculture Act 1967. The aim of the scheme is to build up an industry fund to be used to provide advice, services, facilities and financial assistance to pig producers to assist them in the prevention and/or limitation of the spread of an outbreak of pig disease. It will be collected in the form of an industry levy, set initially at 20p per pig slaughtered, although the order allows a maximum of £1 per pig to be charged. The first use of the fund will be the industry top-up to the payments already made under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme to producers faced with CSF movement restrictions.
The scheme is a state aid and, therefore, requires clearance by the European Commission before introduction. While we believe that that clearance will be forthcoming very shortly, as the two-month deadline for Commission comments has now passed, in accordance with the rules we have written to the Commission to say that we intend to introduce the scheme in mid-March when it has passed all its parliamentary procedures.
It will take some time to build up the fund to a level whereby payments to producers can be made. To help remedy that, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is prepared to look at authorising a loan from the Aujeszky's Fund to the development scheme fund to allow small but nevertheless useful upfront payment to be made. The industry supports such a move, and a formal request from the hoard of the Aujeszky's Fund has been received and is being considered.
The scheme is for Great Britain only. The SI requires the consent of the Scottish Executive, which is recorded in the SI, and the approval of the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly has approved the scheme, subject to EU state aid clearance.
The House will understand that the complexities surrounding a development scheme have resulted in it taking quite some time to reach this advanced stage in the procedures. Nevertheless, we are now able through the scheme to offer assistance to pig producers, and it is being introduced at the behest of the industry as a whole.
The other statutory instrument with which we are dealing relates to the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. This scheme was developed in close consultation with the National Pig Association, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the British Bankers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers in recognition that the pig sector had faced considerable difficulties in the previous two years and those difficulties needed to be addressed.
Like a number of other components of the action plan for farming, the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is a state aid and as such needs formal clearance by the European Commission before it can
290
be introduced. To obtain that clearance, the Commission was formally notified of the PI R S on 30th March 2000 and clearance was finally forthcoming on 13th December 2000. 'The clearance process took much longer than we had hoped, but it remains the case that it was achieved in a little over nine months. I believe that the average time for clearance of restructuring schemes by the Commission is nearer 18 months.
Turning to the details, the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme consists of two elements: outgoers, which offers aids to those pig producers who wish to end all involvement in pig production permanently, and ongoers, which offers aids to those pig producers who wish to restructure their business to make it more viable in the long term. Assistance under ongoers will be provided in the form of an interest rate rebate on loans linked to an agreed business plan. Pig producers who remain in production and have a commercial loan linked to an agreed business plan are eligible to apply.
The order that we are debating tonight is narrow in focus, in that it allows for the agreed business loan on which an interest rebate will be paid to be used for capital projects. There is a second order passing through this House under the negative procedures which allows the loan to be used for non-capital projects. The outgoers element of the PIRS is a non-statutory scheme.
The Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is open to applicants from all over the United Kingdom. The devolved administrations have been working closely with MAFF to implement the scheme, and all applications from throughout the UK will be judged equally and on their own merits. The order covers England only. Following devolution, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are proceeding with their own legislation in parallel.
The Government are totally committed to the Pig Industry Development Scheme and the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and are determined to make them work. They provide much needed financial support to an industry which has suffered terribly over the past few years and demonstrate our commitment to the UK pig industry. They are particularly relevant perhaps in the difficult days that the whole of the livestock industry faces at the moment. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for coming before the House today to present the scheme. The Minister has our total support for the work that MAFF is carrying out elsewhere to fight foot and mouth disease. The industry also welcomes this scheme. Having read Hansard of another place—I have clone a good deal of that recently—I should like to probe a few of the numbers and crave the assistance of the noble Baroness.

291
As I understand it, initially the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme was to have received £66 million: £26 million for the current year, £20 million for 2001–02 and £20 million for 2002–03. The noble Baroness said that it took some time to get the scheme off the ground but, considering that it had to go through Europe, it was not really that long. I am quite prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that most of the time was taken up in Europe rather than Whitehall. As a result of that, it would seem that the first year's allocation of £26 million, or most of it, has disappeared. I am not quite sure what has happened. We hoped that it would be rolled forward. But I understand that some of the £22 million has been spent on the outbreak of swine fever. I thought that when the assistance for the outbreak of swine fever was set up the money had already been allocated. I am trying to find out what happened to £22 million.
We are now left with £40 million. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is both an outgoers and an ongoers scheme. I understand that that was part of Europe's insistence that some of the money should be spent on taking capacity out of the marketplace. It was decided that £16 million should go into that side of the scheme. Today, it seems that £40 million is left in the scheme, of which £16 million goes to outgoers. That leaves only £24 million for reinvestment in the industry. I understand that the industry, quite rightly, is more interested in its survival and future than in those leaving. In particular, the noble Baroness will know that many ancillary jobs and businesses are dependent on the successful survival of the industry. Can the noble Baroness assure the House and the industry that the missing millions will be reinstated in year three of the scheme and that the figures I have quoted are something near correct? Having read Hansard of another place, I was not particularly clear on that point.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the Pig Industry Development Scheme, which, having listened to the noble Baroness's clear explanation, I probably understood even less well. The scheme was set up in agreement with the Government to help the pig industry after the awful diseases and as an insurance against future problems. It started because the Government could come to an agreement of £50 per animal whereas the industry said that it needed £70. The net result is the scheme before the House, with the industry having the power to raise a levy, which in the long-term must be a good thing.
Where does the noble Baroness expect the first year's levy to start at? Although in the legislation there is £1, I do not believe that the industry could even begin to take on a levy of that nature. I should be interested to hear where the Government think the levy will start from. What is the total target for the levy? Are the Government prepared to offer the industry an interest-free loan to get the scheme started? The noble Baroness made some encouraging remarks to that end. I was not absolutely certain whether that
292
was what she was referring to. Having made those points, I support the Government on both the schemes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches very much support the two statutory instruments. I echo some of the points made from the Conservative Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The size of the fund in the Pig Industry Development Scheme is not stated anywhere and yet a quite ambitious programme is set out in the functions of the board that is to be set up by the commission. It is not simply confined to giving emergency aid to those who are affected by restrictions on the movement of pigs or those who are pig producers affected by the incidence of any pig disease. There is an ongoing duty to give financial assistance to pig producers to make structural and other changes to their business premises in order to prevent and/or limit the spread of any incidence of pig disease. A quite expensive programme is to be undertaken. I should be interested to know how much money we are talking about. How long will the levy take to arrive at anything like a sufficient capital sum to fund the rather ambitious functions that the board, under the commission, may have?
Should there be another crisis in the future—let us get over the one with which the noble Baroness is dealing at the moment—how quickly can the board move to process applications for grant? There is a cumbersome collection procedure in making the levy on the slaughterer, who has then to go down the chain to collect it from the original owner of the animal. One wonders whether the machinery is sufficiently flexible to achieve the object of rapid help to farmers when a crisis emerges. I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the necessity to have a significant fund to get the scheme underway.
I turn to the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the grant payable under the scheme is a one-off grant and not an annual grant, that it is limited to 5 per cent of existing loans as well as future loans and that whether those loans are existing loans or future loans, they must be supported by a business plan? A great deal of paperwork must be gone through in order to apply for the grant. At the end of the day, how much money is involved? Is it £24 million, to adopt the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or is it an open-ended fund? Can anyone apply provided that he or she qualifies? Whatever the ultimate cost, is there a cap on it? Are there future plans for this kind of grant to be included in the agricultural grant, the Comprehensive Spending Review, and so on? Are we looking at something in the short-term or is a permanent scheme being put forward?
Having made those comments, I say again that we very much support the schemes. We very much hope that, after tonight, the noble Baroness will be able to return to her much more pressing duties and conquer the plague that is afflicting the countryside.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Minister comes to reply, can she clarify how

293
devolution is working in respect of the two instruments? She said in relation to the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme that the Scottish Executive is devising its own scheme. I understand that to be the situation. However, in relation to the Pig Industry Development Scheme, she said that the Welsh Assembly had already agreed to it. But she did not say whether the Scottish Executive had agreed. Is that agreement still to come? Does the order have to wait until the Scottish Executive has agreed before it can be brought into force? I may have misunderstood the position, but it is better to be clear about these matters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, first. I may not have been absolutely clear. The Pig Industry Development Scheme is for Great Britain only. The SI requires the consent of the Scottish Executive, which is already recorded in the SI. The Welsh Assembly has approved the scheme subject to EU state clearance, but it is recorded in the SI.
Continuing with the Pig Industry Development Scheme, I shall try to clarify the position. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the levy. The initial levy will be set at 20p per pig. An upper limit has been set, but the initial levy will be set at that figure. On that basis, and on the basis of the market operating as it did before the recent events, it will take around 20 months to collect the required funding for the initial use of the fund; that is, the top-up payment to those payments from government funding that have already been made under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Some £4 million needs to be raised to achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked how we will collect the levy. That will be done through the system established by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The commission has been deeply involved in the formulation of the scheme and in the consultation. It has set up a collection system and it is happy that it can be administered without any unnecessary bureaucracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the possibility of making available a loan with regard to pump priming the Pig Industry Development Scheme.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I asked about the possibility of an interest-free loan.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we must consider two issues here. First, the noble Lord may be aware that we have in place an existing, limited fund called the Aujeszky's Fund, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. The trustees have already put in an application to use it for up-front payments. Once the scheme is fully operational and the board—which will make decisions about future use—is in place, either the board or the MLC may wish to consider seeking a commercial loan in order to build up the development scheme and so allow early payment of moneys to eligible producers. An interest-free loan from government to finance the fund would constitute yet
294
another state aid and thus would require Commission clearance. The delays that that would cause have been made clear tonight. It would not be an effective way in which to get an early payment to producers.
So far as the future of the fund is concerned, I should point out that setting it up has proved to be a complicated business. Fairly wide parameters have been built in to cover what it aims to do. Thai was very much related to the primary legislation under which it has been set up. We have made it clear that the agreed first use is the £4 million top-up payment of the government-funded Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Once that commitment has been met, it will be a matter for the board of the Pig Industry Development Scheme to decide how the fund might be used.
Perhaps I may turn now to the Pig Industry Restructuring Fund and try to make the position clearer than perhaps was achieved in another place. However, the matter is not without complexity. I shall respond to some of the questions rightly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as regards the funding of the scheme.
The noble Lord knows that three tranches have been made available, totalling £66 million over the three-year funding period for the scheme. However, because of the difficulties in obtaining commission clearance, which was not secured until the end of December last year, the £26 million allocated for the year 2000–01 will not now be spent on the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. My right honourable friend undertook to ensure that that money would go to the pig industry. That has now taken place and, in the main, the funds have been spent on dealing with the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia.
Any remaining sum from that £26 million, which will be at least £3.9 million, will be carried forward into the financial year 2001–02 and spent on the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. In addition, the Minister has announced that the £20 million allocated to the scheme for 2002–03 will be brought forward to be used in 2001–02. That means that we shall have a total budget of £44 million in the next financial year. That is in recognition of the fact that we shall be opening a second tranche of the outgoers' scheme in case more people wish to take it up. In fairness to the applicants already in place, we have closed the first tranche.
The noble Lord rightly will ask me what will happen in subsequent years. Additional funding for future years takes us into the next spending review. For that reason, I cannot make any commitment, except to say that, in general terms, the Government are determined to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives. The noble Lord will understand that we cannot make commitments about the next tranche. However, as I have said, we are bringing forward the funds from the year after this one in order to make more moneys available.
As regards the method of application, the aid provided is based on a sealed bid, put in by the applicant, giving a figure for how much is required per sow place for him or her to leave the industry. All

295
sealed bids will be opened at the same time and the bids will be measured against a set of value for money criteria that have been agreed previously. Outgoers 1 closed for applications on Friday, 2nd March and sealed bids will be opened later this week. It is hoped that the successful applicants will be informed by the end of March. However, we recognise that a number of pig producers who had intended to carry on in business may now be thinking again as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. That is why we have decided to open an Outgoers 2 scheme from 12th March. The cap is in the form of the funding that will be available each year for the scheme.
I hope that that answers the questions put to me by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (Confirmation) Order 2001
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2001
8.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House is asked to consider this draft order, which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The purpose of the order is to give the Scottish Executive the power to provide grants to the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of passenger rail services provided under Scottish franchises.
Under the arrangements for the devolution of functions to the Scottish Parliament, railways are a reserved matter to the Westminster Parliament. However, the Government made a number of commitments during the passage of the Scotland Bill to ensure that Scottish Ministers would have an appropriate level of control over Scottish passenger rail services within the overall Great Britain framework—a set of commitments known as the "McLeish Settlement". The Government have been working progressively towards implementing measures to meet those commitments and the order we are considering today represents the virtual completion of this process.
The order is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act. Section 63 provides that an Order in Council may be made for, among other things, any function of a UK Minister of the Crown, so far as it is exercisable in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers instead of, or concurrently with, the UK Minister.
The order makes provision for Scottish Ministers to exercise the powers given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 7 of Schedule 14 to the Transport Act 2000. That paragraph provides that the Secretary of State,
"may make to the [Strategic Rail] Authority grants of such amounts, on such terms, as he may determine".
The order lists the functions that can be exercised by the Scottish Ministers. These are the making of grants for funding passenger rail services which, first, start and end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement; and, secondly, which either start or end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement by someone who also holds a franchise in the first category. In practice, this means the services currently provided under the ScotRail franchise, including the Scottish sleeper services and the small number of cross-border services operated by ScotRail. Apart from the cross-border services, these are the same services for which the Scottish Ministers can give directions and guidance to the SRA under Section 208 of the Transport Act.
The Scottish Ministers will also become responsible for funding services under this franchise should it ever become necessary for the SRA to exercise its duty under Section 30 of the Railways Act 1993 as the operator of last resort. The Scottish Executive currently funds the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority elements of the ScotRail franchise. It will now become responsible for funding the entire franchise.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will transfer funds to the Executive to enable it to provide grants to the SRA to meet the funding requirements under the ScotRail franchise in the financial year 2001–02 and the following two years. Contractual franchise payments for 2001–02 are estimated to amount to £111 million. Funding for the Executive will be adjusted if necessary to reflect performance payments or receipts and the rail regulator's periodic review of Railtrack's access charges.
Until the end of the current Scottish franchise, there will be a similar transfer to the Scottish Executive from the DETR's current Spending Review 2000 provision to cover the fixed franchise payments. From 2004–05 onwards, however, it will be for the Scottish Executive to include provision for the Scottish rail franchise in its own future spending plans.
The Scottish Ministers' powers under the order will be exercisable concurrently with those of the Secretary of State. We are committed to giving the Scottish Executive financial responsibility for the Scottish franchise from 1st April this year. But the Secretary of State needs to retain the ability to make grants to the

297
SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise, so that Scotland can benefit from GB-wide initiatives such as the rail passenger partnership scheme. For example, any payments to the Scottish franchise operator under the rail passenger partnership may be incorporated in the relevant franchise agreement, and such payments by the SRA would be funded by the Secretary of State rather than by the Scottish Executive.
The Secretary of State's retention of this power will not affect the Scottish Ministers' independent exercise of the power, or their role in issuing directions and guidance to the SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise and advice in relation to other operators' services that serve Scotland.
In exercising, or declining to exercise, its powers under the Transport Act, the SRA is required to comply with directions and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, including the financial framework that he has set for the authority. The overall Great Britain framework will thus be preserved. The powers of the Scottish Ministers to give directions and guidance remain those under the Transport Act.
The power to make direct grants to the SRA in respect of the Scottish franchise will enable the Scottish Executive to target funds effectively and give a financial lever over the strategic development of rail services in Scotland. This order demonstrates the Government's commitment to delivering the appropriate oversight of Scottish passenger services to the Scottish Executive within the overall GB policy framework for the railways. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose of the order, which appears to make good sense. We have studied the order carefully and note that it is as the result of a commitment made during the passage of the Scotland Bill. We therefore have no objections to the passing of this order.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose and effect of this Scottish devolution order. It interests me for two reasons: my almost hereditary interest in Scottish autonomy and my lifelong interest in railway operations, which will colour somewhat my response to the order.
I should like to compliment, once again, the helpful executive briefing note attached to the order and sent down by the Scottish Executive.
This is a Scotland Act Type A order requiring scrutiny by both Houses. Section 63(1)(b) of the Scotland Act allows the Scottish Ministers to share responsibility for, in this case, making grants to the holder of the ScotRail franchise, who may not always be National Express.
298
The order refers to working concurrently. This seems to mean that, while the Secretary of State at the DETR will retain powers to make grants, for the Scottish passenger rail franchise, he will not be using them—a self-denying ordinance on most occasions—but I suspect that that is in line with the theory of devolution.
What is more interesting and worrying is the matter of the funds behind this order. While speaking to the 3rd Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Keith Hill, explained that the DETR transfers £111 million per year to the Scottish consolidated fund so that the Scottish Ministers can send it on to the Strategic Rail Authority, which will ultimately pay the £111 million as a grant to the ScotRail franchise holder.
This long-winded funding trail will last until 2004. At this point it seems that the DETR will cease to send funds to the Scottish consolidated fund and the Scottish Executive will have to find the ScotRail franchise funds from within the Scottish block grant. Will the Scottish block grant be adjusted specifically to take this into account after 2004?
The order will give the Scottish Ministers a greater chance to influence the development of rail services in Scotland. That is, of course, somewhat barbed by the need to back that influence with funding—but then, there is more to passenger rail services than franchise funding.
The other partner in this is, of course, the public, who must adopt the new services and make them self-sustaining. It is one thing to introduce a new passenger rail service on an existing operational railway line—a year or so ago, ScotRail trialled a commuter service from Dingwall to Inverness on a "use it or lose it" basis; that is the easy example—but more problematic is the creation of a passenger service on a railway which is mothballed, dismantled or in need of creation anew.
The Minister will not be surprised that the example offered here is the Alloa to Stirling passenger project. In this example the service cannot be offered on a simple "use it or lose it" trial basis; the railway has first to be restored. I acknowledge that there is a concurrent project to repair the railway from Stirling through Alloa and on to Kincardine for freight purposes, mainly the delivery of coal to Longannet power station. I declare an interest: this potential freight line goes past my home.
I wish to make two points on this issue. My first point concerns capital grants for the restoration of the railway infrastructure. Although an impressive list of contributors is assembled, too much is expected of the Clackmannanshire council—£3.5 million, I believe. I wish to make the point that the re-establishment of this rail link will have as many national benefits as local ones.
My second point concerns car parking at the proposed Alloa station. As car drivers often need to be extracted from their cars with the proverbial can opener, it will be vital that there is more than adequate

299
car parking. Regrettably, car drivers need little excuse not to use public transport. Mild anxiety about not finding a car park space is all that many will need.
This order fulfils an earlier commitment and, in effect, devolves greater powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am always in favour of such a devolutionary trend, especially if there are funds attached to it. I welcome the order and look forward to the introduction of a further order, which, I believe, will transfer legislative competence for powers to promote and construct new railways in Scotland, devolving it to the Scottish Parliament.
I note that the order applies only to passenger services out with the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive area. Finally, I observe that the provision of grants for rail freight facilities is already devolved to the Scottish Parliament within Section 249 of the Transport Act 2000. I presume that that will not require any secondary legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the question I had in mind to ask the Minister was a very simple one; namely, what does the order mean when it says that Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown will act concurrently? I then heard the Minister's explanation which was of enormous complexity. Indeed, it was quite difficult to follow precisely what will happen. I am sure that we trust the Minister in that he has a full-proof scheme. But, following from the noble Earl's questions, I understood the Minister to say that the department would decide the amount that would be given to the franchise holder until the year 2004, and that that money would be passed to the Scottish Executive which would, in turn, pass it on. After 2004, I presume that it will be for the Scottish Executive to decide the amounts that might be given in grant.
Can the Minister say how the funding of the Scots Parliament will actually be arranged in that case? Will an earmarked amount be provided by the department? Alternatively, will the government of the day make a sort of "stab" at the amount that the Scottish Executive might want? It seems a rather peculiar arrangement to me, because grants to railway companies are not quite like the other services that the Scottish Executive has to fund. Can the Minister give us an idea—I believe that this is what the noble Earl
was asking—of how the funding will be decided? That is an important matter.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, demonstrated, as ever, a very impressive grasp of the background both of the legislation and of rail matters. As regards some of the noble Earl's more detailed questions about the nature of rail services in Alloa—I am aware of his commitment to Clackmannanshire— I am sure that he would not expect me to deal with the details involved.
However, through the rail passenger partnership scheme, which is one of the areas where we shall continue to work through our concurrency with rail services in Scotland, a pre-qualification bid has been received from Clackmannanshire council and is
300
currently being evaluated. As the noble Earl will know, the proposal is to build a new station at Alloa and to introduce an hourly Alloa to Glasgow rail service. That is an example of the rail passenger partnership scheme offering the prospect of help inside Scotland, in addition to the services provided by ScotRail under contract.
Looking at the way that these payments are committed, I should emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the franchise payments made before 2004 are contractually committed. Subsequent to 2004, the funding of the replacement Scottish franchise will be met by Scottish Ministers out of the Scottish-assigned budget; in other words, out of the block grant that is negotiated for Scotland.
I turn to the question of concurrency that the noble Baroness posed. It is important for us to be able to invest in Scotland in parallel with the other commitments that we have through franchise. Incidentally, I should just clarify that, although money goes from the Government, it does not go to the franchise owner in the first instance, as has been suggested; it goes to the Strategic Rail Authority and is then passed on to the franchise owner—in this case, ScotRail. As I said, after the year 2004, it will be paid for through the block grant.
Again, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, we have been making it clear that the DETR will remain responsible for paying the grant to the SRA, in order to fund railway improvements in Scotland. Through the rail passenger partnership scheme that I mentioned, we shall also be able to improve the railway services in Scotland; we shall also be able to do so through the SRA contracting directly with Railtrack for enhancements to the network, if that is required. The Scottish Executive will continue to be able to fund rail projects directly, rather than via the SRA through its existing powers. For example, such payments can be made from the Scottish Executive's public transport fund. Much more money has been made available in the context of the Spending Review 2000 for transport matters, and that increases the chance that I mentioned of 20 per cent per year for transport matters. Although the authority over the spending of that money is delegated to Scotland, it will also be available for the improvement of transport.
As far as concerns freight grants, there is no need for more orders because all of those powers are already devolved to Scotland. I hope that my answers do not add to the complexity mentioned by the noble Baroness, and that the order will commend itself to the House.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could confirm whether I understood the situation correctly. After the year 2004, it sounded to me as though it will be up to the Scottish Executive to lobby for the necessary increase in grant that will be needed to cover the investment that has previously been made directly. Am I correct in my understanding?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: No, my Lords. Subject to Parliament voting the main Supply

301
Estimates for the year 2001–02, the Scottish Executive would receive transfers arranged by the DETR of £.111 million for 2001–02, as I mentioned, 108 million for 2002–03 and £107 million for 2003–04. Those are the amounts required on current estimates to fund the fixed payments under the existing ScotRail franchise. However, there may be some extra public expenditure until 2004, which would be affected by, for example, the decisions made by the rail regulator on track access charging and how that applied in Scotland. Subsequently, from 2004–05 and onwards there will be a new spending review period.
From 1st April 2004, it will be for the Scottish Executive to include provision for the Scottish rail franchise in its own spending plans. But those would be funded out of the Scottish Executive's block grant, so the lobbying, if you like, would be part of the much larger negotiation about Scotland's share inside that spending review period.
The order we are debating today allows the Scottish Ministers to make grants to the SRA for the purposes specified in the schedule to the order. The levels of
302
funding to be provided will be determined by the public expenditure mechanisms, some of which I have outlined. However, as I say, the more general mechanism comes into play in 2004.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Supertram (Land Acquisition and Road Works) Order 2001

  Leeds Supertram (Extension) Order
  The report by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, that no petitions had been presented against the Leeds Supertram (Land Acquisition and Road Works) Order 2001 nor against the Leeds Supertram (Extension) Order 2001 was laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Grey Squirrels and Foot and Mouth Disease
  Grey Squirrels and Foot and Mouth Disease
  QCs and Judges: Appointments Scrutiny
  QCs and Judges: Appointments Scrutiny
  Public Houses: Entertainment
  Public Houses: Entertainment
  Prisons: Multi-faith Accommodation
  Prisons: Multi-faith Accommodation
  Disabled and Infirm Life Sentence Prisoners
  Disabled and Infirm Life Sentence Prisoners
  Alleged Threat to Iraqi Refugees in UK
  Alleged Threat to Iraqi Refugees in UK
  Algeria: Human Rights
  Algeria: Human Rights
  International Science and Technology Work: FCO Funding
  International Science and Technology Work: FCO Funding
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Air Traffic Controllers
  Air Traffic Controllers
  Olympic Athletes: Funding
  Olympic Athletes: Funding
  European Treaty Article 122(2): UK Derogation
  European Treaty Article 122(2): UK Derogation
  Bow Wave Process: Allocation of Space on BT Local Exchanges
  Bow Wave Process: Allocation of Space on BT Local Exchanges